Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Literature entails six viewpoints regarding the categorial status of post-nominal monosyllabic localizers in Mandarin Chinese, including locative particles, nouns or a subclass of nominals, clitics, spatial enclitics or particles, postpositions and postpositions in circumpositions. In order to resolve the disputes, this article argues for the postposition viewpoint from a systemic functional perspective given limited studies regarding this in the literature. Systemic Functional Linguistics can provide proper descriptions for various linguistic phenomena, including localizers, observing the function-oriented language study principle. Hence, to specify the categorial status of post-nominal monosyllabic localizers, this study takes a systemic functional approach to investigate their semantic and syntactic functions. The findings indicate that post-nominal monosyllabic localizers are postpositions, for like prepositions, they express positional relationships between things, and along with their preceding nominals, can function as Subjects, Complements and Adjuncts within Chinese clauses, and as completives in Chinese prepositional phrases.

Keywords

post-nominal monosyllabic localizers in Mandarin Chinese categorial status Systemic Functional Linguistics semantic function syntactic function

Introduction

This study addresses the categorial status of post-nominal monosyllabic ‘localizers’ (fāngwèicí, 方位词) in Mandarin Chinese by examining their semantic and syntactic functions within the framework of Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL, hereafter).

Post-nominal monosyllabic localizers refer to those localizers taking on monosyllabic forms and occurring immediately after nominals. Generally speaking, localizers are a closed class of words, appearing in monosyllabic or disyllabic forms. In the course of the Chinese language development, monosyllabic localizers preceded disyllabic ones, and they originate from nouns (Biq, 2009; Chappell & Peyraube, 2008; Z. X. Chu, 2006; Feng, 2015; Y. F. Li, 2009; C. Li, 2019; D. Q. Liu, 2003, 2008; Nie & Liu, 2021; D. D. Wu et al., 2018). The monosyllabic set includes 16 items: shàng (上 ‘up, on, in, above, top’), xià (下 ‘down, under, below, bottom’), qián (前 ‘front, before, ahead’), hòu (后 ‘back, behind, after’), lǐ (里 ‘in, inside’), wài (外 ‘out, outside’), zuǒ (左 ‘left’), yòu (右 ‘right’), dōng (东 ‘east’), xī (西 ‘west’), nán (南 ‘south’), běi (北 ‘north’), zhōng (中 ‘middle, in’), jiān (间 ‘between, in’), páng (旁 ‘side’) and nèi (内 ‘within, in’). Disyllabic localizers are formed by adding an affix to monosyllabic ones, and these affixes are usually suffixes like miàn (面 ‘surface’), biān (边 ‘edge’) and tóu (头 ‘head, end’), or prefixes like yǐ (以 ‘to’) and zhī (之 ‘of, between’).¹

Monosyllabic localizers typically follow ordinary nouns,² transforming them into ‘place words’ (chùsuǒcí, 处所词). They cannot be used alone, except for classical contexts (Biq, 2009; Chao, 1968; Chappell & Peyraube, 2008, 2013; Feng, 2015), indicating that they supplement ordinary nouns with a positional meaning. Disyllabic localizers can be used alone as place words, functioning as subjects or ‘objects’ of verbs, or ‘objects’ of prepositions of place or movement.³ When appearing after ordinary nouns, they function as post-nominal monosyllabic localizers (Nie & Liu, 2021).

Studies on localizers primarily focused on determining their categorial status. At present, all literature should agree that monosyllabic and disyllabic localizers used alone are nouns, that is, place words, and even though a few, like Y. H. Liu et al. (2001), D. Q. Liu (2003) and Djamouri et al. (2013), consider a very few exceptions as postpositions, the vast majority of literature believes that post-nominal disyllabic localizers are nouns. Notably, there is a lack of consensus in the literature regarding the categorial status of post-nominal monosyllabic localizers. Due to space limitations and the fact that the examination of post-nominal monosyllabic localizers is a prerequisite and foundation for the exploration of post-nominal disyllabic localizers, this study focuses on the former while the latter will be addressed in another article.

In the literature, there are mainly six divergent viewpoints on post-nominal monosyllabic localizers: locative particles (Hsiung, 2023; C. N. Li & Thompson, 1981); nouns (Cheung, 2016; Huang, 2010; Huang et al., 2009; Kuo, 2022; Y. H. A. Li, 1985, 1990; McCawley, 1992; H. H. I. Wu, 2015; B. Zhang, 2010), or a subclass of nominals (Chappell & Peyraube, 2008, 2013; Z. X. Chu, 2006; Y. F. Li, 2009); clitics, that is, phrasal affixes (F. S. Liu, 1998; Sun, 2008; D. D. Wu et al., 2018); spatial enclitics or particles (Sun, 2008); postpositions (Djamouri et al., 2013; Ernst, 1988; Tai, 1973; Takahashi, 2020); postpositions in circumpositions (D. Q. Liu, 2003, 2008). These perspectives, while reasonable in their own right, have failed to reach consensus among scholars. They are primarily based on observation of natural usages, introspective structural substitution and transformation, or analogical reasoning in language typology. Limited studies have thoroughly analyzed and described the semantic and syntactic functions of post-nominal monosyllabic localizers. Hence, this study investigates the categorial status of post-nominal monosyllabic localizers from a different perspective, that is, SFL, which observes a function-oriented language study principle (Fawcett, 2000, 2008; Halliday, 1985, 1994, 2004, 2014), and can provide sufficient descriptions for various linguistic phenomena (W. He et al., 2023; Caffarel et al., 2004). Specifically, this study is intended to answer two questions: a) What are the semantic and syntactic functions of post-nominal monosyllabic localizers in Mandarin Chinese? b) What kind(s) of categorial status do post-nominal monosyllabic localizers in Mandarin Chinese have? Overall, by examining their semantic and syntactic functions, it aims to provide powerful arguments for the postposition view regarding post-nominal monosyllabic localizers.

Section 2 reviews relevant literature. Subsequently, considering comments on the existing viewpoints, section 3 revisits the two versions of SFL and specifies the semantic and syntactic functions of related grammatical units. Referring to the analogy standards outlined in section 3, section 4 examines the categorial status of post-nominal monosyllabic localizers based on the analysis and description of their semantic and syntactic functions. Section 5 reexamines concerns raised by scholars regarding the postpositional approach to post-nominal monosyllabic localizers, and discusses the influencing factors behind the characteristics of such phenomena. Finally, we summarize the investigation of post-nominal monosyllabic localizers in this study, and provide conclusive remarks.

Literature Review

To understand the grammatical category that post-nominal monosyllabic localizers belong to in Mandarin Chinese, six viewpoints in the literature are reviewed below. To start with, it should be noted that the general term ‘localizer’ instead of the specific term ‘post-nominal monosyllabic localizer’ would be referred to, for it is not necessary to distinguish between the two in this section, given that when it comes to localizers, scholars usually focus on post-nominal monosyllabic ones, and that specific contexts could reveal which type the localizers in question are of.

The first viewpoint suggests that ‘locative particles’ (localizers in this study) are an independent category, forming ‘locative phrases’ or ‘locative constructions’ with their preceding ‘nominal phrase’ and preposition as exemplified by zài jiā lǐ (在家里 ‘at home’) (Hsiung, 2023; C. N. Li & Thompson, 1981). However, this viewpoint fails to clarify the relationship between such phrases and ‘nominal phrases’, ‘adverbial phrases’ and prepositional phrases for any of them may occur in the argument or adverbial position in the clause; except for ‘adverbial phrases’, others can function as modifiers in ‘nominal phrases’. Localizers and prepositions both express location, leaving the differentiation between them unexplained. Notably, Hsiung (2023) differentiates localizers from prepositions in expressing spatial relation, and stresses that localizers denote the region or dimension of Figure relative to Ground while prepositions encode the path of Figure. That is, Hsiung (2023) suggests two types of locative constructions in Chinese: [P + NP] and [P + [NP + L]]. However, this perspective does not explain the locative construction [NP + L].

The second viewpoint says that localizers are nouns or deviated nouns. According to Y. H. A. Li (1985, 1990), McCawley (1992), Y. H. Liu et al. (2001), Huang et al. (2009), Huang (2010), B. Zhang (2010), H. H. I. Wu (2015), Cheung (2016) and Kuo (2022), localizers create compound nouns or locative phrases with their preceding nouns, and the outputs are place nouns or locative phrases indicative of location. However, this viewpoint has significant issues. The present study agrees with Ernst (1988), F. S. Liu (1998) and H. H. I. Wu (2015) that localizers cannot act as nouns in the following aspects: a) they usually cannot stand alone; b) they cannot occur in the structure of ‘noun + de (的 “REL”) + noun’, which is a diagnostic environment for nouns; c) the structure of ‘noun + localizer’ cannot occur in all argument positions; d) the structure of ‘noun + localizer’ holds diverse semantic interpretation from that of ‘noun + noun’ or ‘noun + de (的 “REL”) + noun’.

