A Contrastive Study Of Existential/Presentatioal Constructions In English And Chinese: A Cognitive Perspective

The present research, devoted to a contrastive study of existential/presentational constructions (E/P constructions) in English and Chinese, will be conducted from the cognitive perspective within the theoretical framework of the Figure-Ground relation in cognitive linguistics. Methodologically, the present study is conducted by means of an integration of quantitative and qualitative analyses. And the argumentation of this paper will follow a usual top-down, and a bottom-up approach.E/P constructions in English and Chinese provide a rich area for study due to the complexities of these constructions. This complexity is reflected in this study by the many unique syntactic, semantic and discourse features of these constructions.Though a vast amount of research is devoted to the study of E/P constructions in English and Chinese respectively, it is necessary to conduct a contrastive study of English and Chinese E/P constructions from a cognitive perspective. Based on the Figure-Ground relation in cognitive linguistics, previous studies and the data analysis, the author attempts to make a tentative inference that English E/P constructions are TtFG constructions (张克定, 2007), and Chinese E/P constructions are GtF constructions. From this perspective, it is thought that both English and Chinese E/P constructions can be explained by the Figure-Ground relation in cognitive linguistics, based on which a contrastive study of English and Chinese E/P constructions is made possible. Therefore, this dissertation will try to answer questions such as, what to compare? How to compare? In a word, what are the comparative steps that will be taken? And what are the possible conclusions that will be reached?Based on a cognitive explanation of English and Chinese E/P constructions respectively, this dissertation will mainly focus on finding out similarities and differences between them, and then giving a cognitive explanation to these differences and similarities. In order to carry out this comparison, a comparative model is put forward as follows. 1. Basis: The Gestalt of Figure-Ground2. Similarities:A. English and Chinese speakers incline to have the same criteria in choosing Figure and GroundB. They both want their audience to focus on the newly introduced FigureC. Figure is or assumed to be newly introducedD. Ground is used to anchor the Figure3. Differences:A. Different Structuresa. English: TtFG Constructionb. Chinese: GtF ConstructionB. Different use of transitions4. Purpose for the comparison:To find out the cognitive explanations of these similarities and differences in the process of generating English TtFG constructions and Chinese GtF constructions5. Results:To deepen the understanding of English and Chinese E/P constructions respectively, and through the discussion of the cognitive mechanism underlying those similarities and differences between English TtFG constructions and Chinese GtF constructions, to achieve an understanding of similarities and differences between English and Chinese speakers at the level of national culture, psychology and philosophyThis paper falls into six chapters. Chapter I introduces the object of the study, some theoretical problems concerning the study, the methodology and approach and some key terms that will be frequently used in the following chapters. Chapter II addresses some previous accounts of English and Chinese E/P constructions, defines the boundaries of problematic areas that need being accounted for in the following chapters and proposes the theoretical framework of the whole paper which includes a theoretical base, a cognitive formulation of English and Chinese E/P constructions and a comparative model. Chapter III is mainly concerned with a cognitive explanation of English E/P constructions. To realize this purpose, this chapter offers a proposal in which English E/P constructions are thought to fit into TtFG model, and can hereby be realized as TtFG constructions. Revolving around this proposal, questions concerning English E/P constructions are answered step by step by using Figure-Ground relation in cognitive linguistics. Chapter IV offers a cognitive explanation of Chinese E/P constructions and follows similar arrangements of Chapter III. In this chapter, Chinese E/P constructions are considered to fit into a GtF model, and can therefore be realized as GtF constructions. Accordingly, analyses of the structural patterns of Chinese E/P constructions as well as cognitive explanations of the language-specific issues are made in reference to their English counterparts. Chapter V is concerned with a comparison of E/P constructions in English and Chinese. Based on the two proposals put forward in the previous two chapters, cognitive similarities and differences of English and Chinese E/P constructions are sorted out respectively and cognitive explanations of these similarities and differences have also been made. Chapter VI is a brief conclusion of the whole dissertation. Principal findings of this contrastive study are outlined in this chapter. Existing problems and some areas for further studies are outlined as well.The principal findings of this study are generalized as follows.1. English E/P constructions are thought to fit into one of English speakers'cognitive patterns which are formulated as a TtFG model. Therefore English E/P constructions can be regarded as TtFG constructions.2. Chinese E/P constructions are thought to fit into one of Chinese speakers'cognitive patterns which are formulated as a GtF model. Therefore Chinese E/P constructions can be regarded as GtF constructions.3. There are three similarities between English TtFG constructions and Chinese GtF constructions. (1) They have similar componential elements.