When can the place come after the verb?

[Christa]

I was wondering, in what circumstances in Chinese can the place come after the verb?

 

I've been thinking of various sentences like:

 

我住在香港。I live in Hong Kong.

我以前住在香港。I used to live in Hong Kong.

 

but

 

我在香港住了两年了。I've been living in Hong Kong for two years.

 

Now, as far as I understand the rule, the place goes before the verb unless the verb is something like 住 or 去. But why is it then that in more complex sentences like the one above, the place is moved back to where it normally is with other verbs? I mean, I know how to use this correctly but I don't get what the rule is.

 

So, in essence, in which situations can the place follow the verb and when can't it? What's the rule here?

 

Does anyone know?

 

Thanks,

 

 

Christina

 

 

 

[Christa]

I suppose actually what I mean to say is: normally the location goes before the verb, however with verbs such as 在 this isn't the case and instead the location goes after.

 

As that's the case, why is it that in a more complex sentence, such as 我在香港住了两年了 the location suddenly goes before the verb?  

[陳德聰]

I may be incorrect about this, but my understanding is that when the verb’s argument structure calls for a location complement, the location complement goes where all complements go by default. Then when you have other complements come in, they can’t go anywhere else so the less restricted location complement moves to the default location location.

 

Edit:

Although on further reflection verbs like 放 which require both a direct object (thing to verb) and a location complement (place to verb) seem to prioritize whichever complement is being focused, so perhaps that’s the crux rather than an arbitrary deprioritization of location complements.

[Christa]

59 minutes ago, 陳德聰 said:

I may be incorrect about this, but my understanding is that when the verb’s argument structure calls for a location complement, the location complement goes where all complements go by default. Then when you have other complements come in, they can’t go anywhere else so the less restricted location complement moves to the default location location.

 

Edit:

Although on further reflection verbs like 放 which require both a direct object (thing to verb) and a location complement (place to verb) seem to prioritize whichever complement is being focused, so perhaps that’s the crux rather than an arbitrary deprioritization of location complements.

 

Thank you for writing such a thorough answer. Please don't think me stupid for asking, but what's a complement?

[陳德聰]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complement_(linguistics)

 

Check “complements as arguments” for how I used it here. It maybe can most easily be understood as “a word/phrase necessitated by the verb.” If you’re familiar with traditional grammar terms like “object,” then you already understand the verb-complement relationship ‘cause objects are complements (but not all complements are objects).

[anonymoose]

I may be wrong, but as I understand, the 在location phrase comes before the verb if this signifies the location at which the action of the verb takes places, whereas the 在location phrase comes after the verb if the location is the end-point of the action described by the verb.

 

In the case of 放, the destination is the location to which the object is put, and naturally, the 在location phrase follows the verb.

我把花瓶放在了桌子上。

我放花瓶放在了桌子上。

请把花瓶放在桌子上。

For locations where the action of 放 is carried out, but is not a destination of the action, then the 在location phrase preceeds the verb.

他在茅房里放了屁。

 

In the case of 住, when the focus is on the place, this place is the destination to which you moved and took up residence, and when 住 is used in this sense, the 在location phrase follows the verb.

我住在香港。

On the other hand, in more complex sentences such as 我在香港住了两年, the focus is now not on the location, but rather the time, and in this case, the action is taking place at the location rather than to the location, so the 在location phrase preceeds the verb.

[Publius]

This should answer your question: https://books.google.com.tw/books?id=oPSPCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA149&lpg=PA149&dq=chinese+action+verbs+and+locations&source=bl&ots=suU6APVIqZ&sig=eP8GH992PFioUrgy94Lp7ef2i2Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiX19-xs8nZAhUBppQKHQIrAOkQ6AEIaTAH#v=onepage&q=chinese action verbs and locations&f=false

[Wippen (inactive)]

@Publius you are good at finding stuff. This is another gem. by the way I own this book and happen to think it is really useful for explaining Chinese grammar. Learnt a lot from Rimmington and Po-Ching

[Christa]

3 hours ago, 陳德聰 said:

Check “complements as arguments” for how I used it here. It maybe can most easily be understood as “a word/phrase necessitated by the verb.” If you’re familiar with traditional grammar terms like “object,” then you already understand the verb-complement relationship ‘cause objects are complements (but not all complements are objects).