Considering these concerns, some scholars take localizers as a subclass of nominals. For example, Z. X. Chu (2006) considers localizers as a distinct category parallel and autonomous to nouns. Chappell and Peyraube (2008) assume that originally, localizers expressed places, but later, a precise and concrete position, and now, a generic position. Y. F. Li (2009) claims that localizers are the head in the structure of ‘noun + localizer’, similar to the second noun in the structure of ‘noun + de (的 “REL”) + noun’. Although differing in detailed descriptions, these scholars agree that localizers function as nouns to some extent. In this case, they are expected to propose solutions to those issues concerning the noun approach to localizers. However, firstly, the issue that localizers in such structures cannot stand alone is not explained. Secondly, the issue that it cannot have de (的 ‘REL’) inserted between the noun and the monosyllabic localizer is not resolved. Thirdly, the issue that the structure of ‘noun + localizer’ cannot occur in all argument positions is not addressed. Finally, the issue that the semantic interpretation of the structure of ‘noun + localizer’ differs from that of ‘noun + noun’ or ‘noun + de (的 “REL”) + noun’ does not receive an explanation. Overall, the assumption of localizers as a subclass of nominals is inadequate, either, given that a subclass of nominals should possess some fundamental characteristics of nominals.

The third viewpoint indicates that localizers are clitics, that is, phrasal affixes, or specifically, suffixes, adding to preceding nominal phrases the feature [+loc] (F. S. Liu, 1998; Sun, 2008; D. D. Wu et al., 2018). Regarding the reasons for the clitic status of localizers, D. D. Wu et al. (2018) do not provide explanations, but just focus on the pragmatic usages of the localizer shàng (上 ‘up, on, in, above, top’). F. S. Liu (1998) holds that localizers are phonologically dependent for they can be reduced to the neutral tone. This reason does not hold true because, as mentioned by D. Q. Liu (2003), except for a very few localizers like shàng (上 ‘up, on, in, above, top’), lǐ (里 ‘in, inside’) and xià (下 ‘down, under, below, bottom’) in some contexts, most localizers have their unique tone. What is more, even those few localizers with less attention must be emphasized in the context of contrast, just as shown by the two localizers in example (1).

(1) 一个人站在墙上, 一个人站在墙下。⁴ (Li, 2009, p. 103)

yī gè rén zhàn zài qiáng shàng, yī gè rén zhàn zài qiáng xià.

a CLF person stand at wall on, a CLF person stand at wall under

‘A person stood on the wall while the other stood under the wall’.

The fourth viewpoint assumes that localizers are enclitics. As a proponent, Sun (2008) states that localizers are not yet clitics but enclitics, which result from the grammaticalization of spatial nominals in Chinese history. At first a noun and a spatial nominal formed a binominal complex structure, and the spatial nominal functioned as the head of the derived spatial nominal. Subsequently, the combination loses the binominal structure, and the spatial nominal becomes an enclitic. This point can be exemplified by the schema provided by Sun (2008, p. 212):

(2) 於山上 (Old Chinese) 在山上 (Modern Chinese)

[yú [[shān]_N [shàng]_N ]_NP ]_PP → [zài [[shān]_N [shàng]_enclitic]_NP]_PP

at hill top at hill top

‘on the hill’ ‘on the hill’

Notably, Sun’s (2008) analysis of localizers is very similar to F. S. Liu’s (1998) and D. D. Wu et al.’s (2018) approach, all taking the preceding nominal as the stem. The only difference is that Sun (2008) considers the initially comprehensive spatial nominal as an enclitic whereas F. S. Liu (1998) and D. D. Wu et al. (2018) consider it as a clitic. Enclitics are still words following stems while clitics are affixes attached to stems. However, it is self-evident that the enclitic status of localizers results from a less grammaticalized stage in the course of development whereas the clitic status results from a more grammaticalized stage. Then, together with the noun approach, these three positions form a continuum as localizers as nouns → localizers as enclitics → localizers as clitics. Overall, whether considered as nouns, enclitics or clitics, they form a ‘nominal phrase’ with their preceding nominal. This implies that the combination of a localizer and its preceding nominal is an endocentric construction representing a place (i.e., a space). Nevertheless, the structure of ‘noun + localizer’ is an exocentric construction, representing a kind of positional relationship instead of a place, which will be verified in section 4 of this study.

The fifth viewpoint suggests that localizers are postpositions, which is advocated by Tai (1973) and Ernst (1988), supported by F. X. Wu (2008), Djamouri et al. (2013) and Takahashi (2020). It says that localizers form postpositional phrases with their preceding nominals. Regarding this perspective, Ernst (1988) notes that the postposition status of localizers is inconsistent with the general assumption of Chinese as a Subject-Verb-Object (SVO) language, but no explanations are found in relevant studies. For an SVO language, the case marker typically precedes the nominal phrase. However, Chinese is not a typical SVO language. It has experienced the evolution of the word order from SOV to SVO in the course of development, and has retained some characteristics of SOV languages (LaPolla, 1994; Tai,1988). Therefore, Chinese has prepositions as well as postpositions. How the changing of word order affects the existence of both types of adposition in Mandarin Chinese will be further explored in section 5 of this study.

Besides, there are other concerns regarding this viewpoint seeing localizers as postpositions. F. S. Liu (1998) and C. Li (2019) hold that this postposition approach has coordination concerns. According to them, jiā lǐ (家里 ‘at home’) cannot be a postpositional phrase; otherwise, it cannot be coordinated with a noun like xuéxiào (学校 ‘at school’) to function as the argument of the preposition zài (在 ‘at’) in such a clause as Xiǎomíng zài jiā lǐ hé xuéxiào dōu bù tīnghuà (小明在家里和学校都不听话 ‘Xiaoming does not behave either at home or at school’.) (F. S. Liu, 1998, p. 58; cf. C. Li, 2019, p. 352). According to Sun (2008) and C. Li (2019), the structure of ‘noun + localizer’ is a phonological unit, and there is no pause between the two elements. In contrast, there is a pause between the preposition and the structure of ‘noun + localizer’. Similarly, Y. F. Li (2009) contends that localizers cannot be postpositions. First of all, otherwise, there is no need for a preposition to occur before the structure of ‘noun + localizer’, given that the concept of space is fully represented by the postpositional phrase. However, it is a fact that there are expressions like zài jiā lǐ (家里 ‘at home’) in Mandarin Chinese. Secondly, for C. Li (2019), adpositional phrases cannot be used as Subjects; and given this, monosyllabic localizers combined with their preceding nouns being Subjects indicates that they are not postpositions. Kuo (2022) claims that the postposition proposal makes it challenging to distinguish the internal structure of [N + L] from that of [PREP + N + L]. These concerns will be addressed one by one in section 5. The postposition approach will be strongly supported by this study.

The sixth viewpoint takes localizers as postpositions in circumpositions (D. Q. Liu, 2003, 2008; Peyraube, 1980). According to Peyraube (1980), the postposition and the preposition form a discontinuous unit, that is an adposition that ‘subcategorizes for an NP and assigns Case to it’ (F. S. Liu, 1998, p. 202); resultingly, the adposition and the ‘nominal phrase’ comprise an adpositional phrase. However, it is argued in this study that the preposition and the postposition do not form a discontinuous unit. Prepositions in Mandarin Chinese have evolved from verbs whereas postpositions have evolved from nouns. Prepositions mainly provide information regarding the location, destination, source, path, manner, etc. of an event whereas postpositions mainly provide information regarding the location of an entity, specific or abstract. Since their origins and ranges of meanings are different, then their appearances are not conditioned on each other. Hence, prepositions and postpositions in Mandarin Chinese do not form circumpositions. This position is supported by Ameka (1995), assuming that Ewe, a West African language, has two sets of adpositions – prepositions and postpositions, and they do not form a discontinuous unit.

Unlike Peyraube (1980), D. Q. Liu (2003, 2008) argues that the preposition and the postposition in a circumposition are not located at the same layer. Exactly, the postposition and its preceding nominal form a postpositional phrase, and subsequently, this phrase and the preposition form a prepositional phrase. This aligns D. Q. Liu’s (2003, 2008) study with the postposition approach.

Unlike the above six uniform treatments of localizers as particles, nouns, clitics and others, C. Li (2019) holds that localizers in Mandarin Chinese have varied functions in different contexts. Specifically, localizers act as nouns in a few contexts, roots in polymorphemic words, and clitics when attached to comprehensive nominal phrases. Evidently, there is no fundamental difference between this viewpoint and those relevant ones outlined above, particularly, localizers as nouns and clitics.

To summarize, except for the first viewpoint advocated by C. N. Li & Thompson (1981) and Hsiung (2023), the above viewpoints concerning the categorial status of localizers can be classified into two groups: one is the noun or noun-like group, including the noun, clitic, enclitic and multi-functional approaches, and the other is the adposition group, including the postposition and circumposition approaches. The primary difference between them is that the noun group holds that the localizer and its preceding nominal signal a place (a kind of space) whereas the adposition group assumes that the combination indicates a positional relationship between the referent or thing expressed in the combination and another referent or thing suggested in the local context.

