This thesis is about the expression of ingressive aspect: language elements that focus on the beginning of a situation. The aim is to conduct a fine-grained analysis and comparison of the aspectual...Show moreThis thesis is about the expression of ingressive aspect: language elements that focus on the beginning of a situation. The aim is to conduct a fine-grained analysis and comparison of the aspectual semantics of three ‘manifestations of ingressivity’: the ingressive suffix -qilai起來 in Mandarin and the ingressive adverbs chū初 and shǐ始 from pre-Tang Chinese. The comparison reveals both similarities and differences. First, the three ingressive markers share a basic conceptual structure consisting of [+BEGIN] and [+focusBEGIN], but -qilai 起來 additionally consists of the optional component [±STAND UP] due to limited semantic bleaching of the source structure’s lexical semantics, i.e. the verb qǐlai 起來 ‘to stand up’. This explains the fact that Stage Level States selecting -qilai起來 may shift optionally to Activities, as metaphorical extensions of ‘standing up’ (i.e. ‘increase’) license dynamic interpretations. This same optionality may be explained for the pre-Tang Chinese adverbs through the causative potential of the predicate, which likewise optionally entails ‘increasing’. Second, combinatory possibilities can be described for shǐ始 without additional restrictions, while those of -qilai起來 and chū初 can be accounted for with one disjunctive rule each: -qilal起來 requires the predicate to be durative, atelic, or both; chū初 requires it to be dynamic-durative, telic, or both. In terms of ingressive subtypes, this means that chū初 is typically inceptive, -qilai起來 is more inceptive than inchoative, and shǐ始 is actually ingressive in that inceptive and inchoative interpretations are equally available.Show less
This thesis aims to provide an overview of relevant research on the -te iru form. Having summarised research by scholars such as Vendler, Dowty and Kindaichi, it proceeds to compare and contrast...Show moreThis thesis aims to provide an overview of relevant research on the -te iru form. Having summarised research by scholars such as Vendler, Dowty and Kindaichi, it proceeds to compare and contrast literature on the -te iru form itself. There appear to be two types of analyses for the -te iru form: polysemous and monosemous analyses. After comparing several accounts and providing some new data, I conclude that a monosemous account, which analyses -te iru as a pragmatically ambitious stative expression, is the most likely analysis.Show less