 

Thank you for this. Actually, I struggle even with traditional grammar terms like "object". This has often made accessing materials for learning Chinese somewhat difficult for me.

[Christa]

1 hour ago, Publius said:

This should answer your question: https://books.google.com.tw/books?id=oPSPCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA149&lpg=PA149&dq=chinese+action+verbs+and+locations&source=bl&ots=suU6APVIqZ&sig=eP8GH992PFioUrgy94Lp7ef2i2Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiX19-xs8nZAhUBppQKHQIrAOkQ6AEIaTAH#v=onepage&q=chinese action verbs and locations&f=false

 

Thanks for this, Publius. Unfortunately, now I feel really stupid, as I don't understand this either.

Can anyone translate what this says into less grammatically complex English? I really don't understand what it means at all. When should  在location go before the verb and when should it go after?

 

Can anyone explain it to me using no grammatical terms other than "the verb"?

 

Anyone? Please : )

[yueni]

@Christa, basically what Ch. 8.2 & 8.3 says is that the coverb, 在, changes position in a sentence depending on what meaning it needs to convey with the verb that it is being paired with. The conditions are as follows: 

1. 在 comes before the verb: occurs when the noun performing the action indicated by the verb has to be in a specific location first before the action can be done. Usually concerned with the location of the subject.
2. 在 comes after the verb: occurs when it indicates the final location of a completed action.Typically, location is quite important and maybe even the focus in this sentence structure. Usually (but not always) concerned with the location of the object.

I'm not quite sure if that is clear enough for you to understand, but here is a simplistic summary:

1. 他在房子前面站着。  Emphasis on verb. Probably will be used in response to the question: “他在做什么？”
2. 他站在房子前面。 Emphasis on location. Probably will be used in response to the question: “他在哪里？”

Don't know if anybody else has any input. Perhaps @陳德聰 or @Publius might have more insight?

[陳德聰]

Now I’m a bit intrigued.

 

I am unable to view the link posted by Publius, but I did some reading and it seems there is a bit more to this than I thought.

 

Some linguists apparently separate out these verbs of “posture” and “placement” which can have 在 after the verb.

 

While @anonymoose‘s explanation is tempting, there is also apparently a bit of a “paradox” where 在 after the verb can mean both the “durative” (roughly corresponds to action continually taking place at location, can also be described like a state) and the “terminative” (roughly corresponds to action taking place with location as the destination).

 

E.g.

張三躺在床上 possible interpretations:

(1) 張三躺到床上

(2) 張三在床上躺著

 

衣服掛在衣架上 possible interpretations:

(1) 衣服掛到衣架上

(2) 衣服在衣架上掛著

 

Etc.

 

However, according to Chirkova & Lamarre 2005 this ambiguity does not exist in Beijing dialect, where the 在 after verb exclusively is synonymous with the ‘到’ meaning. Perhaps @Publius can comment/corroborate.

[Christa]

17 hours ago, 陳德聰 said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complement_(linguistics)

 

Check “complements as arguments” for how I used it here. It maybe can most easily be understood as “a word/phrase necessitated by the verb.” If you’re familiar with traditional grammar terms like “object,” then you already understand the verb-complement relationship ‘cause objects are complements (but not all complements are objects).

 

Wow, I'm even struggling with the explanation of the explanation.

 

Brain not work good; need go back to cave...

[Christa]

Based on this:

 

15 hours ago, anonymoose said:

I may be wrong, but as I understand, the 在location phrase comes before the verb if this signifies the location at which the action of the verb takes places, whereas the 在location phrase comes after the verb if the location is the end-point of the action described by the verb.

 

In the case of 放, the destination is the location to which the object is put, and naturally, the 在location phrase follows the verb.

我把花瓶放在了桌子上。

我放花瓶放在了桌子上。

请把花瓶放在桌子上。

For locations where the action of 放 is carried out, but is not a destination of the action, then the 在location phrase preceeds the verb.

他在茅房里放了屁。

 

In the case of 住, when the focus is on the place, this place is the destination to which you moved and took up residence, and when 住 is used in this sense, the 在location phrase follows the verb.

我住在香港。

On the other hand, in more complex sentences such as 我在香港住了两年, the focus is now not on the location, but rather the time, and in this case, the action is taking place at the location rather than to the location, so the 在location phrase preceeds the verb.

