Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Citation: Lu, Wen, and Pui Yiu Szeto.
2023. Polyfunctionality of ‘Give’ in
Hui Varieties of Chinese: A
Typological and Areal Perspective.
Languages 8: 217. hps://doi.org/
10.3390/languages8030217
Academic Editor: Ying Ying Tan
Received: 22 March 2023
Revised: 29 August 2023
Accepted: 31 August 2023
Published: 15 September 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Swierland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Aribution (CC BY) license (hps://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
languages
Article
Polyfunctionality of ‘Give’ in Hui Varieties of Chinese:
A Typological and Areal Perspective
Wen Lu 1,* and Pui Yiu Szeto 2
1Division of Languages and Communication, College of Professional and Continuing Education, The Hong
Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China
2Department of Asian and North African Studies, Ca’ Foscari University of Venice, 30123 Venezia, Italy;
puiyiu.szeto@unive.it
*Correspondence: melody.lu@cpce‑polyu.edu.hk
Abstract: The morpheme ‘give’ is among the most well‑studied lexical items in the realm of grammat‑
icalization. This study sets out to provide a typological and areal analysis of the distinct forms and
multiple functions of ‘give’ in 27 varieties of Hui Chinese, a lesser‑known group of Sinitic languages.
Making use of both primary and secondary data, we have identied ten dierent functions of GIVE,
namely (i) lexical verb ‘give’, (ii) recipient marker ‘to’, (iii) benefactive marker ‘for’, (iv) purpose
marker, (v) permissive marker, (vi) passive marker, (vii) pretransitive disposal marker, (viii) allative
marker, (ix) locative marker ‘at/in’, and (x) temporal marker ‘till’. The Hui varieties covered in this
study generally showcase the syncretism of a minimum of ve of the functions above simultaneously.
Semantic extension, polygrammaticalization, and cooptation are shown to be the major mechanisms
behind the polyfunctionality or polysemy sharing of the morpheme ‘give’. Our study contributes
to the understanding of the role that grammaticalization, especially contact‑induced grammatical‑
ization, plays in forming linguistic areas. In addition, it casts doubt on the basicness of ‘give’ in
assessing the genetic relatedness of languages in the world.
Keywords: give; polygrammaticalizaion; Hui Chinese; semantic extension; areal typology; linguis‑
tic areas
1. Introduction
Grammaticalization is conventionally dened as ‘the change whereby lexical items
and constructions come in certain linguistic contexts to serve grammatical functions, and,
once grammaticalized, continue to develop new grammatical functions’ (Hopper and Trau‑
go 2003, p. 18). Although grammaticalization is traditionally studied as a language‑
internal phenomenon, new ndings from a number of elds, particularly areal typology
(Bisang 1996;Matiso 1991;Ansaldo 1999;Dahl 2004;Eneld 2003;Heine and Kuteva
2003,2005), bilingual development (Mahews and Yip 2009;Szeto et al. 2017,2019), and
creole studies (Arends et al. 1994), have provided abundant evidence to demonstrate that
grammaticalization could result from language‑external factors such as geographical clus‑
tering and substrate inuence. In their seminal work on grammaticalization, Hopper and
Traugo (2003, p. 230) also acknowledge the signicant connection between language
contact and grammaticalization, concluding that ‘Contact has been an important factor
for most languages, and a strictly monogenetic view of grammaticalization is
ultimately inappropriate’.
The morpheme GIVE is among the most well‑studied lexical items in the realm of
grammaticalization. Cross‑linguistically, the lexical verb ‘give’ exhibits an array of distinc‑
tive functions, as identied in Kuteva et al. (2019, pp. 192–203) (Table 1).
