Double verb & double 了: 我学英语学了4年了

[rudyzuck]

Hi all,

I have some difficulties to understand the grammar of this sentence:

 

我学英语学了4年了

 

We can see than the verb 学 is replicated (probably to add the mystical 了) but i am not sure where is the need of the double 了 ad what is the difference with the below sentence

 

我学英语四年了

 

is this a specific pattern?

Many thanks,
R

 

[RadioSilence]

It's normal to repeat certain words and grammatical particles in Chinese to produce different nuances, or simply as filler, like "like" in English. The first one is like "regarding the study of English, I have been studying for four years."

 

The second is simply more concise and direct. Both are correct. 

[Wurstmann]

I'm not a hundred percent sure, but

我学英语学了4年了 means you studied for 4 years and are still studying

我学英语四年了 means you studied for 4 years in the past but are not currently studying

[RadioSilence]

“我学英语四年了 means you studied for 4 years in the past but are not currently studying”

I don't think so. Because you can say "我學英文四年了，還沒搞清楚這語法“ (I've studied English four years, still not clear on the grammar). The sentences are functionally the same. 

This is actually a good example of why Chinese grammar can be so confusing despite the common notion that it is freeform and easier than that of, say, Japanese. 我學了四年英文了／我學英文四年了／我學英文學了四年了／我學英文四年了 are all fine, but 我學了英文四年了 is not. Why? I don't know either.  

[Shelley]

I think you are right Wurstmann.

 

https://resources.allsetlearning.com/chinese/grammar/Expressing_completion_with_%22le%22

 

https://resources.allsetlearning.com/chinese/grammar/Expressing_ongoing_duration_with_double_%22le%22

 

 

[Orpheus]

When the verb has an object, the duration is normally placed between the verb and the object, i.e. 我学了四年的英语, not after the verb+object phrase. When we repeat the verb as in 我学英语学了四年, I think the emphasis is more on the time duration. As for double 了, Yip Po-Ching and Don Rimmington in Intermediate Chinese say that by using double 了, the speaker is adding a personal gloss (of impatience, complaint, warning, etc.) to the statement. Compare: 我学英语学了四年 and 我学英语学了四年了 (and I still can't understand such a simple dialogue!).

[RadioSilence]

I asked my wife (Chinese) if there was a difference of meaning in the variations, and she said no. I showed her the grammar pages and she said they were wrong. Then she asked on a Chinese-language forum and nobody said that the variations carried any changes in meaning. So I think that the only way to understand this is that the variations convey change in tone and nuance, not grammar. 

[Guest realmayo]

I was taught:

 

A sentence-final 了 indicates either

- a change of state, or

- 'expectation'

 

For 'expectation': it's either

- satisfied your expectation, or

- surprised your expectation

 

So:

 

中国攻打了日本

= statement of fact, it happened.

 

中国攻打日本了！       

= either:

- Wow (I'm totally surprised), or

- It’s finally happened (we all knew their army was massed on the border, it was going to happen today or tomorrow)

 

I think this explanation holds for 我学英语学了四年了. For "outside your expectation" read "personal gloss of complaint".

 

I think if you wanted to add a "personal gloss of complaint", say, and your tone of voice is already indicating that gloss of complaint by the time you get to "...学了四年", then it's natural to add a 了 on the end. It would be interesting to ask a native speaker to say that sentence as if they're complaining that the four years of studying was too long, longer than they'd expected, or at least they'd expected that after four years of study their English would be better than it was. Would a native speaker be happy to stop at "四年" or would they feel an impulse to add the 了?

[anonymoose]

Then she asked on a Chinese-language forum and nobody said that the variations carried any changes in meaning. So I think that the only way to understand this is that the variations convey change in tone and nuance, not grammar.

 

That's a bit contradictory, though, isn't it? Tone and nuance is central to meaning, so either the meaning is the same or it's not.

[rudyzuck]

Thanks to all! 

From all the above discussions, it seems that those two variations carry little difference in term of meaning and that the fact that nobody comes to an agreement means maybe that they are rather the same 

Thanks again, I have other grammar questions in my pocket 

 

R

[Guest realmayo]

.

[Guest realmayo]

oops, thanks for spotting the typo, have changed it to 攻打.

 

chrisotz, what tense is 中国攻打了日本了

[Guest realmayo]

Ok fair enough.

 

Incidentally I don't think 中国攻打了日本 is the past tense and I don't think 中国攻打日本了 is the progressive tense.

[lips]

中国攻打了日本了

There is no such syntax......

Really?

[Guest realmayo]

So ... 他吃了饭 = it has happened and 他吃饭了 = it is happening? Doesn't seem right to me.

[lips]

All I know is that 我吃了饭了 is commonly spoken by native Chinese all the time, and is well understand or not considered unnatural.

[Guest realmayo]

chrisotz this website might be helpful about modal particles: http://comet.cls.yale.edu/mandarin/content/Lele/grammar/Lele.htm

 

especially:

 

Modal particles help verbs express different moods. In the case of the modal particle le了, while representing the completion of the action indicated by the verb, it is used with a different intention than the aspect particle. The modal particle le了 is used “to affirm the message and make the listener aware of its importance or relevance to the immediate situation.” (Yi Po-Ching and Don Rimmington: 2004, p. 318). As such, the modal particle le了 is used to explain a present situation. The object the verb takes is usually a generalized one and no specific information about it is given or sought after. The modal particle le了 is placed at the end of the sentence. It may be difficult to distinguish it from the sentence-end le了 indicating the emergence of a new situation. However, it is important to note that they both ‘acknowledge some change in the picture of things.’ (P.C. T’ung and D. E. Pollard: 1982, p. 142).

[Guest realmayo]

I appreciate you are trying to help but I think the explanation on the Yale website that I linked to above is better.