Article published In: Journal of Historical Pragmatics
Vol. 23:1 (2022) ► pp.84–110
From deontic modality to conditionality
A diachronic investigation into bì in Classical Chinese
Published online: 26 September 2022
https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.19002.kuo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.19002.kuo
Abstract
While epistemic modality has been suggested to be a modal source of conditionality, deontic modality has been generally overlooked. Using data from Classical Chinese and the Invited Inferencing Theory of Semantic Change, this study demonstrates that the deontic modal bi tends to invite inferences of conditionality in contexts where it is used teleologically and performatively as an indirect speech act of advice. That is, conditionality can emerge out of an interaction of teleological and performative meanings. Furthermore, three conditions are identified as where teleological, performative and conditional meanings enable the inferencing of the deontic modal bi as a conditional protasis connective. The absence of one or more of these conditions is shown to be less likely to invite inferences of conditionality.
Keywords: advice, conditional, deontic modal, invited inferencing, teleological modal
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Data, the history of bi and the scope of investigation
- 2.1Data
- 2.2The history of bi
- 2.3Scope
- 3.Teleological modality, speech act of advice and speech act conditional
- 3.1Teleological modal
- 3.2Speech act of advice
- 3.3Conditionals as speech acts
- 4.The framework and the inference-inviting conditions
- 4.1The framework
- 4.2Three conditions for conditionality
- 5.Inferencing of conditionality from modal bi
- 5.1Representative cases
- 5.2Less representative cases
- 5.3Cases with less plausible conditional inferences
- 5.3.1Lacking Condition III: Teleological bi with a short scope
- 5.3.2Lacking Condition II: Conceptual asymmetry between p and q
- 6.Result of the change
- 7.An alternative scenario
- 8.Conclusion
- Acknowledgment
- Notes
- Abbreviations
References
References (42)
Akatsuka, Noriko. 1992. “Japanese Modals are Conditionals”. In Diane Brentari, Gary N. Larson and Lynn A. MacLeod (eds), The Joy of Grammar, 1–10. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
. 1997. “Negative Conditionality, Subjectification, and Conditional Reasoning”. In Angeliki Athanasiadou and René Dirven (eds), On Conditionals Again, 323–354. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
van der Auwera, Johan and Vladimir A. Plungian. 1998. “Modality’s Semantic Map”. Linguistic Typology 2 (1): 79–124.
Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins and William Pagliuca. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Chou, Fa-Kao. 1961. A Historical Grammar of Ancient Chinese. (Part 1: Syntax.) Taipei: Academia Sinica.
Declerck, Renaat and Susan Reed. 2001. Conditionals: A Comprehensive Empirical Analysis. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Diewald, Gabriele. 2002. “A Model for Relevant Types of Contexts in Grammaticalization”. In Ilse Wischer and Gabriele Diewal (eds), New Reflections on Grammaticalization, 103–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt and Bill Jirsa. 2006. “The Principle of Indirect Means in Language Use and Language Structure”. Journal of Pragmatics 38 (4): 513–542.
Geis, Michael L. and Arnold M. Zwicky. 1971. “On Invited Inferences”. Linguistic Inquiry 21: 561–566.
Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard. 2020. “Introduction: The Role of Pragmatics in Cyclic Language Change”. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 21 (2): 165–181.
Herforth, Derek. 1994. “Conditional Sentences in Old Chinese”. (Unpublished PhD thesis.) Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley.
Hilpert, Martin. 2010. “What Can Gradience Tell Us about Reanalysis? Verb-first Conditionals in Written German and Swedish”. In Elizabeth C. Traugott and Graeme Trousdale (eds), Gradience, Gradualness and Grammaticalization, 181–201. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hopper, Paul J. and Elizabeth C. Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kuo, Yueh Hsin. 2020. “Late-Stage Grammatical Change in Chinese: A Constructional Account”. (Unpublished PhD thesis.) Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.
. 2021. “Morphosyntactic Vagueness and Directionality”. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 9 (1): 95–116.
. 2022a. “From Dynamic Modal to Conditional Protasis Connective: Evidence from Chinese Néng ‘be able to’”. Functions of Language 29 (2): 143–168.
. 2022b. “Bidirectionality between Modal and Conditional Constructions in Mandarin Chinese: A Constructionalization Account”. Diachronica 39 (1): 88–127.
Li, Carles N. and Sandra A. Thompson. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Li, Renzhi. 2004. “Modality in English and Chinese: A Typological Perspective”. (Unpublished PhD thesis.) Antwerp: University of Antwerp.
Liu, Xiaoming. 2018. “Diachronic Change of Modal Adverbs ‘Cheng/Shi’, ‘Bi/Ding’ and ‘Rong/Xu’”. (Unpublished MA dissertation.) Yanbian: Yanbian University.
Meisterernst, Barbara. 2013. “A Syntactic Analysis of Modal Bi 必: Auxiliary Verb or Adverb?”. In Guangshun Cao, Hilary Chappell, Redouane Djamouri and Thekla Wiebusch (eds), Breaking Down the Barriers, 425–449. Taipei: Academia Sinica.
Morgan, J. L. 1978. “Two Types of Convention in Indirect Speech Acts”. In Peter Cole (ed.), Pragmatics, 261–280. Leiden: Brill.
Narrog, Heiko. 2012. Modality, Subjectivity, and Semantic Change: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pulleyblank, Edwin G. 1995. Outline of Classical Chinese. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.
Searle, John R. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1979. Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shen, Xingchen and Xinren Chen. 2019. “Doing Power Threatening Acts (PTAs) in Ancient China: An Empirical Study of Chinese Jian Discourse”. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 20 (1): 132–156.
Shi, Dingxu. 2000. “Topic and Topic-Comment Constructions in Mandarin Chinese”. Language 76 (2): 383–408.
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1985. “Conditional Markers”. In John Haiman (ed.), Iconicity in Syntax, 289–307. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
2010. “(Inter)subjectivity and (Inter)subjectification: A Reassessment”. In Kristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte and Hubert Cuyckens (eds), Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization, 29–74. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
2016. “Do Semantic Modal Maps Have a Role in a Constructionalization Approach to Modals?”. Constructions and Frames 8 (1): 98–125.
Traugott, Elizabeth C. and Richard Dasher. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van den Nest, Daan. 2010. “Should Conditionals Be Emergent… Asyndetic Subordination in German and English as a Challenge to Grammaticalization Research”. In An Van linden, Jean-Christophe Verstraete, Kristin Davidse and Hubert Cuyckens (eds), Formal Evidence in Grammaticalization Research, 95–136. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Cited by (3)
Cited by three other publications
KUO, YUEH HSIN
Kuo, Yueh Hsin
2025. Bidirectional changes between modal and conditional in Mandarin. In Semantic-Pragmatic Change from Intersubjective to Textual Meanings [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 353], ► pp. 104 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 13 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