(2) They receive similar definiteness restriction on post-verbal nominal phrases.(3) They have similar discourse functions.The motivations for these similarities between English TtFG constructions and Chinese GtF constructions are listed as follows:(1) English and Chinese speakers share common criteria in their choice of Figure and Ground in English TtFG constructions and Chinese GtF constructions. These criteria can be used to explain why these two constructions tend to choose similar componential elements.(2) English and Chinese speakers share a common intention by using TtFG and GtF constructions, i.e., helping their hearers to locate and focus on an entity (Figure) in a certain frame of space/time (Ground). This common intention can explain similar discourse functions of these two constructions and similar definiteness restrictions on these two constructions.4. There are three differences between English TtFG constructions and Chinese GtF constructions.(1) They have different word order.(2) They use different existential/presentational verbs. Verbs used in English existential TtFG constructions are more than those used in English presentational TtFG construction and cover 99% of the total of the verbs used, whereas verbs used in Chinese existential GtF constructions are less than those used in Chinese presentational GtF constructions and only cover 43% of the total of the verbs used. Besides, verbs of disappearance can appear more freely in Chinese presentational GtF constructions than in their English counterparts. What's more, verbs of disappearance in English presentational TtFG constructions are mostly durative verbs, such as, disappear, dissolve, etc., while those in their Chinese counterparts are usually instantaneous verbs, such as Leave(走), die(死), lose(脱), miss(少), fade away(褪尽), drop(掉), peel off(剥落).(3) Though both of these two constructions can be used in series, yet series of them are arranged differently in discourse.The motivations for these differences between English TtFG constructions and Chinese GtF constructions are listed as follows:(1) English and Chinese speakers'different ways of spatial/temporal arrangement can be regarded as an important inner motivation that causes different word orders of English TtFG constructions and Chinese GtF constructions.(2) According to Pan (潘文国, 1997), English word order follows a formality law which can usually cause the flexibility of English word order, while Chinese word order follows a logical law in which there is a temporal priority law, a spatial big-small law, a psychological priority law and a logical causality law, which usually leads to the fixedness of Chinese word order (潘文国, 1997:273) and language habits can sometimes have reactional forces on people's thinking ways(潘文国, 1997:376). This difference between English and Chinese is the outer motivation that results in the different word orders between English and Chinese E/P constructions.(3) English and Chinese speakers are different in philosophical nurturing. As is discussed by many philosophers in the west, seeking for being is an unceasing topic of discussion in western philosophy. On the contrary, Chinese philosophy pays much attention to the exploration of becoming instead of being (张东荪,牟宗三,见赵敦华, 2002). Therefore it can be said that this long tradition of western philosophical study pays much attention to seeking being of things in the world, while the long tradition of Chinese philosophical study pays much attention to studying becoming of things in the world, and these different philosophical traditions exert an imperceptible influence on English and Chinese.Although many aspects of features concerning English TtFG and Chinese GtF constructions have been discussed and explained, there are still a couple of topics for further studies.Firstly, this study is done on the collected data of four English novels and seven Chinese novels. The data used in this paper is not large enough to cover all the possible varieties of E/P constructions in the two languages. Perhaps, if this study was done based on a larger data base, a better understanding could be reached of English TtFG constructions and Chinese GtF constructions.Secondly, our focus of this study is mainly on English TtFG constructions and Chinese GtF constructions as a whole. As a result the discussion of the verbs used in these two constructions is not detailed enough. Yet, the existence or presentation of an entity (Figure) is mainly designated by verbs. Therefore, a detailed study of the verbs used in such constructions should be done in further studies.