As the above viewpoints cannot reach consensus, this study provides powerful arguments to verify one of them from a new perspective, which is meant to resolve the disputes. Overall, from the perspective of SFL, this study argues that post-nominal monosyllabic localizers are postpositions, and that localizers and their preceding nominals form postpositional phrases, which represent positional relationships between things, rather than relative positions of things.

Theoretical Framework

SFL was initiated by Halliday in the late 1950s, and subsequently developed by Halliday and other systemic functionalists. Since 1980s, SFL has remained a primary trend in the field of language studies. Currently, it has two major versions – the Sydney Grammar (SG) and the Cardiff Grammar (CG). The SG has been developed mainly in Halliday’s (1985, 1994, 2004, 2014), Matthiessen’s and Hasan’s works, especially in the seminal monograph An Introduction to Functional Grammar. The CG has transitioned out of Halliday’s works in the 1960s and 1970s, and has been prominently presented in works by Fawcett (1980, 2000, 2008), Tucker (1998), He (2014, 2017a, 2017b) and W. He et al. (2015a, 2015b, 2023), among others. While they differ in some aspects, including whether there is a demarcation line between meaning and form, whether the intermediate unit between clause and word is classified into six items (nominal group, verbal group, adverbial group, prepositional group, prepositional phrase and conjunction group) or four items (nominal group, quality group, quantity group and prepositional group), whether a grammatical unit involves diverse structures or only one syntactic structure, which kind of chart format – parallel lines of boxes or tree diagrams– is adopted when analyzing the structures of clauses, and others, both adhere to key language study principles such as systemic and multifunctional nature of language, stratificational perspective and primacy of meaning over form.

This study integrates SG and CG in its analysis and description of localizers and their preceding nominals and prepositions. It classifies groups into the nominal, quality, quantity, preposition and conjunction groups, and the prepositional phrase. As the analysis and description primarily concern monosyllabic localizers and their preceding elements, involving only nominal groups and prepositional phrases, a brief review of these two classes of unit follows.

The nominal group is a grammatical unit that conveys several meanings related to things. The concept of thing at the level of meaning of the language system mirrors the category of object in the belief system (i.e., the cognitive world). The concept of object is a broad one, encompassing physical and abstract objects such as people, animals, places, ideas and others. Thus, the concept of thing can also be a broad one, encompassing specific and abstract things such as entities, space, time, quality-things, quantity-things and situation-things. The nominal group primarily comprises the determiner, modifier, head and qualifier elements in its potential structure. The pivotal element ‘head’ expresses a cultural classification of things, and answers the question ‘What class of thing does the nominal group refer to?’. The modifier expresses qualities of things, and answers the question ‘What sort of thing does the nominal group refer to?’. The determiner specifies the thing, and answers the question ‘Which (or whose) thing does the nominal group refer to?’. Finally, the qualifier is similar to the modifier in function for either classifying or depicting things, but preceding the head. For example, in wǒmen de hǎo péngyǒu, rú Zhāng Sān (我们的好朋友, 如张三 ‘our good friend, like Zhang San’), wǒmen de (我们的 ‘our’) is the determiner, hǎo (好 ‘good’) is the modifier, péngyǒu (朋友 ‘friend’) is the head and rú Zhāng Sān (如张三 ‘like Zhang San’) is the qualifier.

The prepositional phrase is a grammatical unit expressing minor relationships between things, and typically comprises a preposition and a completive. The preposition relates the referent indicated by a grammatical unit filling the completive to the referent indicated by another grammatical unit in the local context. For example, in (Zhāng Sān) zài xiào túshūguǎn (gōngzuò) ([张三]在校图书馆[工作] ‘[Zhang San] [works] at the school library’), zài (在 ‘at’) is the preposition, expressing the spatial relationship between the school library and Zhang San; as a nominal group, xiào túshūguǎn (校图书馆 ‘school library’) fills the completive of the prepositional phrase.

Closely observing the essential tenets of SFL, and taking the descriptions of the nominal group and the prepositional phrase into account, the ensuing section analyzes and describes the conjunctions of monosyllabic localizers with their preceding nominals, as well as with their preceding nominals and prepositions. The aim is to elucidate the categorial status of post-nominal monosyllabic localizers and their combinations.

Analysis, Description and Results

To establish the categorial status of post-nominal monosyllabic localizers as postpositions, we address two crucial aspects. Firstly, at the semantic level, they function to connect the referent of a grammatical unit with that of another unit in the local context. That is, they indicate positional relationships between referents rather than functioning referentially. Secondly, at the syntactic level, they act as predicators, forming postpositional phrases with their completive, which in turn may fill the Adjunct, Complement and Subject slots in the syntactic structure of the clause, or fill the modifier of the nominal group and the finisher of the quality or quantity group. Such syntactic functions are shared by prepositional phrases.

To clarify these points, this study closely examines the semantic and syntactic functions of post-nominal monosyllabic localizers. As mentioned earlier, there are in total 16 items. For clarity, this study focuses on a few of them, but not all, depending on two factors: a) they should be the most basic human positional orientations; b) they should occur more frequently than the others in use. Considering these, six of the localizers – shàng (上 ‘up, on, in, above, top’), xià (下 ‘down, under, below, bottom’), qián (前 ‘front, before, ahead’), hòu (后 ‘back, behind, after’), lǐ (里 ‘in, inside’) and wài (外 ‘out, outside’ ) – are examined in this study. Their representativeness or that of several of them finds support in Chappell and Peyraube (2008), Biq (2009), Chappell and Peyraube (2013), D. D. Wu et al. (2018), Djamori et al. (2013) and C. Li (2019). Their usage can be illustrated by the following examples.

(3) a. 她在小册子上也画了起来。^5,6 (Adjunct)

tā zài xiǎocèzi shàng yě huà le qǐlái.

she at pamphlet on also draw ASP ASP

‘She also drew it on the pamphlet’.

b. 他们要在那些大胡桃树下修一条小路。

tāmen yào zài nàxiē dà hútáoshù xià xīu yī tiáo xiǎo lù.

they will at those big walnut under build a CLF small road

‘They are going to build a path under those big walnut trees’.

c. 现在用户已习惯在电脑前看节目。

xiànzài yònghù yǐ xíguàn zài diànnǎo qián kàn jiémù.

now user already habituate at computer before watch program

‘Now users are used to watching programs in front of the computer’.

d. 他在树丛后看到野人群就在眼前。

tā zài shùcóng hòu kàndào yěrén qún jìu zài yǎn qián.

he at bush behind see savage crowd just exist eye before

‘Behind a bush, he saw a crowd of savages in front of him’.

e. 老林哥在人群里嘟哝。

lǎo Lín gē zài rén qún lǐ dūnong.

old Lin brother at human crowd in murmur

‘Old Brother Lin murmured in the crowd’.

f. 风暴狞厉的啸声在舷窗外响着。

fēngbào nínglì de xiàoshēng zài xiánchuāng wài xiǎng zhe.

storm fierce REL howling in porthole outside ring ASP

‘The fierce howling of the storm was ringing outside the windows’.

In these examples, shàng (上 ‘on’), xià (下 ‘under’), qián (前 ‘before’), hòu (后 ‘behind’), lǐ (里 ‘in’) and wài (外 ‘outside’) each indicates a positional relationship between things. Specifically, they all indicate a kind of spatial relationship between related things. For example, in (3a), shàng (上 ‘on’) relates tā (她 ‘she’) to xiǎocèzi (小册子 ‘pamphlet’), specifying where she is drawing; in (3b), xià (下 ‘under’) relates tāmen (他们 ‘they’) to nàxiē dà hútáoshù (那些大胡桃树 ‘those big walnuts’), specifying where they will build a path; in (3c), qián (前 ‘before’) relates yònghù (用户 ‘user’) to diǎnnǎo (电脑 ‘computer’), specifying where the users would like to watch programs; in (3d), hòu (后 ‘behind’) relates tā (他 ‘he’) to shùcóng (树丛 ‘bushes’), specifying where he noticed that the horrible wild crowds were in front of him; in (3e), lǐ (里 ‘in’) relates lǎo Lín gē (老林哥 ‘Old Brother Lin’) to rénqún (人群 ‘crowd’), specifying where Old Brother Lin muttered; in (3f), wài (外 ‘outside’) relates fēngbào nínglì de xiàoshēng (风暴狞厉的啸声 ‘fierce whistle of the storm’) to xiánchuāng (舷窗 ‘porthole’), specifying where the fierce whistle of the storm was always ringing.

