Cognitive Perspective on the Study of Chinese Grammar

Author: Yuan Yulin
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2004-12-01
Features: The 20 articles included in this book were all written after the 1990s; most of them were completed as sub-topics of the research project "Cognitive Grammar of Chinese for Computers," funded by the Ministry of Education's "21st Century Excellent Talent Cultivation Program." Now, I have collected them and divided them into four parts based on the content for easier reading. Here, I would like to express my gratitude to the Ministry of Education for providing this fund, which enabled me to conduct research and write in a relatively favorable environment. I also want to thank the Academic Committee of the Chinese Department at Peking University and all the teachers of the Academic Committee of Peking University for recommending me to apply for the "21st Century Excellent Talent Cultivation Program." I am also grateful to the experts from all over the country who participated in the peer review and conference evaluations for their trust, which allowed me to receive this honor.
Regarding the title of this book, I would like to briefly say a few words. I have always believed that cognitive grammar is merely an approach or perspective in linguistic research; although foreign linguists have proposed many principles of cognitive grammar that differ from generative grammar, it is far from forming a strict methodology. Therefore, I prefer to be practical and use the ideas and methods of cognitive grammar to examine and analyze issues that are more suitable for such an approach. However, I do not want to go to extremes by applying cognitive grammar to everything; instead, I insist on keeping the problem at the center and trying out all applicable methods. Hence, I prefer the more flexible title "A Cognitive Perspective on Chinese Grammar Research."
During the writing and revision of these articles, I received help and corrections from professors such as Lu Jianming, Wang Futang, Xiao Lifan, Guo Rui, Shen Pei, Xiang Mengbing, Zhang Meng, Shao Yonghai, Qian Zhixi, Zhang Ming, and also from scholars such as Zhang Bojiang, Fang Mei, Liu Danqing, Feng Shengli, Xu Jie, Shi Yuzhi, Li Xingde, Shi Dingxiu, Hu Jianhua, Hu Shuangbao, and Shen Jian. I sincerely thank them all. Here, I would like to express my gratitude to Xu Liejiang and Pan Haihua for inviting me to visit City University of Hong Kong's Department of Chinese, Translation, and Linguistics in June 1999, which allowed me to discuss "A Cognitive Explanation of Adjectival Order and Its Theoretical Implications" with my Hong Kong colleagues and receive their critiques. At the same time, it gave me the opportunity to collaborate with Professor Xu Liejiang on writing "Revisiting Disposed Pronoun Sentences." I am also grateful to the Peking University Fund Committee for providing funding, which enabled me to attend the "Chinese Topic and Focus Workshop" in Hong Kong in June 2000 and the "9th International Conference on Chinese Linguistics" in Singapore, where I presented "The Grammatical Status and Grammaticalization Degree of Chinese Topic—A Synchronic and Diachronic Consideration Based on Authentic Spoken Language" and "The Fluctuation of Nouns Representing Verb Phrases and Pronouns Refer to" to international Chinese linguistics peers.
Finally, I would like to thank Professor Lu Jianming for his care and guidance; I am also grateful for his taking the time out of his busy schedule to write the preface and offer encouragement. I am grateful to Xu Liejiang and Wang Jian for generously allowing me to include the two articles we co-authored in this book. I also want to thank Commercial Press for its support for emerging scholars and Zhou Hongbo for his enthusiastic support. Although I am now in my forties, I still have many doubts about linguistic issues; despite this, I am willing to continue striving for higher goals.
Since the articles included in this book were written in different periods, there may be inconsistencies in formatting, terminology, and even viewpoints, and it is difficult to unify them all at this time. I apologize to the for this. Any errors or omissions in the book are kindly corrected by the readers and experts.
