The Development of gĕi 給 in Chinese: Phonological, Grammatical, and Lexical

• Main Authors: Ching-Chu Sun, 孫清珠
• Other Authors: Aya Katz
• Format: Others
• Language: en_US
• Published: 2001
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/05905024481160761898

碩士 === 靜宜大學 === 英國語文學系 === 89 === In Modern Mandarin, gĕi給 ‘give’ is a high frequency verb used in everyday conversation. Due to gĕi給’s irregular development from an earlier attested phonological form, /ki«p/, it has been alleged that the semantics and pronunciation of gĕi給 were derived from synonyms. However, until now no conclusive evidence had been adduced to determine the etymology of gĕi給. The aim of our study is to pursue the history of gĕi給 and reveal its diachronic development in three areas: phonological, grammatical, and lexical. This study probes into the phenomenon of exceptional sound change in Chinese to search for a reasonable explanation of gĕi給’s unusual phonological development. Historical literary works representing spoken language are adopted to scrutinize gĕi給’s semantic evolution over time in order to trace a natural derivation of gĕi給. Theories of lexicalization and grammaticalization are utilized to account for its evolution. The unusual pronunciation of gĕi給resulted primarily from an unstressed articulation in conversation. Gĕi給, whose ancient form was /ki«p/ and later /ki(/, underwent a split and thus manifested two realizations: /ki(/ > [kei] when serving as a highly bleached, specialized verb ‘give’ and a dative preposition; /ki(/ > [tþi] when used as a full lexical word. The source of gĕi給, /ki«p/給, which was employed as an adjective meaning ‘enough’ during the pre-Qin Dynasties, gradually acquired more meanings: ‘satisfy,’ ‘supply,’ and ‘give.’ The older and newer meanings coexist in Modern Mandarin. Cross-linguistically, dative verbs are especially amenable to grammaticalization. Once it was used as a dative verb meaning ‘give,’ gĕi給 embarked on two pathways of grammaticalization: benefactive and permissive, respectively. Development of the two paths led to gĕi給’s serving as a benefactive or active marker, a marker of affectedness, a patient marker, and an expressive marker in one path and as a permissive or agent marker, a passive marker, and an expressive marker on the other. The process of gĕi給’s grammaticalization was unidirectional; yet, the result of this process was not. Gĕi給shifted from a helping verb to a preposition and from this self-same preposition to an auxiliary─another helping verb. Each step along the path of grammaticalization involved bleaching and recruitment to a new, specialized slot in the grammar. However, the change from A(AUX) to B(P) to C(AUX) led to a situation in which Stage C more closely resembled the initial Stage A than the intermediate Stage B.