Languages 2023,8, 217. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages8030217 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/languages
Languages 2023,8, 217 2 of 25
Table 1. The multiple functions of ‘give’ in the world’s languages (Kuteva et al. 2019, pp. 192–203).
give >
Functions
(1) benefactive
(2) causative
(3) cause
(4) concern
(5) imperative
(6) passive
(7) patient
(8) permission
(9) purpose
(10) recipient
More relevantly, Bisang (2015, pp. 137–39) identies four dierent functions of
ʔ
aoy
‘give’ in Khmer as a coverb, a causative verb, an adverbial subordinator for purpose or
manner, and a complementizer. Yap and Iwasaki (2003) focus on a particular grammatical‑
ization cline of the lexical verb ‘give’, from the permissive–causative function to the pas‑
sive function in many East and Southeast Asian languages, and identify a case of contact‑
induced grammaticalization in Kedah Malay. Mahews and Yip (2009) further conrm
the high likelihood of this case of contact‑induced grammaticalization, with data from
Cantonese–English bilingual acquisition of the dierent functions of the lexical verb ‘give’,
and the areality of such a pathway in Southern Sinitic varieties.
Regarding Sinitic languages, Tsao (1988), Lai (2001), Chin (2011), Ngai (2015), and Lu
and Hui (2023), among others, have provided comprehensive insights into the polyfunca‑
tionality of the morpheme GIVE in varieties south of the Yange River, namely Taiwanese
Southern Min, Hakka, Cantonese, Shaowu, and Tunxi Hui, respectively. These studies
reveal that the morpheme GIVE serves six to nine concomitant functions in these Sinitic
varieties, with all of them sharing the function of a passive marker, suggesting a paern of
areal distribution induced by language contact.
In light of the complexity and the possibility of areal distribution of functions of the
morpheme GIVE, this paper sets out to provide a micro‑typological study on a group of
lesser‑known Sinitic languages situated in the central transitional region of China (Chap‑
pell 2015;Szeto and Yurayong 2021). By investigating the forms and functions of the mor‑
pheme GIVE in 27 datapoints of Hui Chinese, we aim to nd out the following:
(i) What are the forms of the lexical verb ‘give’ in each of the datapoints? Why should
they dier so greatly from each other?
(ii) What are the functions of the morpheme GIVE in each datapoint of Hui Chinese?
What is the mechanism of such radical polyfunctionality of ‘give’?
By answering these questions, we hope to shed light on the mechanism of grammati‑
calization of GIVE cross‑linguistically, and further enrich our understanding of the lexeme
GIVE, one of the most ‘basic’ lexical items in human cognition.
2. Data Collection and Hui Chinese
In this study, 27 samples of Hui Chinese (Figure 1)1are assembled, including primary
and secondary data, covering all the ve subgroups of Hui scaering over Southern Anhui
Province, Northeastern Jiangxi Province, and Western Zhejiang Province (Figure 2) south
of the Yange River. In collecting primary data, both linguistic elicitation and natural
linguistic recordings are used. Unless otherwise indicated, all examples presented in this
study are primary data collected from the eld. Data from the literature are glossed and
translated by the authors if no such gloss or translation is given in the original work.
Languages 2023,8, 217 3 of 25
Languages 2023, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 26
Figure 1. Twenty-seven Datapoints of Hui Chinese.
Figure 2. Map of Sinitic languages. (Source: Wikimedia Commons n.d.)
Before delving into the study of the morpheme GIVE, we would like to provide a
brief introduction to Hui Chinese. As one of the least-studied groups of Sinitic languages,
Hui Chinese varieties (circled in red in Figure 2) are mainly spoken in the Lower Yangtze
River area of China, including Southern Anhui Province, Northeastern Jiangxi Province,
and part of Western Zhejiang Province, with approximately 3.2 million speakers (Zhao
2005). In the literature, Hui ‘dialects’ used to be classified either as a subgroup of Manda-
rin, e.g., Xiajiang Mandarin (Li [1937] 1973), Huining Mandarin (Wang 1955), or Jianghuai
Mandarin (Zhan 1981), or a subgroup of Wu Chinese (Cao 2002; Zhao 2004). It was not
until the first edition of the Language Atlas of China (Wurm et al. 1987) that Hui Chinese
Figure 1. Twenty‑seven Datapoints of Hui Chinese.
Languages 2023, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 26
Figure 1. Twenty-seven Datapoints of Hui Chinese.