Regarding the positional relationship between things, it may be questioned whether it is expressed by the localizer or by the preposition ahead of the nominal group. However, while the preposition relates one thing to the other, the thing denoted by its completive is not the referent denoted by the nominal group, like xiǎocèzi (小册子 ‘pamphlet’) in (3a), but the spatial relationship denoted by the postpositional phrase composed of the nominal group, that is xiǎocèzi (小册子 ‘pamphlet’) and the localizer, that is shàng (上 ‘on’). This is akin to some English prepositional phrases, whose completives can be prepositional phrases, such as ‘from behind the tree’, ‘from outside the room’ and others. Hence, similar to English, Chinese prepositional phrases may indicate a complex minor relationship, distinguishing various nuanced relationships, for example zài xiǎocèzi shang (在小册子上 ‘on the pamphlet’) and cóng xiǎocèzi shang (从小册子上 ‘from the pamphlet’).

Regarding the semantic function, the preposition is crucial to the syntactic structure of the clause. According to Greenberg (1966) and Hawkins (1983), languages featured by the SVO order observe prepositional phrases after verbs in most clauses, contrary to those featured by the SOV order. This can be explained by the relator principle (Dik, 1997). Here, as a kind of relator, the preposition in a prepositional phrase functioning as an adverbial in the clause comes between the ‘object’ after the verb and the completive after the preposition. That is, the preposition is typically nearest to the verb of the clause. Therefore, in SVO languages, the preposition precedes its completive, while in SOV languages, the similar relator, viz. postposition, follows its completive. Chinese is not a typical SVO language, and has some characteristics of SOV languages (D. Q. Liu, 2003), implying that it has both prepositions and postpositions. In such a situation, if there is another nominal group located before the completive, it may cause ambiguity in the reading of the clause. For example, if the preposition zài (在 ‘at’) is deleted in (3a), the remaining clause tā xiǎocèzi shàng yě huǎ qǐlǎi (她小册子上也画起来) would become complex for readers to understand. This raises questions regarding the relationship between ta (她 ‘she’) and xiǎocèzi (小册子 ‘pamphlet’). It may refer to tāde xiǎocèzi (她的小册子 ‘her pamphlet’) besides ta zài xiǎocèzi shàng (她在小册子上 ‘she on the pamphlet’). In contrast, if there is no other nominal group occurring before the prepositional phrase composed of a preposition, a nominal group and a localizer, the preposition is typically implicit, as with examples (4a-f) through (7a-c). This implicitness may also be because of the simple rather than the complicated spatial relationship entirely encoded by the localizer; that is, the use of the preposition is redundant in the semantics of the clause.

(4) a. 茶几上有一对烛台。 (Subject)

chājī shàng yǒu yī duì zhūtái.

tea table on have a pair candlestick

‘There is a pair of candlesticks on the tea table’.

b. 墙角下是一个宽大的池塘。

qiángjiǎo xià shì yī gè kuāndà de chítáng.

corner under be a CLF large REL pond

‘Under the corner is a large pond’.

c. 眼前出现了一个陡坡。

yǎn qián chūxiàn le yī gè dǒu pō.

eye before appear ASP a CLF steep slope

‘There appeared a steep slope in front of us’.

d. 纪念碑后有一条地下通道。

jìniànbēi hòu yǒu yī tiáo dìxià tōngdào.

monument behind have a CLF underground passage

‘There is an underground passage behind the monument’.

e. 整个学院里只有几位女教授。

zhēng gè xuéyuàn lǐ zhǐ yǒu jǐ wèi nǚ jiàoshòu.

whole CLF college inside only have several CLF female professor.

‘There are only several female professors in the whole college’.

f. 窗外传来凄厉的警报声。

chuāng wài chuánlái qīlì de jǐngbàoshēng.

window outside come shrill REL alarm

‘There came a shrill alarm outside the window’.

(5) a. 她脱掉身上的 t恤。 (modifier of the nominal group)

tā tuōdiào shēn shàng de tīxù.

she take off body on REL t-shirt

‘She took off her T-shirt’.

b. 台下的老李很生气。

tái xià de lǎo Lǐ hěn shēngqì.

stage under REL Lao Li very angry

‘Lao Li was very angry off stage’.

c. 屋前的池塘边长着荻草。

wū qián de chítáng biān zhǎng zhe dícǎo.

house before REL pond side grow ASP silver grass

‘The pond in front of the house is covered with silver grass’.

d. 办公桌后的男人立刻起身走向他。

bàngōngzhuō hòu de nánrén lìkè qǐshēn zǒuxiàng tā.

desk behind REL man immediately get up walk towards he

‘The man behind the desk immediately got up and walked towards him’.

e. 他在讲镇里的新闻。

tā zài jiǎng zhèn lǐ de xīnwén.

he now talk about town in REL news

‘He is talking about town news’.

f. 车窗外的景物越来越模糊。

chē chuāng wài de jǐngwù yuè lái yuè móhu.

car window outside REL scenery more come more blur

‘The scenery outside the window is getting more and more blurred’.

(6) a. 这是世界上最不可想象的事。 (finisher of the quality group)

zhè shì shìjie shàng zuì bìkěxiǎngxiàng de shì.

this be world in most unimaginable REL thing

‘This is the most unimaginable thing in the world’.

b. 它是太阳下最古老的生物。

tā shì tàiyáng xià zuì gǔlǎo de shēngwù.

it be sun under most old REL creature

‘It is the oldest creature under the sun’.

c. 报摊前最走俏的是这份报纸。

bàotān qián zuì zǒuqiào de shì zhè fèn bàozhǐ.

newsstand before most popular REL be this CLF newspaper

‘The most popular newspaper in front of newsstands is this newspaper’.

d. 院前屋后最醒目的要数木柴。

yuàn qián wū hùu zuì xǐngmù de yào shǔ mùchái.

courtyard before house behind most striking REL should count firewood

‘The most striking thing in front of and behind the courtyard is firewood’.

e. 他是连队里最了不起的家伙。

tā shì liánduì lǐ zuì liǎobùqǐ de jiāhuo.

he be company in most great REL guy

‘He is the greatest guy in the company’.

f. 改革是本赛场外最引人注目的亮点。

gǎigé shì běn sàichǎng wài zuì yínrénzhùmù de liàngdiǎn.

reform be this stadium outside most eye-catching REL highlight.

‘Reform is the most eye-catching highlight outside the stadium’.

(7) a. 他敛聚到世界上最多的私人财富。 (finisher of the quantity group)

tā liánjù dào shìjie shàng zuì duō de sīrén cáifù.

he amass to world in most much REL private wealth

‘He amassed the most private wealth in the world’.

b. 他会给你全天下最多的宠爱。

tā huì géi nǐ quán tiān xià zuì duō de cǒngài.

he will give you whole sky under most much REL love

‘He will give you the most love in the world’.

c. 你的眸子是我眼前最大的一颗星星。

nǐ de mǒuzi shì wǒ yǎn qián zuì dà de yī kē xīngxing.

you GEN eye be I eye before most big REL a CLF star

‘Your eyes are the biggest star in front of me’.

d. 这曾是我们在敌后最大的基地。

zhè céng shì wǒmen zài dí hòu zuì dì de jīdì.

this once be we at enemy behind most large REL base

‘This was once our largest military base behind the enemy’.

e. 每个学生在一个学期里写六篇小论文。

měi gè xuéshēng zài yī gè xuíqī lǐ xiě liǜ piān xiǎo lùnwén.

each CLF student at a CLF semester in write six CLF small paper

‘Each student writes six small papers in a semester’.

f. 中国成为乌克兰在独联体外最大的贸易伙伴。

Zhōngguó chéngwéi Wūkēlán zài Dúliántǐ wài zuì dà de màoyì huǒbàn.

China become Ukraine at CIS outside most large REL trade partner

‘China has become Ukraine’s largest trading partner outside the CIS’.

Another potential query arises regarding the use of a localizer in expressing spatial relationships. Literature consensus dictates that localizers must occur in the encoding of spatial relationship when the preceding nominal group comprises a common noun instead of a locative noun, and if it is a locative noun, localizers may be absent for their redundance in the semantics under discussion (D. Q. Liu, 2003). For example, zài xuéxiào (lǐ) (在学校[里] ‘at school’) may be with or without the localizer lǐ (里 ‘in’) given that xuéxiào (学校 ‘school’) is a locative noun; however, zài xiǎocèzi shàng (在小册子上 ‘on the pamphlet’) cannot be without the localizer shàng (上 ‘on’) as xiǎocèzi (小册子 ‘pamphlet’) is a common noun. Furthermore, in the presence of locative nouns, either the preposition or the localizer may be absent in expressing spatial relationships, depending on the syntactic context. Following the relator principle, whichever comes between this modifying phrase and the modified core element is retained in the expression, and accordingly, the redundant one can be implicit, as illustrated by examples (5) through (7).

