Another 了 thread

[anonymoose]

The use of 了 is notorious amongst foreign learners for its complexities and the various nuances it bestows upon the language.

The general trend seems to be that foreign learners over-use 了. At least when I was attending classes for written Chinese, the teacher would often have to delete superfluous 了s, but rarely add them in, and would often say that 了 is not frequently used in written Chinese. This seems to be borne out by examining most formal Chinese text.

But then I come across this sentence: 重演律表明了动物的个体发育重演了系统发育的过程。

Now I don't really know how to interpret this sentence. From the context, it looks like it's providing a general description of a phenomenon, in which case I would translate it as, "The recapitulation law shows that the development of the animal individual mimics the process of the development of the system". But in this case, what on earth is the need for 了 (and not even one, but two) in the Chinese sentence?

What is the difference in meaning or nuance between saying 重演律表明了动物的个体发育重演了系统发育的过程 and 重演律表明动物的个体发育重演系统发育的过程?

[flow]

when i compare the two sentences i find the one with the 了s is more vivid in character, and draws the reader's attention towards the verbs, and away from the nouns. in german, you would perhaps mimic that effect by inserting a purely rhetoric clause like '*Nun* zeigt uns dieses Gesetz *ja*, dass ...'. in english, you could try to understand that as a gerund: 'this law is showing us that...'. as such, usage of 了 also depends on the broader context beyond the single sentence. i also get the feeling that the repetition of the 了 helps the reader to link the two verbs: what is being 表明了 is that there is something that is being 重演了.

[fengyixiao]

The first 了 mean this theory is a fact，the second 了 mean something have been done time and time again.

[Altair]

This is an interesting issue to analogize. I have run across this usage a few times before with verbs meaning to "show" or "demonstrate." In my view, the basic function of 了 in all cases is to indicate relative time. The real question is to understand what is relative to what.

In this case, 表明 can either indirectly indicate a judgment on the part of the speaker or an "event," whether virtual or actual.

Judgments often are not perceived as taking time or taking place in time. In such situations, Chinese will usually not use 了. Although the entire sentence may refer to past time, there is no sense of a before and after within the sentence. There is no magic moment of change. If an event is described as establishing a fact, this act does take place in time. There is a definite sense of before and after and a magic moment when things were not as they were before.

Consider these contrast usages taken from nciku:

种种迹象表明他们不会来了。

All the indications are that they won't come. (The indications do not amount to a fact and do not take place at a clear time.)

医生的诊断表明他得毛囊发炎了

The doctor diagnosed him with inflamed follicles. (Although the diagnosis can be described as taking place at a clear time, here the diagnosis is merely described as his or her judgment, not proof. The emphasis is not on the act of diagnosis, but on the content of the diagnosis. You can replace 诊断 with 说 and have little change in meaning.)

医院的检查结果表明，她不幸患上了乳腺癌。

The examination report says that she has developed breast cancer. (The report "says" this, but could be wrong. The emphasis on the content of the report, not the act of reporting. This statement does not make clear that anything at all has changed in the real world, only that an opinion as been expressed. There is no feeling of before and after within the sentence.)

vs.

越来越多的证据表明了这些后果。

There is a growing body of evidence pointing to these effects. (Now, we are talking about what has been demonstrated, not just hinted at. Each bit of evidence has shown the effects, with a clear before and after within the sentence.)

政府的核工业发展报告表明了应该加大对它的投资力度。

The government review of the nuclear industry determined that more investment should be made. (An actual decision was made and described within the sentence. The intent is not merely to communicate the content of a judgment, but the fact of a determination.)

他露骨地向她表明了性企图

He made sexual advances to her in an unsubtle way. (We are talking about what his actions proved, not our judgment of what his general conduct amounted to.)

她的民族服装表明了她是从哪个国家来的。

Her national costume showed which country she came from. (Again, this is not an expression of the speakers judgment, but a description of a mental before and after within the sentence. Once anyone saw her costume, they knew an immediate fact.)

[anonymoose]

Altair, thanks for your detailed analysis. I agree with most of what you say.

However, and it's possibly that I'm still thinking in an English frame of mind too much, but I think the way a statement of fact would be written in a book would be different from how someone would say it orally.

For example, going back to the original sentence (重演律表明了动物的个体发育重演了系统发育的过程), if it were a scientist talking about his new discovery, then I could quite understand the inclusion of the first 了 as implying that the action of 表明 has taken place and been completed. In other words, I would translate it as, "The recapitulation law demonstrated that the development of the animal individual mimics the process of the development of the system", which is also to say, before we didn't know, and now we know, or that the emphasis is on the 表明. But from the context in which I saw this sentence, I think it should be a description of animal development, and not on the discovery itself, and therefore if I were to translate it into English, I would say, "The recapitulation law shows that the development of the animal individual mimics the process of the development of the system", using the simple present tense, and in this case, I think there ought not to be a 了 in the Chinese sentence.

Now, as for the second 了， fengyixiao says "了 mean something have been done time and time again". That also seems a bit odd to me. I always thought of 了 as emphasising a specific event, and thus it usually cannot refer to repeated events. Again, since the sentence is providing a general description, I would translate that into the simple present tense, and in the Chinese leave out the 了.