Figure 2. Map of Sinitic languages. (Source: Wikimedia Commons n.d.)
Before delving into the study of the morpheme GIVE, we would like to provide a
brief introduction to Hui Chinese. As one of the least-studied groups of Sinitic languages,
Hui Chinese varieties (circled in red in Figure 2) are mainly spoken in the Lower Yangtze
River area of China, including Southern Anhui Province, Northeastern Jiangxi Province,
and part of Western Zhejiang Province, with approximately 3.2 million speakers (Zhao
2005). In the literature, Hui ‘dialects’ used to be classified either as a subgroup of Manda-
rin, e.g., Xiajiang Mandarin (Li [1937] 1973), Huining Mandarin (Wang 1955), or Jianghuai
Mandarin (Zhan 1981), or a subgroup of Wu Chinese (Cao 2002; Zhao 2004). It was not
until the first edition of the Language Atlas of China (Wurm et al. 1987) that Hui Chinese
Figure 2. Map of Sinitic languages. (Source: Wikimedia Commons n.d.)
Languages 2023,8, 217 4 of 25
Before delving into the study of the morpheme GIVE, we would like to provide a brief
introduction to Hui Chinese. As one of the least‑studied groups of Sinitic languages, Hui
Chinese varieties (circled in red in Figure 2) are mainly spoken in the Lower Yange River
area of China, including Southern Anhui Province, Northeastern Jiangxi Province, and part
of Western Zhejiang Province, with approximately 3.2 million speakers (Zhao 2005). In the
literature, Hui ‘dialects’ used to be classied either as a subgroup of Mandarin, e.g., Xia‑
jiang Mandarin (Li [1937] 1973), Huining Mandarin (Wang 1955), or Jianghuai Mandarin
(Zhan 1981), or a subgroup of Wu Chinese (Cao 2002;Zhao 2004). It was not until the rst
edition of the Language Atlas of China (Wurm et al. 1987) that Hui Chinese was categorized
as an independent group of Sinitic with ve subgroups. In the second edition of the Lan‑
guage Atlas of China (Zhang 2012), Hui Chinese retains its status as an independent group
of Sinitic languages, albeit with a rened grouping of subgroups, namely Xiu‑yi, Ji‑she,
Jing‑zhan, Xi‑wu, and Yanzhou (Figure 3).
Languages 2023, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 26
was categorized as an independent group of Sinitic with five subgroups. In the second
edition of the Language Atlas of China (Zhang 2012), Hui Chinese retains its status as an
independent group of Sinitic languages, albeit with a refined grouping of subgroups,
namely Xiu-yi, Ji-she, Jing-zhan, Xi-wu, and Yanzhou (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Phylogenetic affiliation of Hui Chinese (adapted from Lu 2018, p. 5).
The history of Hui Chinese can be traced back to bai-yue 百越 ‘hundreds of Yue
tribes’. In Chinese historiography, bai-yue conventionally refers to non-Sinitic tribes who
are believed to be ancestral to the present-day speakers of Tai-Kadai, Hmong-Mien, and
Austroasiatic languages (Li 1994; Meacham 1996; LaPolla 2001). The ancient residents of
the present-day Hui region belonged to a particular branch of bai-yue known as shan-yue
山越 ‘mountain Yue tribes’; they were probably either ancestral inhabitants of the Hui
regions or had reached northward from the Far South to the Yangtze River and resided in
the chains of undulating hills in the Hui regions in ancient times. Such a hilly geographical
condition contributes to the substantial level of internal diversity observed between sub-
groups, which is further reinforced by continuous waves of war-induced, disaster-driven,
or government-initiated migrations since the West Jin Dynasty, especially from the Cen-
tral Plains proper (Coblin 2002; Meng 2005). It was manifested in Huizhou Fuzhi 徽州府志
‘A history of the Huizhou Provincial Capital’ in the Ming Dynasty that 六邑之語不能相
通 ‘The languages of the six counties under the Huizhou Provincial Capital are mutually
unintelligible’.