As discussed above, from the semantic perspective, localizers represent minor relationships, and are termed as postpositions due to their positions after nominals (actually nominal groups within SFL). Now, let’s look at the other research question concerning the categorial status of the combination of post-nominal monosyllabic localizers and their preceding nominals, viz. postpositional phrases. Do they share the same syntactic functions as prepositional phrases? According to Fawcett (2000, 2008) and W. He et al. (2015a, 2015b, 2023), prepositional phrases can fill the Adjunct, Complement and Subject slots in the clause. They can also fill the modifier in the nominal group, the finisher in the quality group, the finisher in the quantity group and the completive in the prepositional phrase. As shown by those clauses in (3), prepositional phrases composed of a preposition and a postpositional phrase fills the Adjunct slot in the clause. Notably, the prepositions can be excluded for semantics because the spatial relationship is comprehensively expressed by the subsequent localizers, that is, the postpositions. However, as a normal Adjunct of the Chinese clause, a prepositional phrase is typically located between the Subject and the Predicator, and therefore to reduce ambiguity in the reading of the relationship between the nominal group functioning as the Subject and the nominal group functioning as the completive of the postposition (here, the postpositional phrase functions as the Adjunct of the clause), the preposition is typically kept explicit. The syntactic function of such postpositional phrases as those in (3) is shown in the analysis of (3a), as illustrated by Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Functional syntactic analysis of example (3a).

As shown by those clauses in (8), postpositional phrases fill the Complement slots in the clauses. Regarding the function of the preposition following the verb in such a clause, most scholars in the Chinese linguistic field, such as D. Q. Liu (2003) and B. Zhang (2010), agree that it is part of the verb of the clause. In other words, the verb of the clause as a whole comprises a verb and a preposition. In our functional sense, the verb and the following preposition are described as the Predicator and its Extension. The syntactic function of such postpositional phrases as those in (8) is explained in the analysis of (8a), as illustrated by Figure 2.

(8) a. 他来到一个山坡上。 (Complement)

tā lái dào yī gè shānpō shàng.

he come to a CLF hillside on

‘He came to a hillside’.

b. 那个人站在楼梯脚下。

nà gè rén zhàn zài lóutī jiǎo xià.

that CLF human stand at stair foot below

‘That person stood at the foot of the stairs’.

c. 他叉着腰站在人群前。

tā chā zhe yāo zhàn zài rén qún qián.

he cross ASP waist stand at human crowd before

‘He stood in front of the crowd with his waist crossed’.

d. 她的头发挽在脑后。

tā de tóufā wǎn zài nǎo hòu.

she GEN hair tuck at head behind

‘Her hair was tucked behind her head’.

e. 他来到教室里。

tā lái dào jiàoshì lǐ.

he come to classroom inside

‘He came to the classroom’.

f. 卫青率兵追到长城外。

Wèi Qīng shuài bīng zhuī dào chángchéng wài.

Wei Qing lead troop chase to the Great Wall outside

‘Wei Qing led his troops to chase to the outside the Great Wall’.

Figure 2.

Functional syntactic analysis of example (8a).

As shown by those clauses in (4), postpositional phrases fill the Subject slots in the clauses. Such clauses are existential ones in Chinese, comprising a Subject filled by a locative phrase, which is a prepositional or postpositional phrase, a Predicator filled by a verb indicating a static or dynamic existential meaning or an appearing or disappearing existential meaning, and a Complement filled by a nominal group or a clause (He, 2017b). The syntactic function of such postpositional phrases as shown by Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Functional syntactic analysis of example (4a).

As shown by those clauses in (5), postpositional phrases fill the modifier slots in the nominal groups functioning as the Complements or Subjects in the clauses. Below we analyze the nominal group in (5a) to illustrate the syntactic function of such postpositional phrases, as shown by Figure 4.

Figure 4.

Functional analysis of example (5a).

As shown by those clauses in (6), postpositional phrases fill the finishers of the quality groups functioning as the modifiers of the nominal groups, which in turn fill the Complement slots in the clauses. Below we analyze the quality group in (6a) to illustrate the syntactic function of such postpositional phrases, as shown by Figure 5.

Figure 5.

Functional syntactic analysis of example (6a).

As shown by those clauses in (7), postpositional phrases or together with their preposition fill the finishers of the quantity groups functioning as the modifiers of the nominal groups in (7a) through (7d) and (7f) and as the Adjunct of the clause in (7e). The prepositions in (7d) through (7f) can be implicit from the angle of semantics, but due to the syntactic contexts, their presence clarify the relationship between the nominal groups before and after the prepositions. Typically, explicit prepositions in such cases are syntactically rather than semantically evoked. Below we analyze the quantity group in (7a) to illustrate the syntactic function of such postpositional phrases, as shown by Figure 6.

Figure 6.

Functional syntactic analysis of example (7a).

As shown by examples (3a) through (3f) and examples (8d) through (8f), postpositional phrases fill the completives of prepositional phrases. This analysis indicates that the domain of the preposition is larger than that of the concerned postposition. This study aligns with Liu’s description of such cases. Following Ernst (1988), D. Q. Liu (2003) argues that Chinese has both prepositions and postpositions, and that prepositions can have postpositional phrases in their domain. To confirm this, D. Q. Liu (2003, p. 171) conducts two tests. First, he examines which of these can form a complete unit with a nominal group; in this case, between the preposition zài (在 ‘at’) and the postposition shàng (上 ‘on’) in (3a), he explores which forms a complete unit with the nominal group xiǎocèzi (小册子 ‘pamphlet’). Evidently, zài xiǎocèzi (在小册子) is not well-formed in Chinese, but xiǎocèzi shàng (小册子上 ‘on the pamphlet’) seems apt. Hence, the postposition shàng (上 ‘on’) has a smaller domain than the preposition zài (在 ‘at’). This preposition takes the postpositional phrase rather than just the nominal group as its completive. Secondly, he examines whether it is suitable to combine two prepositional phrases with a postposition or two postpositional phrases with a preposition. The results show that the former combination like zài zhuōzi hé zài yǐzi shàng (在桌子和在椅子上) does not fit naturally whereas the latter like zài zhuōzi shàng hé yǐzi shàng (在桌子上和椅子上 ‘on the table and in the chair’) does. Hence, the preposition has a larger domain than the postposition. The analysis of the syntactic function of postpositional phrases in prepositional phrases is shown in Figure 1 above.

The analysis and description above reveal that post-nominal monosyllabic localizers have similar semantic and syntactic functions to prepositions. Conclusively, they are postpositions.

Discussion

The Categorial Status of Post-Nominal Monosyllabic Localizers

As outlined in section 2, there are four concerns regarding the postpositional approach to post-nominal monosyllabic localizers. Firstly, F. S. Liu (1998) and C. Li (2019) question that if post-nominal monosyllabic localizers are postpositions, why such postpositional phrases cannot be coordinated with prepositional phrases, as illustrated by example (9).

(9) *小明家里和在学校都不听话。(Li, 2019, p. 352)

Xiǎomíng jiā lǐ hé zài xuéxiào dōu bù tīnghuà.

Xiaoming home in and at school all NEG behave

‘Xiaoming does not behave either at home or at school’.

This concern is addressed as follows. As described earlier, postpositional phrases realize a simple positional relationship between things while prepositional phrases formed by a preposition and a postpositional phrase realize a complicated positional relationship between things. Their use depends on the context. If there is another nominal occurring before – in such a context, a complicated positional relationship between things is considered, and subsequently, a prepositional phrase is used. Otherwise, a postpositional phrase is used. Regarding example (9), given that the postpositional phrase jiā lǐ (家里 ‘at home’) follows a nominal Xiǎomíng (小明, a proper noun), a prepositional phrase rather than a postpositional phrase is expected. Otherwise, the interpretation of Xiǎomíng jiā lǐ (小明家里) would be ambiguous in the local context, which may be Xiǎomíng de jiā lǐ (小明的家里, ‘Xiǎomíng’s home’) or Xiǎomíng zài jiā lǐ (小明在家里, ‘Xiǎomíng at home’). Another reason for the abnormal coordination is that in Chinese, the prosody of the clause typically requires that the first coordinated grammatical unit be fully present while the second or the third can be elliptical. Hence, concerning example (9), the preposition zài (在 ‘at’) should occur together with the first coordinated grammatical unit jiā lǐ (家里 ‘at home’) rather than with the second unit xuéxiào (学校 ‘school’). This aligns with Feng’s (2015) prosody grammar concerning Chinese.

The second concern raised by Sun (2008) and C. Li (2019) questions that if post-nominal monosyllabic localizers are postpositions, a pause can occur between the preceding nominal and the post-nominal monosyllabic localizer, similar to that between a preposition and its following nominal as shown by example (10). However, there is no pause between the two parts, especially when the preceding nominal is a monosyllabic nominal as shown by example (11).

(10) 他在__ 国内工作。 __indicates a pause (Sun, 2008, p. 203)

tā zài __ guó nèi gōngzuò.

he at state in work

‘He works in (his) home country’.

(11) 他在国 *__内工作。(Sun, 2009, p. 203)

tā zài guó *__neì gōngzuò.

he at state in work

‘He works in (his) home country’.