[xiaocai]

What is the difference in meaning or nuance between saying 重演律表明了动物的个体发育重演了系统发育的过程 and 重演律表明动物的个体发育重演系统发育的过程?

I can't really explain but they do sound a bit different to me. I don't know how to explain the difference in grammatical terms, nor am I able to summarise it with a few abstract "rules". I'm not sure if this will make sense to any of you or not, but I think normally it is ok to add a colon mark after 表明 and the sentence will still sound correct, provided that it is followed by a complete sentence, i.e. you can either say: 重演律表明动物的个体发育重演系统发育的过程 or 重演律表明：动物的个体发育重演系统发育的过程. But this is often not so to 表明了; 重演律表明了：动物的个体发育重演了系统发育的过程 just doesn't feel right to me.

[Altair]

But from the context in which I saw this sentence, I think it should be a description of animal development, and not on the discovery itself, and therefore if I were to translate it into English, I would say, "The recapitulation law shows that the development of the animal individual mimics the process of the development of the system", using the simple present tense, and in this case, I think there ought not to be a 了 in the Chinese sentence.

I think I understand why you might be puzzled, because I went through a similar level of surprise when I first saw this type of expression. If I recall correctly, it is also fairly frequent in the preface to books in describing what a book does or what an authors style reveals. English seems to use the present as a default, when an action includes the past and the present. In my view, Chinese does not really have tenses and so does not need a default one.

Consider the difference between 他说他来 (he said he was coming) and (?)他说了他来 (he said words to the effect that he was coming). Both expressions convey facts, but only the latter stresses the action of completion, which is rarely necessary or desirable. The latter is apparently a rare formulation because it is rare that there is a need to call attention to the fact of completion if the content is what is important. The mere utterance of the words (as represented by putting 了 after the verb) is rarely important, whereas the entire process of speech and its content are what is important.

If it is hard to feel this difference, trying translating 他说他来 and 他说了他来 with the present tense. The former could be: "He says he is coming," despite the fact that the utterance is actually in the recent past of the conversation and thus would seem to logically require an English past tense. This makes it easier to see why 他说他来 can translate either "he said he was/is coming" or "he says he is coming." In Chinese, the time (or tense) of the utterance is indicated by the topic, which can be an omitted, null topic if clear from context. 他说了他来 specifically calls attention to the speech act and pragmatically indicates that its completion is important to the situation discussion. It is not that the content is unimportant. It is just that the primary importance of the content is realized only with respect to the completion of the speech act. Even in the same situation where English would normally allow the use of the present tense with reference to a recent past act, 他说了他来 would require a past tense. It could allow a translation like: "he actually admitted/agreed/promised he was coming." His coming is important, but the fact he uttered the words is also important to convey the intended meaning.

In the original sentence, the question is how to interpret 表明了 and how to interpret "shows." With the 了，we know that a fact has been recognized and 表明 means "demonstrates." Without the 了, it is not clear that a fact has been recognized and there is only an emphasis on the content. 表明 merely means "indicates." I think that the use of 了 allows the writer to show ;) whether he or she believes the content has been demonstrated or just indicated. Although I use the word emphasis, I do not think it is merely an issue of emphasizing the content so much as a lack of emphasis on the expression of the content.

I'm not sure if this will make sense to any of you or not, but I think normally it is ok to add a colon mark after 表明 and the sentence will still sound correct, provided that it is followed by a complete sentence, i.e. you can either say: 重演律表明动物的个体发育重演系统发育的过程 or 重演律表明：动物的个体发育重演系统发育的过程. But this is often not so to 表明了; 重演律表明了：动物的个体发育重演了系统发育的过程 just doesn't feel right to me.

I think the use of the colon shows that the content is what is important, by marking it off from the rest of the statement. 了, on the other hand, shows that the fact of indicating the content is also important. In the latter case, a colon doesn't work, since 了 in this case needs two things to relate: the indication and the content. 了 has to join the two together to do its job. The colon has to separate the two to do its job.

Now, as for the second 了， fengyixiao says "了 mean something have been done time and time again". That also seems a bit odd to me. I always thought of 了 as emphasising a specific event, and thus it usually cannot refer to repeated events. Again, since the sentence is providing a general description, I would translate that into the simple present tense, and in the Chinese leave out the 了.

I think that 了 does not mean repetition, but can refer to the completion of repeated events. Using 了 in 动物的个体发育重演了系统发育的过程 allows the writer to vividly call to mind the reality of the recapitulation/mimicking. Without the 了, this could have the meaning: "The individual development of animals (periodically/frequently) recapitulates the process of taxonomic (?) development. With 了, we know that the recapitulation actually happens each time. If you omit the second 了, 重演律表明了动物的个体发育重演系统发育的过程 could means: "The Law of Recapitulation has shown that the individual development of animals may recapitulate the process of taxonomic (?) development." Using 了 twice emphasizes that we are talking about an absolute and invariable law, not just about opinion or tendencies.

By the way, I believe that the statement in questions is actually no longer scientifically accepted and thus is ironically not an accepted fact.

[anonymoose]

Altair, thanks yet again for that detailed explanation.

I think I can understand what you are saying. I'll have to think about it, and come back later if I still have any questions.