{"title":"A constructional account of the development of the Chinese stance discourse marker\n běnlái","authors":"Fangqiong Zhan","doi":"10.1075/jhp.19008.zha","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This paper examines the emergence of the Chinese adverb běnlái and its further development into\n a stance discourse marker (sdm). Most previous studies consider the epistemic modal adverb běnlái\n (‘indeed, truly’) to have originated from the temporal adverb běnlái (‘originally’). Based on the framework of\n constructionalisation (Traugott and Trousdale 2013) and Van de Velde et al.’s (2013) idea of multiple sources, I argue that the temporal adverb might not have\n been the only source for the modal běnlái to occur. Furthermore, the modal adverb changed into an sdm,\n thereby signaling the speaker’s subjective evaluation while linking the coherence of the discourse. I argue that the change was\n enabled by both subjectification and analogisation. The exemplars to which běnlái was by hypothesis analogised\n include the extant discourse connectives (e.g., kěshì) and the extant commentary pragmatic markers (e.g.,\n kělián and suǒxìng) (Fraser 2009).","PeriodicalId":54081,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Historical Pragmatics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Historical Pragmatics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.19008.zha","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
This paper examines the emergence of the Chinese adverb běnlái and its further development into
a stance discourse marker (sdm). Most previous studies consider the epistemic modal adverb běnlái
(‘indeed, truly’) to have originated from the temporal adverb běnlái (‘originally’). Based on the framework of
constructionalisation (Traugott and Trousdale 2013) and Van de Velde et al.’s (2013) idea of multiple sources, I argue that the temporal adverb might not have
been the only source for the modal běnlái to occur. Furthermore, the modal adverb changed into an sdm,
thereby signaling the speaker’s subjective evaluation while linking the coherence of the discourse. I argue that the change was
enabled by both subjectification and analogisation. The exemplars to which běnlái was by hypothesis analogised
include the extant discourse connectives (e.g., kěshì) and the extant commentary pragmatic markers (e.g.,
kělián and suǒxìng) (Fraser 2009).
本文考察了汉语副词bŞnlái的出现及其作为立场话语标记的进一步发展。以前的大多数研究都认为认知语气副词bŞnlái(“确实”)起源于时间副词bÇnlài(‘originally’)。基于建构主义的框架(Traugott和Trousdale,2013)和Van de Velde等人s(2013)关于多重来源的观点,我认为时间副词可能不是语气词bŞnláI出现的唯一来源。此外,语气副词变为sdm,从而表明说话人的主观评价,同时连接话语的连贯性。我认为,这种变化是由主体化和类比化促成的。根据假设,bŞnlái被类比到的例子包括现存的话语连接词(例如,kŞshì)和现存的评论语用标记(例如,kŞlián和suŞxìng)(Fraser 2009)。
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Historical Pragmatics provides an interdisciplinary forum for theoretical, empirical and methodological work at the intersection of pragmatics and historical linguistics. The editorial focus is on socio-historical and pragmatic aspects of historical texts in their sociocultural context of communication (e.g. conversational principles, politeness strategies, or speech acts) and on diachronic pragmatics as seen in linguistic processes such as grammaticalization or discoursization. Contributions draw on data from literary or non-literary sources and from any language. In addition to contributions with a strictly pragmatic or discourse analytical perspective, it also includes contributions with a more sociolinguistic or semantic approach.