Despite the observable diversity, there are still features that ‘unite’ Hui varieties as a
group and distinguish themselves as transitional varieties, with both intermediate fea-
tures between Northern and Southern Sinitic languages, as well as unique features found
only in Hui Chinese. Zhengzhang (1986, pp. 13–14) and Zhao (2005, pp. 279–82) summa-
rize the phonological characteristics of Hui varieties that categorize themselves as distinct
from neighboring groups of Chinese as follows. Firstly, all voiced consonants in Medieval
Chinese have become devoiced. A two-way contrast is present between voiced and voice-
less aspirated and voiceless unaspirated affricates and stops in most varieties of Hui. In
other words, the three-term distinction between voiced aspirated, voiceless aspirated, and
voiceless unaspirated affricates and stops, as demonstrated in the adjacent Wu Chinese
varieties, is not shown. Secondly, rhymes with the nasal coda /ŋ/ or with the nucleus end-
ing with /i/ or /u/ have gradually dropped their codas. Thirdly, rising tones with voiced
initials have tended to gradually change into lower rising tones with voiceless initials.
Finally, regarding tones, Hui varieties record an average of six tones, mostly with a glot-
talized checked tone, albeit somehow weakened. Among these features, the number of
tones demonstrates the transitionality of Hui Chinese, as Northern Sinitic languages gen-
erally have three to four tones, except for some extreme cases, e.g., Wutun, a radically
Figure 3. Phylogenetic aliation of Hui Chinese (adapted from Lu 2018, p. 5).
The history of Hui Chinese can be traced back to bai‑yue 百越 ‘hundreds of Yue tribes’.
In Chinese historiography, bai‑yue conventionally refers to non‑Sinitic tribes who are be‑
lieved to be ancestral to the present‑day speakers of Tai‑Kadai, Hmong‑Mien, and Aus‑
troasiatic languages (Li 1994;Meacham 1996;LaPolla 2001). The ancient residents of the
present‑day Hui region belonged to a particular branch of bai‑yue known as shan‑yue 山越
‘mountain Yue tribes’; they were probably either ancestral inhabitants of the Hui regions
or had reached northward from the Far South to the Yange River and resided in the
chains of undulating hills in the Hui regions in ancient times. Such a hilly geographical
condition contributes to the substantial level of internal diversity observed between sub‑
groups, which is further reinforced by continuous waves of war‑induced, disaster‑driven,
or government‑initiated migrations since the West Jin Dynasty, especially from the Cen‑
tral Plains proper (Coblin 2002;Meng 2005). It was manifested in Huizhou Fuzhi 徽州府志
‘A history of the Huizhou Provincial Capital’ in the Ming Dynasty that 六邑之語不能相通
‘The languages of the six counties under the Huizhou Provincial Capital are
mutually unintelligible’.
Despite the observable diversity, there are still features that ‘unite’ Hui varieties as a
group and distinguish themselves as transitional varieties, with both intermediate features
between Northern and Southern Sinitic languages, as well as unique features found only
in Hui Chinese. Zhengzhang (1986, pp. 13–14) and Zhao (2005, pp. 279–82) summarize
the phonological characteristics of Hui varieties that categorize themselves as distinct from
neighboring groups of Chinese as follows. Firstly, all voiced consonants in Medieval Chi‑
nese have become devoiced. A two‑way contrast is present between voiced and voiceless
Languages 2023,8, 217 5 of 25
aspirated and voiceless unaspirated aricates and stops in most varieties of Hui. In other
words, the three‑term distinction between voiced aspirated, voiceless aspirated, and voice‑
less unaspirated aricates and stops, as demonstrated in the adjacent Wu Chinese varieties,
is not shown. Secondly, rhymes with the nasal coda /ŋ/ or with the nucleus ending with /i/
or /u/ have gradually dropped their codas. Thirdly, rising tones with voiced initials have
tended to gradually change into lower rising tones with voiceless initials. Finally, regard‑
ing tones, Hui varieties record an average of six tones, mostly with a gloalized checked
tone, albeit somehow weakened. Among these features, the number of tones demonstrates
the transitionality of Hui Chinese, as Northern Sinitic languages generally have three to
four tones, except for some extreme cases, e.g., Wutun, a radically restructured variety of
Northwest Mandarin, which has lost all of its tones due to contact with Amdo Tibetan and
Bonan (Sandman 2016); meanwhile, Southern Sinitic languages generally have six to nine
tones, including checked tones, as in varieties of Yue and Min. The existence and distri‑
bution of checked tones are yet another indication of Hui’s transitionality. The checked
tones, literally syllables ending with stops /p/, /t/, and /k/ in Medieval Chinese, are fully
preserved in Southern varieties like Yue and Hakka, but totally lost in Northern Mandarin.