This is not a concern in the present study. Chinese, especially modern Chinese, favors disyllabic words. When a monosyllabic localizer occur after a monosyllabic nominal, they form a unit similar to a disyllabic word, although the combination is actually a postpositional phrase. Therefore, there is typically no pause between the preceding nominal and the post-nominal monosyllabic localizer. Regarding this, by examining the use of locative words in archaic, medieval and modern Chinese, Feng (2015) argues that the change and the development of localizers’ use from locative nouns to a functional category are motivated and constrained by prosody. This prosodic effect causes the grammaticalization of locative words, giving rise to disyllabic units formed by preceding nominals and post-nominal monosyllabic localizers.

The third concern raised by Y. F. Li (2009) questions that if post-nominal monosyllabic localizers are postpositions, then the prepositions before their preceding nominals are redundant. For example,

(12) 他们放了一套屏风 *(在) 房间里。

tāmen fàng le yī tào píngfēng * (zài) fángjiān lǐ.

they put ASP a CLF screen * (at) room inside

‘They put a screen in the room’.

According to Y. F. Li (2009), if fángjiān lǐ (房间里 ‘in the room’) is a postpositional phrase, there cannot be a prepositional phrase like zài fángjiān lǐ (在房间里 ‘in the room’) as the positional relationship between things is fully expressed in the localizer. However, as discussed earlier, the structure of [N + L] (i.e., a postpositional phrase) expresses a simple minor positional relationship while the structure of [PREP + [N + L]] (i.e., a prepositional phrase) expresses a complex minor positional relationship. Whether a postpositional phrase or a prepositional phrase is used depends on the context. If the given context involves a simple minor positional relationship, then a postpositional phrase is used, similar to those in examples (4a-f) to (7a-c) presented in section 4.1; otherwise, a prepositional phrase is used, like those showed earlier in examples (3a-f) and (7d-f). In other words, modern Chinese has postpositional phrases and prepositional phrases formed by prepositions and postpositional phrases, and both play varied roles in the language.

The fourth concern raised by C. Li (2019) is that since adpositional phrases cannot be used as the Subject element, and the combination of preceding nominals and related post-nominal monosyllabic localizers can function as the Subject, then they cannot be postpositional phrases, and they must be nominals. As shown by examples (4a-f), postpositional phrases can be used as the Subject, specifically, in Chinese existential clauses. Regarding why the postpositional phrase preceding the verb in Chinese existential clauses is considered as the Subject element, He (2017b) from the perspective of SFL argues that as existential clauses concern two Participant Roles, Participant Roles are the Subject or the Complement element in the clause, the postpositional phrase preceding the verb realizes one Participant Role, and Chinese is featured by the SVO as well as the SOV word order, then the postpositional phrase preceding the verb should be the Subject element.

The fifth concern raised by Kuo (2022) is that it is challenging to differentiate the structure of [N + L] from that of [PREP + N + L] if post-nominal monosyllabic localizers are viewed as postpositions. As described earlier, the structure of [N + L] realizes a simple minor positional relationship between things while the structure of [PREP + N + L] realizes a complex one, hence it should be presented as [PREP + [N + L]]. That is, [N + L] underlines postpositional phrases while [PREP + [N + L]] underlines prepositional phrases.

Reasons for Chinese Involving Both Prepositions and Postpositions

In addition to those above concerns against the postposition approach to post-nominal localizers, literature raises a highly relevant and crucial issue regarding why modern Chinese has postpositions as it primarily follows the SVO word order, which favors prepositions rather than postpositions.

The argument that modern Chinese has postpositions as well as prepositions aligns with the observations of constituents’ ordering patterns of worldwide languages by Dik (1997). From a cross-linguistic perspective, Dik (1997) formulates his observation about relators (including coordinators and non-coordinators like adpositions, case markers and subordinating elements) as follows:

(SP3) Relators have their preferred position (i) in between their two relata; (ii) at the periphery of the relatum with which they form one constituent (if they do so). (Dik, 1997, p. 406)

For adpositions, this specific principle defines the following preferred orderings: [V] [adposition] [NP] and [NP] [adposition] [V]. These preferred orders indicate that a great number of worldwide languages are characterized in these two orders between verb and ‘nominal phrase’. Irrespective of verb or ‘nominal phrase’ being placed first, the adposition would be placed between and separate them. If the verb comes first, then the adposition is a preposition as it comes before its dependent, which is the ‘nominal phrase’. Otherwise, the adposition is a postposition. This intermediate position of adposition is fundamentally motivated by the function of adposition.

According to He (1992, 2000), in ancient Chinese, especially before the Han Dynasty, Chinese was featured by the frequent occurrences of prepositions. However, since the Qin Dynasty, with prepositional phrases’ position changing from after to before verb, localizers started being grammaticalized. Until the Tang and the Five Dynasties, localizers had been largely grammaticalized. Their substantial meanings were blurred; they were more commonly used after nominals; together with subsequent nominals, they often occurred before verbs; and such phrases were notably used alone without preceding prepositions. Since then, post-nominal monosyllabic localizers became entirely grammaticalized, and post-nominal disyllabic localizers have been undergoing grammaticalization. Typically, the grammaticalization of localizers has been caused by prepositional phrases’ position changing. The gradually occurring vacancy of a relator between dependent and head has conveniently led to localizers becoming postpositions (D. Q. Liu, 2002, 2003).

Another correlative observation regarding constituent ordering by Greenberg (1963) and Dik (1997) is formulated as the Principle of Cross-domain Harmony, which is as follows:

(GP8) Each language has a certain degree of consistency in either using Prefield or Postfield ordering across the different ordering domains. (Dik, 1997, p. 403)

Notably, this principle has been addressed by different scholars using diverse terms, including ‘Natural Serialization Principle’ by Vennemann (1972) and ‘Principle of Head Proximity’ by Rijkhoff (1986, 1987). This principle suggests that if a language uses the SVO word order, it will have prepositions. In such languages, adpositional phrases that depend on verbs are typically placed after the verbs, which aligns with the order of the verb and the ‘object’. Conversely, if a language follows the SOV word order, it is more likely to include postpositions. In these languages, adpositional phrases that depend on verbs are usually placed before the verbs, consistent with the order of the ‘object’ and the verb.

According to Tai (1988) and LaPolla (1994), Chinese has evolved from the word order of SOV to SVO over time; however, this change is not radical, suggesting that modern Chinese is an SVO language but not a typical one, and continues to have some characteristics of SOV languages. In such a case, localizers may have been grammaticalized as postpositions as a retained characteristic.

Regarding why modern Chinese has characteristics of SOV languages, Dryer (2002) assumes that it may not be attributed to the evolution of the word order of Chinese given that characteristics such as involving postpositions are scarce in languages worldwide that underwent the change of the word order from SOV to SVO. Dryer (2002) provides an alternative perspective, that is, it is the areal influence of languages to the north that led to modern Chinese’s association with the SOV order. However, this has not been confirmed in his study.

The presence of certain SOV characteristics in modern Chinese, despite the language’s transition to the SVO word order, can be examined from another perspective. This phenomenon may be rooted in the foundational principles of Chinese philosophical thought. Historically, Chinese philosophy has been significantly shaped by the idea of the unity of man and nature (P. Y. Meng, 1993; S. Y. Zhang, 1991, 1992). In particular, the mainstream Chinese philosophy highlights both the integration of the subject and object and the significance of intuitive thinking, subjective awareness and personal subjectivity.

In contrast to Western philosophy, which emphasizes the dichotomy between subject and object, Chinese philosophy is characterized by the integration of these two concepts (J. Y. Chen, 2017; H. J. Liu, 1993; S. Y. Zhang, 1991, 1992). In Chinese thought, the subject and object are homologous, isomorphic and compatible. This integrated perspective focuses on the overall relationship between elements rather than on logical reasoning, and does not delve into the ontology of things (J. Shang, 2010). This perspective helps explain the incidental characteristic of the SOV word order of Chinese. In some Chinese clauses, the Subject is not separated from the ‘object’ (referred to as the Complement in SFL) by the verb (the Predicator in SFL) in the Chinese clause. This suggests that there is a lack of clear distinction between subject and object in the worldview of Chinese speakers. In other words, this juxtaposition of S and O reflects the Chinese perception of subject-object integration.

Word order in a language is not directly tied to the philosophical thinking of its speakers; this relationship is complex. While it may be a contributing factor, it is not necessarily crucial. For example, in Arabic, clauses with a verb are characterized by the VSO word order. In contrast, clauses without a verb typically follow the SP word order, where the Predicate can be a nominal group, a quality group, a quantity group or a prepositional phrase. This means that in any clause containing a verb (the Predicator), the Subject and the Object (Complement) are arranged next to each other. In clauses without a verb, the Subject and the Predicate are placed adjacent to one another. The Predicator in Arabic is a combination of both the Predicator and the ‘object’ (Complement); consequently, the Subject and the ‘object’ (Complement) are presented together. An examination of the word order features reveals that there is no barrier between the Subject and the ‘object’ (Complement) in an Arabic clause. The Arabic language clearly illustrates the distinction between subject and object (Moussa, 1997; L. C. Zhu, 2004), which corresponds to the syntactic and semantic characteristics of the Predicator, as well as the agreement between the Subject and the Predicator, among other factors (W. He & Z. B. Xiang, 2023, 2024). Being an inflectional language, Arabic has undergone various morphological changes. These changes, along with other syntactic features, may help clarify the distinction between the Subject and the ‘object’ (Complement) in a clause.