In the autumn of 2003, in Beijing's Lanchiying, the articles included in "A Cognitive Perspective on Chinese Grammar Research" have all been published, but they have been expanded to varying degrees for inclusion in this book, and the author has made further revisions to each one, making the discussions clearer and more thorough than in the originally published versions. Most of the articles were written after the author entered the 21st century, which reflects his diligent efforts and also allows readers to understand his recent research directions. The author is now a mid-career scholar with influence in the field of Chinese linguistics, and his level and views are subject to public judgment in academia. As his assistant supervisor when he pursued his Ph.D. under Professor Zhu Dexi, I do not wish to elaborate further.
The title of the book, "A Cognitive Perspective on Chinese Grammar Research," indicates that the author attaches great importance to the cognitive grammar research he has been engaged in recently. In fact, based on my understanding of his recent research achievements, I also believe that his accomplishments in Chinese cognitive grammar research are particularly remarkable. I believe that if readers carefully read the papers included in the book, they will share the same impression as me.
The cognitive study of language has long been underway, but cognitive linguistics as an officially recognized independent discipline is a matter of the 1980s. Perhaps because this discipline is still young, there is no consensus yet on "what cognitive linguistics is" in terms of understanding and perspectives. Ronald W. Langacker, hailed as the founder of cognitive linguistics, and George Lakoff, also considered a founder, have differing views on its positioning: Langacker believes that cognitive linguistics should belong to the field of functional linguistics, while Lakoff argues that functional linguistics should belong to cognitive linguistics. However, these differing views do not affect the overall understanding and specific research on cognitive linguistics.
Now, scholars engaged in or accepting cognitive linguistics generally believe that language is a unique cognitive activity of humans, which includes human perception of the world, human experience of the world, and the ways humans conceptualize the world. Cognitive linguistics takes cognition as its starting point to explore how humans use linguistic symbols to abstract and conceptualize things, and how they use linguistic symbols and the various linguistic structures they form to achieve communicative and cognitive activities. Therefore, cognitive linguistic research will involve categorization, prototype theory, metaphorical concepts, image schemas, iconicity, grammaticalization, and other aspects, and each of these aspects can be said to be mysterious and worthy of lifelong exploration (personally), several generations, or even several decades (for humanity as a whole).
The rise of cognitive linguistics and the slightly earlier functional linguistics was once seen as a challenge to the globally dominant formal linguistics of Noam Chomsky. On the surface, there are significant differences between the formal approach and the functional and cognitive approaches in terms of understanding language and conducting research. However, we cannot consider them completely opposed to each other, because language, from one perspective, is a symbolic system that combines sound and meaning; from another perspective, it is the most important tool of human communication; and from yet another perspective, it is a cognitive activity of humans. Therefore, we can study it from the perspective of symbols, communication, or cognition.
The reality tells us that the research of each school plays a complementary role, and it is increasingly evident that they learn from each other and take the strengths of one to compensate for the weaknesses of another. In fact, not only the history of linguistic research but also the history of the entire scientific research of humanity shows us that, in a sense, scientific research is like blind men touching an elephant, each explaining it in their own way. The reason is that the objective world is too complex, and when people study something, they always have a certain purpose, and this research purpose itself will affect their comprehensive understanding of the subject. On the other hand, a specific researcher is often constrained by various factors, so no matter how knowledgeable or capable a person is, they cannot immediately understand the subject they are studying, even if it is the most familiar one in their field.
The correct conclusion in science and a new discovery may appear to be the result of a researcher's wisdom and hard work, but in reality, the achievements of scientific research are the culmination of the efforts of several generations of researchers from various schools. Without the experience and lessons of predecessors, today's scientific achievements would not be possible. Scientific research is endless. This is also why we must consistently advocate for pluralism in the field of science. Linguistics is no exception.
Before the 1950s, linguistic research focused on exploring the characteristics of specific languages in phonetics, vocabulary, grammar, and other aspects. After the 1950s, it began to explore the universals of human language. This was a revolutionary shift in the field of linguistic research. The true meaning of the "Chomsky Revolution" lies in this. Chomsky proposed three hypotheses in linguistic research: first, that humans are born with a language mechanism in their brains; second, that although human languages are diverse, they all adhere to the same combinatorial principles; and third, that the combinatorial principles shared by human languages should be highly general and extremely concise. Chomsky and his followers have been tirelessly exploring to verify these three hypotheses.
