A Diachronical Study Of Chinese Double Object Construction And Relevant Constructions

This dissertation investigates the evolution of double object construction and the relevant constructions such as topic construction, preposition object construction, serial verb construction, disposal construction and passive construction from the pre-Qin (479B.C.-221B.C.) to the Qing dynasty (1616-1911). In this dissertation, we analyze the evolutionary features and mechanisms of the double object construction and then study the determining factors that influence the possibilities of construction use. In addition, we examine the syntactic behavioral properties of R(Recipient) and T(Theme) from a typological perspective using passivization, antipassivization, constituent questions, incorporation, relativization, reflexivization, reciprocalization, quantifier-variable relationships and quantifier float.This dissertation is divided into six chapters. Chapter One is an introduction that reviews previous studies on the double object construction. This chapter addresses the focus of this study and the questions to be addressed therein. Also discussed are the definition, taxonomy, research method, framework, corpus scope, and importance of this research. Chapter Two delineates the various types and syntactic features of the double object construction from the pre-Qin to the Dynasty via a corpus selected from literature representative of those dynasties. Chapter Three involves an analysis of the characteristics and mechanisms of the evolution of the double object construction in Chinese. Chapter Four focuses on the factors that go into determining the use of different constructions from semantic, syntactic and pragmatic perspectives. Chapter Five takes a typological perspective in examining the ditransitive construction in the Chinese language. Chapter Six concludes the dissertation.The main points and contribution of this dissertation are summarized below:1. The evolutionary characteristics of the double object construction are as follows:(l)The ’V+OIO+ODO’ and ’V+ODO+OIO’ word orders can be found in every period throughout Chinese history and ’V+OIO+ODO’ is the dominant word order. As for why the ’V+ODO+OIO’ word order emerged in Chinese, we do not agree with the preposition ellipsis view as proposed by previous scholars. We believe that the ’V+ODO+OIO’ word order may be related to the heyin phenomena that arises when’Zhi (之) Yu (瘀)/Hu (乎)’ are used together;(2)We think that the double object construction has a trend of a decrease of the pattern, complexity of syntactic behavior and high correlation between the verb and its object because of the principle of the demand for semantic clarity between the verb and its argument;(3)The valence and ability to take a single object of the verb both vary with time; and (4)The semantic and syntactic forms of the object may become more complicated. In this dissertation, new evidence is provided for the plausibility of the TAKE-type double object construction.2. The following factors have exerted an influence on the the possibilities of construction use:(1) the visibility of the double object construction and relevant constructions throughout Chinese history (as explained in Chapter Two);(2) verb semantics;(3) syntax, and;(4) pragmatic and cognitive principles.3. The semantic role and syntactic position of the verbal argument can influence the expression of references.4. From a typological perspective, the characteristics of Chinese ditransitive construction are as follows:(1)The basic alignment type of the Chinese ditransitive is ’mixed’ and R has a closer relationship with the verb than T. These features have two results:the VOROT word order becomes the dominant word order, and R and T have several syntactic position possibilities when they appear in the same sentence;(2)The class of verbs that can be used in Chinese ditransitive constructions is open; and (3)The semantic types of Chinese ditransitive construction are more complex than the semantic map given by Malchukov et. al.(2007).5. With regards to the relationship between form and grammar, a form can express more than one meaning, and one meaning can be expressed by more than one form. This is believed to be the result of interactions between cognition, pragmatics and grammar.