 

And this:

 

8 hours ago, yueni said:

basically what Ch. 8.2 & 8.3 says is that the coverb, 在, changes position in a sentence depending on what meaning it needs to convey with the verb that it is being paired with. The conditions are as follows: 

1. 在 comes before the verb: occurs when the noun performing the action indicated by the verb has to be in a specific location first before the action can be done. Usually concerned with the location of the subject.
2. 在 comes after the verb: occurs when it indicates the final location of a completed action.Typically, location is quite important and maybe even the focus in this sentence structure. Usually (but not always) concerned with the location of the object.

I'm not quite sure if that is clear enough for you to understand, but here is a simplistic summary:

1. 他在房子前面站着。  Emphasis on verb. Probably will be used in response to the question: “他在做什么？”
2. 他站在房子前面。 Emphasis on location. Probably will be used in response to the question: “他在哪里？”

Don't know if anybody else has any input. Perhaps @陳德聰 or @Publius might have more insight?

 

Might it be reasonable to say that the position of 在location is simply related to a question of emphasis? Want to emphasise something other than the location: put 在location before the verb. Want to emphasise the location: put 在location after the verb. Does that seem right?

[陳德聰]

That’s true of these types of verbs but you can’t say 晚飯吃在飯館裡 to emphasise the location. So within the restricted types of verbs that can have 在 after them, you can reorder the sentence for a change in focus.

[Christa]

29 minutes ago, 陳德聰 said:

That’s true of these types of verbs but you can’t say 晚飯吃在飯館裡 to emphasise the location. So within the restricted types of verbs that can have 在 after them, you can reorder the sentence for a change in focus.

 

That's interesting.

 

So, does that mean that, regarding this issue, there are two types of verbs?

 

One group would include (and please anyone do correct me if I'm wrong): 住(zhù), 放 (fàng), 坐 (zuò), 站 (zhàn), 待 (dāi) (plus, I'm sure, a number of others).

 

And, in sentences with these verbs, when you want to focus on location you would place 在location after the verb. So: 我住在香港, 我把花瓶放在了桌子上, 我坐在这里 etc.

 

But, in sentences with other possible points of emphasis, 在location will go before the verb. So:  我在香港住了两年了(because Hong Kong is no longer the emphasis), 他在茅房里放了屁 (farting has now become the rather delightful emphasis), 我在这里坐了两个小时了 (the emphasis is now on how long rather than where).

 

Does this seem correct for this group? If so, there would then be:

 

The other group of verbs - this would be all the verbs that don't fit into the above category (so the vast majority) - these verbs always place 在location before the verb. 

 

Does this seem like an accurate summary? Please feel free to add to / correct this. I really want to understand what's at work here.

 

[Wippen (inactive)]

1 hour ago, Christa said:

我在香港住了两年了(because Hong Kong is no longer the emphasis), 

I think Yueni explained it well. This is because he has to be in the location of Hong Kong first in order to have lived there for two years.  That was the grammatical reason given. "Emphasis " is a bit vague, what do you say?

[Christa]

7 minutes ago, Tøsen said:

I think Yueni explained it well. This is because he has to be in the location of Hong Kong first in order to have lived there for two years.  That was the grammatical reason given. "Emphasis " is a bit vague, what do you say?

 

So, how could we describe that as a rule in a way that someone like me might understand? Would it be that for that special group of verbs the 在location goes after the verb in simple sentences but in any complex sentence that require the person to be there already then it goes before?

 

Is that the rule?

[Wippen (inactive)]

11 hours ago, yueni said:

• 在 comes before the verb: occurs when the noun performing the action indicated by the verb has to be in a specific location first before the action can be done. Usually concerned with the location of the subject.
• 在 comes after the verb: occurs when it indicates the final location of a completed action.Typically, location is quite important and maybe even the focus in this sentence structure. Usually (but not always) concerned with the location of the object.

@ChristaIs this unclear?

[abcdefg]

20 hours ago, Christa said:

Actually, I struggle even with traditional grammar terms like "object". This has often made accessing materials for learning Chinese somewhat difficult for me.

 

I suffer from that same ailment, though to a lesser degree. @Tøsen's explanation, above, is very clear for me.