Verbal reduplication in Sinitic

The main aim of this paper is to underpin the connection between the semantic relationship binding the constituents of verbs and the formal and semantic properties of their reduplication in Sinitic. We first discuss in detail verbal and adjectival reduplication in Standard Mandarin, the best described Chinese language; we also collected data on adjectives, in order to compare them to verbs. Then, we analyze data from a convenience sample of twelve Chinese \u2018dialects\u2019, representing the eight major groups of Sinitic, comparing them to Mandarin. We show that whereas the ABAB reduplication pattern often has a (counter-iconic) diminishing meaning and appears as close(r) to syntax, being also sensitive to the aspectual properties of the base, the AABB pattern always has an increasing function, regardless of the word class of the base, and it is a phenomenon conditioned by morphological factors, being sensitive to the relation holding between the constituents of the base verb

Morphology in Sino-Tibetan Languages

Sino-Tibetan is a highly diverse language family, in which a wide range of morphological phenomena and profiles may be found. The family is generally seen as split into two major branches, i.e. Sinitic and Tibeto-Burman, but while Sinitic is a fairly homogeneous group in terms of morphology, the socalled ‘Tibeto-Burman’ branch of the family includes isolating languages like Karen, languages with transparent and regular agglutinative morphology (Lolo-Burmese, Tibetic and Boro-Garo), but also paradigmatically complex languages, with elaborate argument indexation and transitivity management systems; while in some languages morphological complexity is mostly a conservative trait (e.g. Rgyalrongic and Kiranti), other languages developed innovative paradigms, with only few vestiges of the archaic system (Kuki-Chin). Some notable morphological phenomena in modern Tibeto-Burman languages are verb stem alternation, peculiar nominalisation constructions, and long sequences of prefixes, which in some languages (Chintang) may even be freely permutated without any relevant change in meaning. Also, while Sinitic languages are normally taken to be a prototypical example of the (ideal) isolating morphological type (with virtually no inflection, stable morpheme boundaries, no cumulative exponence, and no allomorphy or suppletion), phenomena of strong reduction of morphemes, blurring of morpheme boundaries and fusion between root and suffix, nonconcatenative morphology, as well as allomorphy and (proto-)paradigmatic organization of morphology, are attested in some Chinese dialects, mostly concentrated in an area of Northern China (Shaanxi, Shanxi, Henan, Hebei and Shandong provinces). Moreover, ‘Altaic-type’ agglutinative morphology, including case marking, is found in Sinitic languages of the so-called Qinghai-Gansu Sprachbund; in this case, the development of agglutination, as well as other typological traits (as SOV word order), are clearly the product of intense and prolonged contact between Northwestern Chinese dialects and Bodic and Mongolic languages of China. On the other hand, Southern Chinese dialects have developed in closer contact with Hmong-Mien, Tai-Kadai and Austroasiatic languages, and are thus closer to the typology of Mainland Southeast Asian languages, with a very strong isolating profile

Topic and subject in Chinese and in the languages of Europe: comparative remarks and implications for Chinese as a Second/Foreign Language teaching

Grammatical notions like that of ‘subject’ are widely used in second language teaching. However, while the grammatical subject is generally regarded as easily identifiable in the Indo-European languages of Europe, as e.g. English, French or Italian, and as a key element in determining word order, the application of this notion to Chinese has given rise to endless controversies (e.g. Li & Thompson 1976, Tsao 1990, Li 1990, LaPolla 1993, Bisang 2006). On the other hand, pragmatic-discourse considerations such as topichood, world knowledge, context and semantic notions such as agency and causation, as well as the roles of participants in the described event, appear to be more significant in Chinese as factors determining word order and interpretation of utterances (e.g. Chafe 1976, Li & Thompson 1981, Xu & Langendoen 1985, Chu 1999, Huang 1994, LaPolla & Poa 2006). In this paper, we first provide an overview of the main differences concerning subjecthood, topichood and word order in English, Italian and Chinese, highlighting their impact on learner varieties of Chinese. We then summarise the state-of-the-art of research on subject and topic, with a focus on Chinese. Lastly, we discuss the implications of these theoretical issues for Chinese as a Second/Foreign Language teaching: to this end, we propose a critical overview of how the issue of topichood and subjecthood are treated in a sample of recent English-language, Italian-language and Chinese-language coursebooks and reference materials, and propose some recommendations for instructors

Areal perspectives on total reduplication of verbs in Sinitic

The topic of reduplication in Sinitic languages has attracted much attention in the literature, but studies adopting a comparative and areal perspective are still lacking. This paper aims at identifying and analysing the correlations between form and function in reduplicating constructions in a sample of twenty Chinese dialects, representing eight branches of Sinitic, comparing them to a set of fourteen non-Sinitic languages of the East- and Southeast Asian area. We show that the various semantic nuances conveyed by reduplicated verbs could be argued to derive from the core (iconic) meaning of verbal reduplication as iteration of an event over an undefined time-span. On the structural level, a pervasive feature of reduplication lies in its compliance to strict requirements on the morphological makeup of the base. This holds especially in the case of reduplication of disyllabic and bimorphemic verbs with increasing semantics, a consistent pattern across the languages we considered