Le is a functional morpheme in Mandarin, which can appear in two places, immediately after the verb (verb-le) or in a sentence-final position (sentence-le). Traditionally, verb-le is often referred to as a perfective aspect marker denoting completion, while sentence-le is generally considered as a sentence final particle which signals a change-of-state meaning. Based on Smith’s aspect theory, which calls the grammatical aspect the viewpoint aspect and the lexical aspect the situation aspect, this paper argues that both les are perfective aspect markers derived from one super-le. Besides, it also compares le with guo, which is another post-verbal perfective aspect marker whose aspectual status has been well-established in the literature, and points out that guo differs from verb-le in that it always denotes the completion of event. It is further argued that the reason why le conveys distinct meanings lies in its position in the sentence. And thus, the conclusion is drawn as: although verb-le and sentence-le denote different meanings, they are essentially the same in terms of the three following aspects: (1) Both of them are perfective aspect viewpoint markers. (2) They have the same temporal interpretations. (3) They show the same variance from guo. Therefore, there is just one le which is a perfective aspect marker. If it is placed after the verb, it will have the terminative reading. If it is in the sentence-final position, it will form a Perfect and have a change-of-state reading. Given such difference, a syntactic representation of le in the clausal structure is proposed, in which verb-le is generated in the AspP lower within vP while sentence-le resides in the AspP adjoined to TP. The reason why guo cannot occur with verb-le is the different aspectual meanings they convey. Guo is concerned with the experience the subject has while sentence-le is about the state change.
| Published in | International Journal of Language and Linguistics (Volume 6, Issue 5) |
| DOI | 10.11648/j.ijll.20180605.12 |
| Page(s) | 148-153 |
| Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2018. Published by Science Publishing Group |
Chinese Le, Functional Morpheme, Mandarin
| [1] | Chao, Y.-R. (1968). A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. |
| [2] | Ching, E. & Ching, N. (2007). 201 Mandarin Chinese Verbs. New York: Barron's Educational Series. |
| [3] | Chu, C.-H. C. (1998). A Discourse Grammar of Mandarin Chinese. New York: Peter Lang. |
| [4] | Hu, Y. & Fan, X. (1996). Dongci Yanjiu Zongshu (An Overview on the Research of Verbs in Chinese). Shanxi, China: Shanxi Higher Institution Unified Press. |
| [5] | Leech, G. N. (2013). Meaning and the English Verb. Abingdon-on-Thames: Routledge. |
| [6] | Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. (1981). Mandarin Chinese. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. |
| [7] | Li, P. (1998). The Acquisition of Lexical and Grammatical Aspect in Chinese. First Language, 18, 311-350. |
| [8] | Liu, Feng-his. (2012). Side by Side Chinese and English Grammar. New York: McGraw-Hill Education. |
| [9] | Palmer, F. R. (1979). Modality and English Modals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. |
| [10] | Palmer, F. R. (1974). The English Verb. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. |
| [11] | Smith, C. (1997). The Parameter of Aspect. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. |
| [12] | Sybesma, R. (1999). The Mandarin VP. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. |
| [13] | Wheatley, K. J. (2014). Chinese Verbs & Essentials of Grammar. New York: McGraw-Hill Education. |
| [14] | Wu, X.-Z. & Liu, Feng-his. Practice Makes Perfect Basic Chinese. New York: McGraw-Hill Education. |
| [15] | Zhu, D. (1982). Yufa Jiangyi (Lectures on Grammar). Beijing: Commercial Press. |
APA Style
Man Yuan. (2018). On the Grammatical Status of Le in Mandarin. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 6(5), 148-153. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20180605.12
ACS Style
Man Yuan. On the Grammatical Status of Le in Mandarin. Int. J. Lang. Linguist. 2018, 6(5), 148-153. doi: 10.11648/j.ijll.20180605.12
AMA Style
Man Yuan. On the Grammatical Status of Le in Mandarin. Int J Lang Linguist. 2018;6(5):148-153. doi: 10.11648/j.ijll.20180605.12
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
Copy
Download@article{10.11648/j.ijll.20180605.12,
author = {Man Yuan},
title = {On the Grammatical Status of Le in Mandarin},
journal = {International Journal of Language and Linguistics},
volume = {6},