Few languages worldwide that have shifted their word order from SOV to SVO are found to be with postpositions (Dryer, 2002); otherwise, such a language does not conform to the principle of head proximity (Rijkhoff, 1986, 1987). This raises concerns about how Chinese clauses with postpositions can be encoded and decoded unambiguously if the incidental feature of the SOV word order in Chinese is rooted in the perception of subject-object integration.

In addition to the Subject and the ‘object’ (Complement) of the clause, another two pairs of subjects and objects that are relevant in philosophy must be considered, that is the speaker and their experience of the world, and the listener and that experience to be interpreted. For these two pairs of subjects and objects, Chinese philosophy emphasizes intuitive thinking, subjective awareness and subjectivity on the side of the subject. In language encoding activities, the speaker as the subject aims to convey as much information as possible using the fewest codes in construing the experience of the world, taking advantage of subjective awareness. Meanwhile, the listener, also a subject, interprets the codes provided by the speaker, benefiting from a similar level of subjective awareness. That is, if the speaker is aware, whether consciously or unconsciously, that the listener possesses the same extensive knowledge and contextual understanding, they are likely to use fewer codes to convey their experience of the world. In this case, the unspoken information becomes obvious within the context. This may explain why Chinese is considered a high-context language (W. He & C. L. Yu, et al., 2022; Hall, 1976, 2000). As a high-context language, Chinese exhibits the following characteristics: a) at the semantic level, some information is implied rather than explicitly stated; b) at the syntactic level, Chinese sentences are characterized by their humanity and flexibility; c) regarding syntactic elements, Chinese emphasizes the connection and integrity of components (W. He & C. L. Yu, et al., 2022, p. 186). This context helps clarify the apparent contradiction between the SOV word order typical of Chinese and the use of postpositions.

Conclusion

The following concluding remarks can be made from the above analysis, description and discussion.

Chinese localizers originate from place nouns. During evolution, monosyllabic localizers have experienced a few stages – used as nouns originally, later, expressing a precise and concrete position, then, indicating a generic position, and now expressing positional relationships between things when occurring after nominals. The postpositional interpretation is confirmed by the fact that along with their preceding nominals, they can function as Subjects, Complements or Adjuncts in Chinese clauses, and as completives in Chinese prepositional phrases.

The debate over Chinese post-nominal monosyllabic localizers as postpositions is complex. A common view argues that this phenomenon contradicts the primary word order in Chinese. While most languages that shift from SOV to SVO use prepositions, Chinese stands out as an exception, with scholars attributing this to language contact. This study offers an alternative perspective, suggesting that the interpretation of these localizers as postpositions reflects the fundamental Chinese philosophical belief in the unity of man and nature, which may explain the retention of certain SOV characteristics even after the shift to SVO.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Wei He

Ethical Considerations

This study did not involve human or animal subjects, and thus no ethical approval or committee approval number is applicable.

Funding

The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article: This study was supported by the Major Program of National Social Science Fund of China: Database Construction of Language Resources of Those Countries along the Belt and Road and Contrastive Studies between Chinese and Foreign Languages (19ZDA319), and by the Major Project of Key Research Institures of Humanities and Scoial Sciences under the Ministry of Education (MOE): Functional Contrastive Studies of Lexicogrammar between Chinese and Multiple Foreign Languages (22JJD740010).

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

Notes

References

Ameka

F. K.

(1995). The linguistic construction of space in Ewe. Cognitive Linguistics, 6(2), 139–181.

Biq

Y.-O.

(2009). Locative particles in spoken Taiwan Mandarin. In Xing

J. Z. Q.

(Ed.), Studies of Chinese linguistics (pp. 133–153). Hong Kong University Press.

Caffarel

Martin

J. R.

Matthiessen

C. M. I. M

. (2004). Language typology: A functional perspective. John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Chao

Y. R.

(1968). A grammar of spoken Chinese. University of California Press.

Chappell

Peyraube

(2008). Chinese localizers: Diachrony and some typological considerations. In Xu

(Ed.), Space in languages of China: Cross-linguistic, synchronic and diachronic perspectives (pp. 15–37). Springer Science + Business Media B.V.

Chappell

Peyraube

(2013). Investigation of the history and typology of localizers in Chinese. In Xu

(Ed.), Space in languages of China: Cross-linguistic, synchronic and diachronic perspectives (pp. 17–39). World Publishing Corporation.

Chen

J. Y.

(2017). Haidegeer Zhexue Gailun [Introduction to Heidegger’s philosophy]. The Commercial Press.

Cheung

C. C. H.

(2016). Parts of speech in Mandarin: The state of the art. Springer.

Chu

Z. X.

(2006). Hanyu chusuoci de cilei diwei ji qi leixingxue yiyi [The word-class status of place words in Chinese and its typological significance]. Studies of the Chinese Language, 31(3), 216–224.

10.

Dik

S. C.

(1997). The theory of functional grammar – Part 1: The structure of the clause (2nd ed.). Mouton de Gruyter.

11.

Djamouri

Paul

Whitman

(2013). Postpositions vs. prepositions in Mandarin Chinese: The articulation of disharmony. In Biberauer

Sheehan

(Eds.), Theoretical approaches to disharmonic word orders (pp. 74–105). Oxford University Press.

12.

Dryer

M. S.

(2002). Word order in Sino-Tibetan languages from a typological and geographical perspective. In Thurgood

LaPolla

R. J.

(Eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages (pp. 43–55). Routledge.

13.

Ernst

(1988). Chinese postpositions? – Again. Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 16(2), 219–245.

14.

Fawcett

R. P.

(1980). Cognitive linguistics and social interaction: Towards an integrated model of a systemic functional grammar and the other components of an interacting mind. Julius Groos and Exeter University.

15.

Fawcett

R. P.

(2000). A theory of syntax for Systemic Functional Linguistics. John Benjamins.

16.

Fawcett

R. P.

(2008). Invitation to Systemic Functional Linguistics through the Cardiff grammar: An extension and simplification of Halliday’s systemic functional grammar. Equinox.

17.

Feng

S. L.

(2015). Prosodically constrained localizers in classical and modern Chinese. In Xu

J. Q.

(Eds.), Space and quantification in languages of China (pp. 17–36). Springer.

18.

Greenberg

J. H.

(1963). Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Greenberg

J. H.

(Ed.), Universals of language (pp. 73–113). MIT Press.

19.

Greenberg

J. H.

(1966). Universals of language (2nd ed.). The MIT Press.

20.

Hall

E. T.

(1976). Beyond culture. Doubleday.

21.

Hall

E. T.

(2000). Context and meaning. In Samovar

L. A.

Porter

R. E.

(Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (9th ed., pp. 34–43). Wadsworth.

22.

Halliday

M. A. K.

(1985). An introduction to functional grammar. Arnold.

23.

Halliday

M. A. K.

(1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). Arnold.

24.

Halliday

M. A. K.

(2004). An introduction to functional grammar (3rd ed., revised by C. M. I. M. Matthiessen). Arnold.

25.

Halliday

M. A. K.

(2014). Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar (4th ed., revised by C. M. I. M. Matthiessen). Arnold.

26.

Halliday

M. A. K.

McDonald

(2004). Metafunctional profile of the grammar of Chinese. In Caffarel

Martin

Matthiessen

C. M. I. M.

(Eds.), Language typology: A functional perspective (pp. 305–395). John Benjamins.

27.

Hawkins

J. A.

(1983). Word order universals. Academic Press.

28.

L. S.

(1992). Dunhuang Bianwen yu Shi Shuo Xin Yu Ruogan Yufa Tedian de Bijiao [A comparative study of the grammatical features of Dunhuang Bianwen and Shi Shuo Xin Yu]. Shandong Education Press.

29.

L. S.

(2000). Gudai Hanyu Yufa Yanjiu Lunwen Ji [Collected papers on ancient Chinese grammar]. The Commercial Press.

30.

(2014). ‘Bi-functional constituent constructions’ in modern Mandarin Chinese: A Cardiff Grammar approach. Language Sciences, 42, 43–59.

31.

(2017a). ‘Subject-predicate predicate sentences’ in modern Mandarin Chinese: A Cardiff Grammar approach. Linguistics, 55(4) 935–977.

32.

(2017b) Subject in Chinese existential constructions: A systemic functional approach. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 37(1), 37–59.

33.

