A Study of the Subjectification of the Chinese Word Suoyi

DOI: 10.4236/ojml.2014.43033   PDF   HTML     3,955 Downloads   5,087 Views   Citations


Subjectivity is an essential characteristic of language. In recent years, the subjectivity of language has been attracting the attention of the linguists. Two main research strains have developed, one being represented by Langacker, and the other by Traugott. The former studies subjectivity synchronically from a cognitive perspective, noting that in addition to the proposition meaning, language also expresses the speaker’s attitude, while the latter studies the process of subjectification from a diachronic perspective, pointing out that language tends to evolve from objectivity to subjectivity. Taking the Chinese word suoyi as an example, this research studies the process of subjectification, finding that the grammaticalization of suoyi has gone through three stages from a prepositional phrase through a causal conjunction to a discourse marker. In this three-stage process, the conceptual meaning has been declining, and the procedural meaning and the subjectivity have been strengthened.

Share and Cite:

He, Q. (2014) A Study of the Subjectification of the Chinese Word Suoyi. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 4, 399-406. doi: 10.4236/ojml.2014.43033.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


[1] Benveniste, E. (1971). Subjectivity in Language. In: M. E. Meek (Ed.). Problems in General Linguistics (pp. 223-230). Coral Gables: FL: University of Miami Press.
[2] Davidse, K., Vandelanotte, L., & Cuyckens, H. (Eds.). (2010). Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
[3] De Smet, H., & Verstraete, J.-C. (2006). Coming to Terms with Subjectivity. Cognitive linguistics, 3, 365-392.
[4] Fanego, T. (2010). Paths in the Development of Elaborative Discourse Markers: Evidence from Spanish. In: K. Davidse, L. Vandelanotte, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.). Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization (pp. 197-237). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
[5] Fang, M. (2000). Reduced Conjunctions as Discourse Markers. Studies of the Chinese Language, 5, 459-470.
[6] Finegan, E. (1995). Subjectivity and Subjectivisation: An Introduction. In: D. Stein, & S. Wright (Eds.). Subjectivity and Subjectivisation (pp. 1-15). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[7] Fraser, B. (1999). What are Discourse Markers? Journal of pragmatics, 31, 931-952.
[8] Fraser, B., & Malamud-Makowski, M. (1996). English and Spanish Contrastive Discourse Markers. Language Sciences, 18, 863-881.
[9] Ghesquière, L. (2010). On the Subjectification and Intersubjectification Paths Followed by the Adjectives of Completeness. In: K. Davidse, L. Vandelanotte, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.). Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization (pp. 277-314). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
[10] Langacker, R. W. (1985). Observations and Speculations on Subjectivity. In: J. Haiman (Ed.). Iconicity in Syntax (pp. 109-150). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.
[11] Langacker, R. W. (1990). Subjectification. Cognitive linguistics, 1, 5-38.
[12] Langacker, R. W. (1999). Losing Control: Grammaticalization, Subjectification, and Transparency. In: A. Blank, & P. Koch (Eds.), Historical Semantics and Cognition (pp. 147-175). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
[13] Langacker, R. W. (2002). Deixis and Subjectivity. In: F. Brisard (Ed.), Grounding: The Epistemic Footing of Deixis and Reference (pp. 1-28). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
[14] Langacker, R. W. (2003). Extreme Subjectification: English Tense and Modals. In: H. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven, & K. U. Panther (Eds.), Motivation in Language: Studies in Honor of Günter Radden (pp. 3-26). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.
[15] Langacker, R. W. (2006). Subjectification, Grammaticization, and Conceptual Archetypes. In: A. Athanasiadou, C. Canakis, & B. Cornillie (Eds.), Subjectification: Various Paths to Subjectivity (pp. 17-40). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
[16] Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[17] Liao, Q. (1992). Connecting Components in Modern Chinese Texts. In: Q. Liao (Ed.), Collected Works of Liao Qiuzhong (pp. 62-91). Beijing: Beijing Language and Culture University Press.
[18] Liu, J. (2009). A Discussion of the Interpretations of Linguistic Subjectivity. Journal of Xi’an International Studies University, 3, 39-42.
[19] Lu, S. (1980). Eight Hundred Words of Modern Chinese Language. Beijing: The Commercial Press.
[20] Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Vol. 2, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[21] Lyons, J. (1982). Deixis and Subjectivity: Loquor, Ergo Sum? In: R. J. Jarvella, & W. Klein (Eds.), Speech, Place, and Action: Studies in Deixis and Related Topics (pp. 101-124). Chichester & New York: John Wiley.
[22] Schwenter, S. A., & Waltereit, R. (2010). Presupposition Accommodation and Language Change. In: K. Davidse, L. Vandelanotte, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization (pp. 75-102). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
[23] Shen, J. (2001). A Survey of Studies on Subjectivity and Subjectivisation. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 4, 268-275.
[24] Tabor, W., & Traugott, E. C. (1998). Structural Scope Expansion and Grammaticalization. In: A. G. Ramat, & P. J. Hopper (Eds.), The Limits of Grammaticalization (pp. 229-272). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.
[25] Traugott, E. C. (1982). From Propositional to Textual and Expressive Meanings: Some Semantic-Pragmatic Aspects of Grammaticalization. In: W. P. Lehmann, & Y. Malkiel (Eds.), Perspectives on Historical Linguistics (pp. 245-271). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.
[26] Traugott, E. C. (1989). On the Rise of Epistemic Meanings in English: An Example of Subjectification in Semantic Change. Language, 65, 31-55.
[27] Traugott, E. C. (1995). Subjectification in Grammaticalization. In: D. Stein, & S. Wright (Eds.). Subjectivity and Subjectivisation: Linguistic Perspectives (pp. 31-54). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[28] Traugott, E. C. (1999). The Rhetoric of Counter-Expectation in Semantic Change: A Study in Subjectification. In: A. Blank, & P. Koch. (Eds.), Historical Semantics and Cognition (pp. 61-89). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
[29] Traugott, E. C., & Dasher, R. B. (2002). Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[30] Traugott, E. C. (2003). From Subjectification to Intersubjectification. In: R. Hickey (Ed.), Motives for Language Change (pp. 124-139). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[31] Traugott, E. C. (2010). (Inter)subjectivity and (Inter)subjectification: A Reassessment. In: K. Davidse, L. Vandelanotte, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization (pp. 29-71). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
[32] Wu, F. (2004). Recent Studies on Grammaticalization. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 1, 18-24.
[33] Xing, F. (2001). The Research on Chinese Sentences with Two or More Clauses. Beijing: The Commercial Press.
[34] Yao, S. (2009). Semantic Reduction and Function Expansion of “Suoyi” in Spoken Chinese. Chinese Linguistics, 3, 16-23.
[35] Zhang, Y. (2010). A Semantics-Syntax Interface Study of SoA Qualification—Based on Cognitive Intersubjectivity. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 3, 203-210.

comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2020 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.