Analysis of Chinese double-subject constructions from the viewpoint of cognitive linguistics

This article examines the structure of double subject construction, which has been identified by researchers as a separate type of simple sentences in Chinese. The relevance of the topic is determined by the unsolved problem of explaining the role and essence of two noun phrases at the beginning of...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inVestnik Samarskogo universiteta. Istorii͡a︡, pedagogika, filologii͡a Vol. 28; no. 3; pp. 102 - 109
Main Authors Radus, L. A., Bolshakova, T. S.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Samara National Research University 14.10.2022
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:This article examines the structure of double subject construction, which has been identified by researchers as a separate type of simple sentences in Chinese. The relevance of the topic is determined by the unsolved problem of explaining the role and essence of two noun phrases at the beginning of a sentence (NP1 and NP2) and a growing interest in cognitive linguistics as a relatively new and promising scientific direction. Due to the peculiarities of the Chinese language arising from its typological characteristics, a more comprehensive approach than classical syntactic analysis or topical sentence partitioning becomes necessary. Based on the analysis of the Chinese writer Lu Xuns works and the sentences in the natural speech of the native speakers, we hypothesize that the double subject construction is a referential structure, where NP1 is a reference point, and NP2 is the subject of the inner clause. A number of cognitive linguistics propositions and research findings by scholars such as Ronald Langacker, Robert Lawrence Trask, Tsao Fengfu (曹逢甫) and Wen Xu (文旭) are cited as evidence. Through diachronic analysis, the structure of the double-subject sentence is traced to a relationship of inalienable possession. It is also suggested that the relationship between NP1 and NP2 could be an identical signifier. The novelty of the findings is in the departure from traditional views of this syntactic structure according to which NP1 and NP2 belong to either the subject or the topical category.
ISSN:2542-0445
2712-8946
DOI:10.18287/2542-0445-2022-28-3-102-109