C. L.

(2022). Cong cunzai xiaoju kan yingyu de zhu ke fenli tezhi he hanyu de zhu ke ronghe tezhi [Separtation of subject and object in English and integration of subject and object in Chinese: A constrastive study of existential clauses]. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 54(2), 177–188, 318.

34.

Xiang

Z. B.

(2023). Cong xiaoju de zhuyu kan yingyu, hanyu, alaboyu zhijian de benzhi chayi [The subject of the clause and essential differences between English, Chinese and Arabic]. Foreign Language Research, 3, 39–48.

35.

Wang

M. C.

Zhong

Liu

J. H.

Gao

Zhang

J. Y.

Deng

R. C.

Wei

S. X.

(2023). Yin Han Gongneng Jufa Duibi Yanjiu [Contrastive studies of English and Chinese functional syntax]. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.

36.

Xiang

Z. B.

(2024). Cong xiandai hanyu dongjieshi ji qi yingyu, alaboyu yiwen kan yuyan jian de benzhi chayi [Verb-resultative constructions in modern Chinese and their English and Arabic translations: A study of the essential difference between the three languages]. Journal of Foreign Languages, 47(6), 23–34.

37.

Gao

S. W.

Zhang

Jia

P. P.

Qiu

J. N.

(2015a). Hanyu Gongneng Yufa Fenxi [Functional syntactic analysis of Chinese]. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.

38.

Zhang

J. Y.

Jia

P. P.

Zhang

(2015b). Functional syntactic analysis of English. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.

39.

Hsiung

H. J.

(2023). Chinese locative expressions: Prepositions and localizers. In Huang

C. R.

Hsieh

S. K.

Jin

(Eds.), Chinese language resources (pp. 357–382). Springer.

40.

Huang

C. T. (James)

. (2010). Lexical decomposition, silent categories, and the localizer phrase. Yuyanxue Luncong, 39, 86–122.

41.

Huang

C. T. (James)

Y. H.

Y. F.

(2009). The syntax of Chinese. Cambridge University Press.

42.

Kuo

P. J.

(2022). The idiosyncratic proposition zai in Mandarin Chinese and differential argument marking. International Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 9(2), 232–265.

43.

LaPolla

R. J.

(1994). On the change to verb-medial word order in Proto-Chinese: Evidence from Tibeto-Burman. In Kitamura

Nishida

Nagano

(Eds.), Current issues in Sino-Tibetan linguistics (pp. 98–104). National Museum of Ethnology.

44.

(2019). Where to locate Mandarin localizers? Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 47(2), 345–370.

45.

C. N.

Thompson

S. A.

(1981). Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. University of California Press.

46.

Y. F.

(2009). Hanyu fangweici de cixing ji qi lilun yiyi [Chinese localizers’ grammatical nature and theoretical significance]. Studies of the Chinese Language, 2, 99–109.

47.

Y. H. A.

(1985). Abstract case in Chinese [PhD dissertation, University of South California].

48.

Y. H. A.

(1990). Order and constituency in Mandarin Chinese. Kluwer.

49.

Liu

D. Q.

(2002). Hanyu li de kuangshi jieci [Circumpositions in Chinese]. Contemporary Linguistics, 4(4), 241–253, 316.

50.

Liu

D. Q.

(2003). Yuxu Leixingxue yu Jieci Lilun [Word order typology and a theory of adposition]. The Commercial Press.

51.

Liu

D. Q.

(2008). Syntax of space across Chinese dialects: Conspiring and competing principles and factors. In Xu

(Ed.), Space in languages of China: Cross-linguistic, synchronic and diachronic perspectives (pp. 39–68). Springer Science + Business Media B.V.

52.

Liu

F. S.

(1998). A clitic analysis of locative particles. Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 16(1), 48–70.

53.

Liu

H. J.

(1993). Zhongguo zhexue de tian ren heyi yu Xifang zhexue de zhu ke erfen – jian yu Zhang Shi-Ying xiansheng shangque [The unity of heaven and man in Chinese philosophy and the dichotomy of subject and object in Western Philosophy – Also a discussion with Mr. Zhang Shiying]. Journal of Shaanxi Normal University (Social Science), 12(3), 40–46.

54.

Liu

Y. H.

Pan

W. Y.

. (2001). Shiyong Xiandai Hanyu Yufa (Zengding Ben) [The practical grammar of modern Chinese (updated ed.)]. The Commercial Press.

55.

McCawley

J. D.

(1992). Justifying part-of-speech assignments in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 20(2), 211–245.

56.

Meng

P. Y.

(1993). Zhongguo Zhexue Zhuti Siwei [Subjectivity thought of Chinese philosophy]. People’s Publishing House.

57.

Moussa

(1997). Alabo Zhexue: Cong Kendie dao Yiben Luxide [Arabic philosophy: From Al-Kindi to Ibn Rushd] ( Zhang

W. J.

Wang

P. W.

, Transl.). The Commercial Press.

58.

Nie

X. W.

Liu

F. S.

(2021). Disyllabic localizers in modern Chinese. Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 49(1), 1–39.

59.

Peyraube

(1980). Les constructions locatives en chinois modern [The locative construction in modern Chinese]. Éditions Languages Croisés.

60.

Rijkhoff

(1986). Word order universals revisited: The principle of Head Proximity. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 1, 95–125.

61.

Rijkhoff

(1987). Word order tendencies in two prefield subtypes. In Nuyts

de Schutter

(Eds.), Getting one’s words into line (pp. 1–15). Foris.

62.

Shang

(2010). Zhong Xi: Yuyan yu Sixiang Zhidu [China and the West: Language and ideological system]. The Peking Press.

63.

Sun

C. F.

(2008). Two conditions and grammaticalization of the Chinese locative. In Xu

(Ed.), Space in languages of China: Cross-linguistic, synchronic and diachronic perspectives (pp. 199–228). Springer Science + Business Media B.V.

64.

Tai

J. (H. Y.)

. (1973). Chinese as an SOV language. Proceedings from the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 9(1), 659–671.

65.

Tai

J. (H. Y.)

. (1988). Shijian shunxu he hanyu de yuxu [Temporal sequence and Chinese word order] ( Huang

, Trans.). Linguistics Abroad, 1, 10–20.

66.

Takahashi

(2020). Cross-linguistic variation in the layered structure of PP: Evidence from PP internal NP-ellipsis. In Garzonio

Rossi

(Eds.), Variation in P: Comparative approaches to adpositional phrases (pp. 191–217). Oxford University Press.

67.

The Institute of Linguistics, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. (2016). Xiandai Hanyu Cidian (Diqi Ban) [Modern Chinese dictionary (7th ed.)]. The Commercial Press.

68.

Tucker

(1998). The lexicogrammar of adjectives: A systemic functional approach to lexis. Cassell Academic.

69.

Vennemann

(1972). Analogy in generative grammar: The origin of word order (Vol. 2, pp. 79–83). Proceedings ICL 11.Bologna: Mulino.

70.

D. D.

Lau

(2018). ‘Physical space first!’: A corpus-based study on the use of localizer ‘shang’ in early child Mandarin. Corpus Pragmatics, 2(2), 149–166.

71.

F. X.

(2008). Origin and evolution of the locative term hou ‘back’ in Chinese. In Xu

(Ed.), Space in languages of China: Cross-linguistic, synchronic and diachronic perspectives (pp. 229–247). Springer Science + Business Media B.V.

72.

H. H. I.

(2015). The fine structure of spatial PPs in Mandarin Chinese. In Tsai

W. T. D.

(Ed.), The cartography of Chinese syntax, the cartography of syntactic structures (Vol. 11, pp. 209–234). Oxford University Press.

73.

(Ed.). (2008). Space in languages of China: Cross-linguistic, synchronic and diachronic perspectives. Springer Science + Business Media B.V.

74.

Zhang

(2010). Xiandai Hanyu Miaoxie Yufa [Descriptive grammar of modern Chinese]. The Commercial Press.

75.

Zhang

S. Y.

(1991). Tian ren heyi yu zhu ke erfen [The unity of heaven and man and the dichotomy of subject and object]. Philosophical Studies, 1, 68–72.

76.

Zhang

S. Y.

(1992). Luelun Zhong Xi zhexue sixiang de qubie yu jiehe [On the difference and combination of Chinese and Western philosophical thoughts]. Academic Monthly, 2, 1–5.

77.

Zhu

L. C.

(2004). Hanyu Alaboyu Yuyan Wenhua Bijiao Yanjiu [Chinese and Arabic: A comparative study of language and culture]. New World Press.

A Systemic Functional Approach to the Categorial Status of Post-Nominal Monosyllabic Localizers in Mandarin Chinese

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Literature Review

Theoretical Framework

Analysis, Description and Results

Discussion

The Categorial Status of Post-Nominal Monosyllabic Localizers

Reasons for Chinese Involving Both Prepositions and Postpositions

Conclusion

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Ethical Considerations

Funding

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Data Availability Statement

Notes

References