number = {5},
pages = {148-153},
doi = {10.11648/j.ijll.20180605.12},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20180605.12},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijll.20180605.12},
abstract = {Le is a functional morpheme in Mandarin, which can appear in two places, immediately after the verb (verb-le) or in a sentence-final position (sentence-le). Traditionally, verb-le is often referred to as a perfective aspect marker denoting completion, while sentence-le is generally considered as a sentence final particle which signals a change-of-state meaning. Based on Smith’s aspect theory, which calls the grammatical aspect the viewpoint aspect and the lexical aspect the situation aspect, this paper argues that both les are perfective aspect markers derived from one super-le. Besides, it also compares le with guo, which is another post-verbal perfective aspect marker whose aspectual status has been well-established in the literature, and points out that guo differs from verb-le in that it always denotes the completion of event. It is further argued that the reason why le conveys distinct meanings lies in its position in the sentence. And thus, the conclusion is drawn as: although verb-le and sentence-le denote different meanings, they are essentially the same in terms of the three following aspects: (1) Both of them are perfective aspect viewpoint markers. (2) They have the same temporal interpretations. (3) They show the same variance from guo. Therefore, there is just one le which is a perfective aspect marker. If it is placed after the verb, it will have the terminative reading. If it is in the sentence-final position, it will form a Perfect and have a change-of-state reading. Given such difference, a syntactic representation of le in the clausal structure is proposed, in which verb-le is generated in the AspP lower within vP while sentence-le resides in the AspP adjoined to TP. The reason why guo cannot occur with verb-le is the different aspectual meanings they convey. Guo is concerned with the experience the subject has while sentence-le is about the state change.},
year = {2018}
}
TY - JOUR T1 - On the Grammatical Status of Le in Mandarin AU - Man Yuan Y1 - 2018/10/10 PY - 2018 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20180605.12 DO - 10.11648/j.ijll.20180605.12 T2 - International Journal of Language and Linguistics JF - International Journal of Language and Linguistics JO - International Journal of Language and Linguistics SP - 148 EP - 153 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2330-0221 UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20180605.12 AB - Le is a functional morpheme in Mandarin, which can appear in two places, immediately after the verb (verb-le) or in a sentence-final position (sentence-le). Traditionally, verb-le is often referred to as a perfective aspect marker denoting completion, while sentence-le is generally considered as a sentence final particle which signals a change-of-state meaning. Based on Smith’s aspect theory, which calls the grammatical aspect the viewpoint aspect and the lexical aspect the situation aspect, this paper argues that both les are perfective aspect markers derived from one super-le. Besides, it also compares le with guo, which is another post-verbal perfective aspect marker whose aspectual status has been well-established in the literature, and points out that guo differs from verb-le in that it always denotes the completion of event. It is further argued that the reason why le conveys distinct meanings lies in its position in the sentence. And thus, the conclusion is drawn as: although verb-le and sentence-le denote different meanings, they are essentially the same in terms of the three following aspects: (1) Both of them are perfective aspect viewpoint markers. (2) They have the same temporal interpretations. (3) They show the same variance from guo. Therefore, there is just one le which is a perfective aspect marker. If it is placed after the verb, it will have the terminative reading. If it is in the sentence-final position, it will form a Perfect and have a change-of-state reading. Given such difference, a syntactic representation of le in the clausal structure is proposed, in which verb-le is generated in the AspP lower within vP while sentence-le resides in the AspP adjoined to TP. The reason why guo cannot occur with verb-le is the different aspectual meanings they convey. Guo is concerned with the experience the subject has while sentence-le is about the state change. VL - 6 IS - 5 ER -
Information
Email: