jamming sentences together with 叫

[li3wei1]

I've always thought it was mistake to say:

我有一个哥哥叫Brian.

because you're making 哥哥the object of one verb and the subject of another.

 

If it is a mistake, it's a common one, because people like to translate from the English 'I have a brother called Brian'.

 

However, I've found this in a textbook:

高家有一个女佣叫鸣凤，鸣凤是个非常可爱的姑娘。

(Cultural Interpretations of China, Peking University Press, 2002)

 

This seems to be doing the same thing, but as it's in a textbook, I'm wondering if this is really a mistake.

[Kenny同志]

Both sentences are perfectly fine.

[lips]

As Kenny said, this is OK. As a matter of fact, the construct is not uncommon, and is not transported from English or another language.

The following sentence, from the classic 红樓夢, is of the same construct: "...裏頭有個做小生的叫作柳湘蓮...".

[li3wei1]

Well, you learn something every day. Thanks.

[li3wei1]

So does that work with other verbs, too?

我爸爸买了一头马跑得很快。

Does it matter what role the central noun plays in relation to the first verb?

[Tiana]

That sentence sounds a bit unusual and I suspect that it would normally be split into 2 parts, with some form of a subject being inserted before the verb 跑.

I however found the following interesting in relation to your question, where the object of the verb 找 also works as the subject of the 2nd verb:

 

她找他教英语 (She asked him to teach her English)

她找我帮忙 (She asked me to help)

At the beginning, I tended to take the subject of the 1st verb to be also the subject of the 2nd verb, but I were wrong then.

[oceancalligraphy]

 

我有一個哥哥叫Brian.

 

I think this is due to a continuous shortening of the sentence.

I guess the "standard" would be something like

我有一個哥哥，他的名子叫Brian。 I have one brother, his name is Brian.

Which then can be shortened to

我有一個哥哥，他叫Brian。 (It's understood that Brian is a 名子)

And then becomes

我有一個哥哥叫Brian。(Shortened again, as it is understood that Brian the name of your 哥哥, not you, otherwise you would have said 我叫Brian)

 

 

 

我爸爸買了一頭馬跑得很快。

 

The problem here is that if you split it into two parts, it isn't very clear

我爸爸買了一頭馬，他跑得很快。

It is your dad that ran fast to get the horse, or the horse that runs fast? Or does your dad run fast (in general), but then why would you mention the horse.

If it's the horse that runs fast, then the sentence could be phrased

我爸爸買了一頭跑得很快的馬。

If your dad ran fast to buy the horse, it could be

我爸爸跑得很快去買一頭馬。

 

 

她找他教英語 (She asked him to teach her English)

她找我幫忙 (She asked me to help)

 

Again, possible shortening of the "standard" sentence. 

她找他教她英語。 She asked him to teach her English.

她找他教英語。  She asked him to teach (her or possibly someone else) English. It's safe to assume the he wouldn't be teaching himself English.

 

她找我幫她忙。 She asked me to help her.

她找我幫忙。  She asked me to help (her, or possibly someone else). It's safe to assume she didn't find me so I could help myself with something.

[Altair]

I think there is nothing at all special about 叫, but there is something special about these constructions.

 

So does that work with other verbs, too?

我爸爸买了一头马跑得很快。

 

Yes.  What you wrote should mean: "My dad bought a horse that runs/ran/happens to run/happened to run fast."

 

Does it matter what role the central noun plays in relation to the first verb?

 

 

 

Yes, it must be the direct object.

 

 

I've always thought it was mistake to say:

我有一个哥哥叫Brian.

because you're making 哥哥the object of one verb and the subject of another.

 

If it is a mistake, it's a common one, because people like to translate from the English 'I have a brother called Brian'.

On the surface, the two phrases "我有一个哥哥叫Brian" and "I have a brother called Brian" seem almost exactly parallel in construction, but their deep structures are quite different, making them quite different in origin and in properties.

 

When a noun is the object of one verb and the subject of the following one it is called a pivotal construction.  The best description of this I have found is in Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Grammar by Charles N. Li and Sandra A. Thompson.  They classify pivotal constructions as a subset of "serial verb constructions," which they define as "a sentence that contains two or more verb phrases or clauses juxtaposed without any marker indicating what the relationship is between them."

 

For some reason, Li and Thompson do not actually apply the term "pivotal construction" to the construction quoted above, but rather call that a "descriptive clause construction."  I think this distinction is warranted from a functional and discourse point of view, but perhaps not from a syntactic point of view.

 

Li and Thompson describe the "descriptive clause construction" as involving " a transitive verb whose direct object is 'described' by a following clause...."  There are two types of such clauses: "realis descriptive clauses" (meaning that the description is considered something that has been realized and is therefore factual from the point of view of the subject) and "irrealis descriptive clauses: (meaning that the description involves something not realized).

 

The rules they give for "realis descriptive clauses" are different from the rules for "irrealis descriptive clauses."

 

For realis descriptive clauses, they say: "This type of descriptive clause construction has the following properties: (1) the direct object of the first verb is always indefinite, and (2) the second clause provides an incidental description of this indefinite direct object.  This construction is a type of presentative sentence in that its function in discourse is to present or introduce a noun phrase to be described...."

 

Here are some examples, which I have rendered in characters, instead of the pinyin used in the book:

 

他有一个妺妺很喜欢看电影

He/She has a sister who likes to see movies

 

我碰到了一个外囯人会说中国话

I met a foreigner who can speak Chinese

 

我打破了一个茶杯很值钱

I broke a teacup that is/was very valuable

 

他炒了一个菜我很喜欢吃

She/He cooked a dish that I very much enjoyed eating

 

Note that these sentences are said with one intonation pattern.  With two patterns, the meaning may change slightly.  E.g.:

 

他有一个妺妺，很喜欢看电影

He/She has a sister.  She likes to see movies.

 

vs.

 

他有一个妺妺很喜欢看电影

He/She has a sister who likes to see movies.

 

Li  and Thompson also note that the English translations could be rendered by Chinese relative clauses, but only with a slight change in meaning and discourse function.  In fact, because of Chinese word order rules involving time sequencing, sometimes a relative clause equivalent is not grammatical in such cases.  The above constructions introduce a noun to be further described; whereas relative clauses are appropriate to refer to a previously discussed or established class of things.  E.g.:

 

他有一个妺妺很喜欢看电影

He/She has a sister who likes to see movies.

He/She has a sister, and she likes to see movies.

 

This is two assertions and implies that her likes and dislikes would not have been known to the listener.  The speaker is providing additional and incidental information about the sister he is bringing into the conversation.

 

他有一个很喜欢看电影的妺妺

He/She has a sister who likes to see movies.

He/She has a sister of the type that likes to see movies.

 

This is one assertion and implies that the speaker and listener already have that type of sister in mind.  The speaker is asserting that he/she has a sister of that type.

 

The rules for irrealis descriptive clauses are different, according to Li and Thompson, in three ways: first, the direct object of the first verb in an irrealis descriptive clause is not necessarily an indefinite noun phrase: it can be definite, indefinite, or nonreferential (i.e., generic); second, the verb of the irrealis descriptive clause always expresses an activity (rather than a description); and third, the irrealis descriptive clause always expresses an unrealized event.

 

Here are three examples:

 

他卖那本书给你看

S/He is buying that book for you to read

 

他给了我一碗汤喝

He gave me a cup of soup to drink

 

我找学生教

I'm looking for students to teach (It is ambiguous in both English and Chinese whether "I" or the students will do the teaching.)

[Kenny同志]

So does that work with other verbs, too?

我爸爸买了一头马跑得很快。

Does it matter what role the central noun plays in relation to the first verb?

 

 

This sentence is slightly odd to me. As 天哪 said above, normally it would be split into two parts, i.e. 我爸爸買了一匹馬，跑得很快 or 我爸爸買了一匹馬。這匹馬跑得很快。.

 

If you prefer something shorter, you can say 我爸買了一匹快馬.

 

Note that the classifier for horses is 匹.

[lips]

OP's sentence structure is used in classical Chinese as well, so at least with 叫, this is not a modern 語体文 construct.

伯陽有子名宗

This is from 抱扑子, a classic taoist book written in the fourth centry AD.

[Kenny同志]

Does it matter what role the central noun plays in relation to the first verb?

 

I think it does.

 

他爸爸買了一匹馬，跑得很快.

 

This sort of construct is not uncommon in colloquial Chinese and Chinese novels written before 新文化運動 but as you could see from the following examples, although it saves words, it may cause ambiguity and confusion. 

 

a. 他爸爸買了一匹馬，跑得很快 (it's fairly safe to assume that it is the horse that runs fast)

 

 

b. 他救了一個人，不省人事 (It is not very clear which person is unconscious, especially if you insert 现在 before '不省人事')

 

For this reason, people tend to avoid it for accuracy.

[lips]

我爸爸买了一头马跑得很快。

 

This sentence is slightly odd to me. 

 

Agree.  I haven't heard it said that way.  If I see it in an exam I'd say it has 语病.

买 probably is ot on the list of verbs in Li and Thompson, as Altair alluded to.

[li3wei1]

For those who don't want to buy Li and Thompson's book, here's a discussion of serial verbs by them in the public domain. Some interesting stuff.

http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/books/type05.html

 

and a critical discussion of Li and Thompson here:

http://crlao.ehess.fr/docannexe/file/1543/svcfinalversionoct2005.pdf

 

Thanks everyone for an interesting discussion (I hope it isn't over yet). These are all counter-examples of the 'modifier precedes modified' rule. One of L&T's examples is 

她有一个妹妹很漂亮。

I would say either:

她有一个很漂亮的妹妹。 or

她妹妹很漂亮。

[Guest realmayo]

她有一个妹妹很漂亮。

 

This is one of those sentences that sound wonderful and natural but which make me sad because I doubt I will ever speak native-well enough to automatically use it instead of preferring the two other versions liwei gives.

 

她有一个很漂亮的妹妹 -- seems to limit 妹妹, binding her to 漂亮: she has a pretty-sister (and may have others who are not pretty)

她妹妹很漂亮 -- seems to limit 妹妹 to the-already-discussed-妹妹 or her-only-妹妹

她有一个妹妹很漂亮 -- seems to place equal weight on verbs 有 and 漂亮

 

 

 

Instead of 我爸爸买了一头马跑得很快。 what about 我爸买了一头马很快。 ?

[Tiana]

"what about 我爸买了一头马很快。 ?"

 

No! It sounds very foreign to my (non-native) ear

[li3wei1]

Now that I know what to look for, it's easy to find. Yip and Rimmington's Essential Grammar has a section on serial constructions, but it does not include the type I'm talking about, and their description seems to preclude it: "A serial construction normally consists of two (or more) verbal predicates or comments which share the same subject or topic . . .". (p. 168)

Sinolingua's Practicing HSK Grammar (HSK 语法精讲精练), which I have reviewed here elsewhere, has a section on 'pivotal sentences' (兼语句), but it's unclear and confusing. It says the first verb has four features, but they only list three, the third of which is that it can be 有, and they give an example very similar to my original sentence: 他有一个朋友叫大卫。

I haven't found any mention of this in Ross and Ma's Modern Mandarin Chinese Grammar, or on the Chinese Grammar Wiki (there's a heading for Pivotal Sentence, but no text).