double entry journal-0331-容飾

Critical points:

•  The conceptualization of Mandarin “guo-過” was discussed by Hsiao (2002) indicates the property of polysemy from the perspective of cognitive grammar, which offers us a completely new way of thinking; whereas somewhat contradictory that had had been interpreted by the perspective of Chomsky’s TG in Mandarin. Cognitive linguists attempt to collect cross-language evidence through the speaker who encodes a message to the receiver who decodes the message. The construal of each party, taking different reference of view, aiming the primary pocus called profiling. Thus, in order to gain a better understanding of the construal of a conceptualization or grammaticalization from the perspective of cognitive grammar, the following framework is vital and it seems that Hsiao demonstrated his inference of Mandarin “guo-過” under this layout.

                                

•   According to Hsiao, two typical conceptualization of the verbal Guo due to the motion transition through an intermediate point, crossing movement; examples are 過馬路/ 過海(2002, p282). They appear to be composed by the “verb(過) + object(馬路/海)” structure; the objects are passed through by this “crossing” movement. Thus, the verbal Mandarin “guo” can be perfective. On the other hand, it was inferred as imperfective due to the objectives, 台灣 and 府, which followed by verb(過) shows the endpoint(2002, p282). Taken together, Guo profiles the temporal relation as a verb. Likewise, in the structure of verb compound, 過-guo usually appears as “V+O” or “V+V” forms. Examples such as “過門” is designated a spatial intermediate point while “過時” profiles a temporal intermediate point. However, the term “過目” shows somewhat abstract property which can be inferred as either an intermediate or endpoint; in fact, entities will not go through human being’s eyes, either. As a CFL/CSL teacher, contextualized the term “過目” might deepen learner’s comprehension. The author also pointed out the metaphorical mapping on to a temporal motion through space, 過夜; repeated activities is profiled by an immediate scope, connoting passing through each day, and a perfective process with a maximal scope, implying passing a day, 過日子; taking a reference point as a criteria of an abstract norm, and obtained the sense of an imperfective process of surpass, 過人.

**Question 1: Can we possibly infer the terms “過年/節” and “過分” in the similar perspective of cognitive grammar?

**Question 2: How can we teach CSL/CFL learners effectively in class?

• n   In atemporal relations, “過-guo” can function as an aspect marker, an adverb and a preposition. As an aspect marker, “過-guo” is called an experiential marker by Hsiao (2002, p286).The examples given: 通知過/來過/吃過 are illustrated by the verbal component with the “Guo” component and together they form a composite component, indicating perfectiveness and recurring process. Yet the property of “通知/來/吃” need to be considered more in order to satisfy the structure of “V+suffix”. Due to通知 and來 are atelic in this case, but 吃 has to carry an object in order to complete its meaning. Further, I think “le-了” in “吃過飯了” can be identified just as a voice particle. In this case, it appears somewhat ambiguous, requiring more contextual factors to define. In addition, preposition “過-guo” followed behind verbs, heading objects in order to complete the meaning of an action verb as well. Still, some may take the objects as an endpoint for the verbs; thus, ambiguous might arise. Lastly, the adverbial  “過-guo” is usually placed in front of adjectives to modify them, functioning as a degree adverb.