On the surface, Chomsky's theories seem to change every year, suggesting that his theories are not robust enough to withstand the test of time. However, his hypotheses and research goals have remained unchanged. Recently, Professor Si Fuzhen from Beijing Language and Culture University used an analogy in her lectures to explain this: Chomsky changes his experimental designs but not his experimental goals, which have always remained the same. This analogy is very apt.
In the 1950s, Chomsky pioneered the exploration of universal principles of human language, but this does not mean that the study of specific language features should be abandoned or halted. Exploring the universals of human language and studying the specific features of individual languages are complementary. After Chomsky's theory was introduced, "transformation" and "generation" became fashionable terms, and many articles on Chinese linguistics in China were labeled with these terms. When functional linguistics and cognitive linguistics rose, "function" and "cognition" became the new buzzwords, and many articles on Chinese linguistics were again labeled with these terms. "Following trends" is human nature. In the field of scientific research, there is nothing wrong with following trends. When a new research theory or method emerges, everyone pays attention, shows interest, and tries to apply it—this is a good thing and beneficial for advancing disciplinary research. However, if one does not first seriously study and learn these new theories and methods, or even conduct in-depth research, but merely attaches labels, that is not good.
Of course, when it comes to a specific article, using the words "function" or "cognition" may be an attempt to apply them or merely attaching labels, and the line between the two is not always clear. The reality is that formal linguistic research, if traced back to structuralism, has a long history, so people are reluctant to speak casually, as doing so might be easily challenged. Functional and cognitive linguistic research, on the other hand, is relatively new, and in China, it can be said to have just begun. As a result, some people, in an effort to follow trends, dare to speak loosely, and others may not even realize it, with some readers mistakenly thinking it is a new theory. I am not saying that some articles discussing function or cognition are intentionally fabricating; I want to emphasize that if you follow trends, you should not merely attach labels. Although the line between genuine attempts and attaching labels is difficult to distinguish, most readers can still tell the difference.
Regarding functional linguistics and cognitive linguistics, we should first look at some original references. If reading foreign materials is difficult, we can read the works of Shen Jiashuan, Zhang Min, and the author of this book, Yuan Yulin, as well as Liu Danqing, Zhang Bojiang, and others. In China, I believe that these scholars are the most accomplished in the cognitive and functional research of Chinese, although their views and research focuses may differ.
Here, I also need to point out one more thing: Chomsky's linguistic research focuses on exploring the universals of human language, and the functional linguistics and cognitive linguistics that challenge his theory also focus on exploring the universals of human language. Therefore, whether we use Chomsky's formal linguistic theory, functional or cognitive linguistic theory, the specific phonetic, lexical, grammatical, or textual phenomena we discuss should be centered on the exploration of the universals of human language. The so-called "explanatory adequacy" that people are familiar with here refers to explaining various phenomena in language from the perspective of "what are the universal characteristics of language" and "why do natural languages have such universal characteristics," rather than explaining things on a case-by-case basis.
For example, we previously explained, "Why can we say 'going to Guangzhou' but not 'going Guangzhou' in modern Chinese?" The answer is: "That's because 'going' can only take a predicative object, not a nominal object." Of course, this is also an explanation, and it is still needed in specific linguistic research. However, this explanation does not belong to the meaning of "explanatory adequacy" generally referred to now.
After Yuan Yulin compiled this book, he asked me to write a preface. To be honest, I know very little about cognitive linguistics and am still learning, so I am an outsider. I have nothing to say about the cognitive study of Chinese, so I will take this opportunity to share some thoughts, which I will treat as the preface to this book.
Lu Jianming in his Beijing Lanchiying residence on April 5, 2004.