This paper focuses on the source model and semantic changes of the locative term hou in Chinese, especially the semantic and morphosyntactic changes taking place when hou conclusions are as follows: (i) The locative term hou in Chinese originated in the conception of motional process. Although the source model does not precisely correspond to the mainstream source models of BACK-REGION grams revealed by cross-linguistic comparison, it represents a typological feature in human languages rather than a language-specific characteristic. (ii) The pattern of semantic changes including a series of meanings and uses in the diachronic development of the locative term hou corresponds precisely to the universal tendencies of BACK-REGION grams revealed by cross-linguistic research. (iii) The arising of various meanings of hou is motivated, and metonymy serves as the most fundamental mechanism in the semantic change.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Barcelona, Antonio. (2000). On the plausibility of claiming a metonymic motivation for conceptual metaphor. In Antonio Barcelona (Eds.), Metaphor and Metonymy at the crossroads: a cognitive perspective (pp. 31-58). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bowden, John. (1992). Behind the preposition: the grammaticalization of locatives in Oceanic languages. Canberra: Australian National Universtity.
Brinton, Laurel. (1988). The development of English aspectual systems: Aspectualizers and postverbal particles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brinton, Laurel & Elizabeth Closs Traugott. (2005). Lexicalization and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brugman, Claudy M. (1983). The use of body-part terms as locatives in Chalcatongo Mixtec. Survey of Californian and Other Indian Languages, 4, 235-90.
Brugman,Claudy M. & Monica Macaulay. (1986). Interacting semantic systems: Mixtec expressions of location. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 12, 315-27.
Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins, & William Pagliuca. (1994). The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
De Leon, Lourdes. December (1991). Body parts and location in Tzotzil: ongoing grammaticalization. Paper presented at the Workshop on Space in Mesoamerican languages at the Max Planck Cognitive Anthropology Research Group of the Max Planck Institute of Psycolinguistics: Nijmegen.
Haiman, John. (1978). Conditionals are topics. Language, 54, 564-589.
Heine, Bernd. (1989). Adpositions in African languages. Linguistique Africaine, 2, 77-127.
Heine, Bernd. (1997). Cognitive foundations of grammar. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi, & Friederike Hünnemeyer. (1991). Grammaticalization: A conceptual Framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hollenbach, Barbara E. (1995). Semantic and Syntactic Extensions of Body Part terms in Mixtecan: The Case of ‘Face’ and ‘Foot’. International Journal of American Linguistics, 61(2), 168-190.
Hopper,Paul J. & Elizabeth Closs Traugott. (2003). Grammaticalization (Second edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jha, Subhadra. (1958). The formation of the Maithili language. London: Luzac & Company.
Lillehaugen, Brook Danielle. (2003a). The Categorial Status of Body Part Prepositions in ValleyZapotec. MA Thesis: University of California, Los Angeles. http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/grads/lillehaugen/
Lillenhaugen, Brook Danielle (2003b). The Syntactic and Semantic Development of Body Part Prepositions in Valley Zapotec Languages. University of California, Los Angeles. http:// www. linguistics.ucla.edu/people/grads/lillehaugen/
Lillenhaugen, Brook Danielle. (2004). Modified Body Parts are not Prepositions, University of California, Los Angeles. http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/grads/lillehaugen.
MacLaury, Robert E. (1989). Zapotec body-part locatives: Prototypes and metaphoric extensions. International Journal of American Linguistics, 55(2), 119-154.
Matsumoto, Yo. (1999). On the extension of body-part nouns to object-part nouns and spatial adpositions. In Barbara A.Fox, Dan Jurafsky & Laura A. Michaelis (Eds.), Cognition and Function in Language. Stanford, California: CSLI Publications.
Svorou, Soteria. (1986). On the evolution paths of locative constructions. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 12, 515-527.
Svorou, Soteria. (1993). The grammar of space. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Svorou, Soteria. (2003). Semantic constraints in the grammaticalization of locative constructions. In Wischer & Diewald (Eds.), New reflections on Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Traugott, Elizabeth C. (2006). Historical Pragmatics. In Laurence R. Horn and Gregory Ward (Eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 538-56). Blackwell Publishing.
Traugott, Elizabeth C. (1989). On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: an example of subjectification in semantic change. Language, 65, 31-55.
Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Richard Dasher. (2002). Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge University Press.
Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Ekkehard König. (1991). The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited. In eds. Traugott Elizabeth C. & Bernd Heine (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization (1, pp. 189 -218). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2008 Springer Science + Business Media B.V
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Wu, F. (2008). Origin and Evolution of the Locative Term HÒU ‘Back’ In Chinese. In: Xu, D. (eds) Space in Languages of China. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8321-1_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8321-1_10
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-8320-4
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-8321-1
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)