Hui Chinese, on the other hand, generally manages to preserve a merged version of the
nal stops, a gloalized /ʔ/, although the degree to which it is preserved varies across dif‑
ferent varieties.
Morpho‑syntactically, Hui Chinese displays ‘transitional’ features intermediate be‑
tween Northern and Southern Sinitic languages, as well as features unique to itself. On
the one hand, regarding the comparative constructions, Hui varieties generally take af‑
ter the Northern type of the ‘Compare’ comparative constructions, i.e., [Marker‑Standard‑
Adjective], in contrast with the Southern type of what Ansaldo (1999) terms as the ‘Surpass’
type, or in Chappell’s (2015) term the ‘Action’ type. On the other hand, unlike Northern
Mandarin varieties, Hui has retained a remarkable number of monosyllabic words from
Medieval Chinese, e.g.,
ɕ
i11 ‘play’ and u
ʔ
5‘house’ in Tunxi Hui, which are either no longer
used, or have been disyllabicized in Standard Mandarin. A head‑initial word order ten‑
dency is widely observed with respect to the relative word order of animal names and
their genders [animal + gender], as well as the verb and the modifying adverb [verb + ad‑
verb], resembling those of many Southern Sinitic languages, e.g., Cantonese. Nevertheless,
this tendency has been gradually replaced in recent years with the opposite head‑nal ten‑
dency, in co‑existing paerns [animal + gender] or [gender + animal], or double‑marking
constructions, e.g., [
ʦ
ә42 ‘again’
ʨʰiʔ
5‘eat’ i11‑5 ‘one’
u:ә
31 ‘bowl’
tʰiɛ
11 ‘again’], under the
overwhelming inuence of Standard Mandarin. In addition, as has been pointed out in
Lu (2018) and Lu and Hui (2023), some Hui Chinese varieties such as Tunxi Hui employs
the ‘give’‑passive, generally regarded as a feature of many Southern Sinitic and Mainland
Southeast Asian languages (Hashimoto 1988;Yap and Iwasaki 2007;Chappell 2015;Szeto
2019, among others). However, given the complexity and internal diversity of Hui Chinese,
it is worthwhile to explore more Hui varieties on the lexical sources of passive markers.
After having provided a sketch of the typology of Hui Chinese, our aention will
shift to examining the unique forms and functions of a specic morpheme, namely GIVE,
in various varieties of Hui Chinese.
3. The Distinct Forms of GIVE in Hui Chinese
Although belonging to the same ‘dialect group’ of Sinitic languages, the ‘basic’ mor‑
pheme GIVE of dierent varieties of Hui Chinese varies considerably from each other.
Their forms are listed below in Table 2.
Languages 2023,8, 217 6 of 25
Table 2. Forms of ‘give’ in varieties of Hui Chinese2.
Datapoint of Hui
Varieties Subgroup Forms of GIVE Reconstructed Etymon
Xianggao 向杲 Jishe k
ɤ
35 or kei35 *kuo1 or *kuo5 ‘give’ 過
Huayang 華陽 Jishe x
ɑ
53 ?
Jingzhou 荊州 Jishe x
ɛ
35 ?
Sanyang 三陽 Jishe x
ɐ
33 or x
ɑ
n33 ?
Chengkan 呈坎 Jishe x
ɛ
42 ?
Daguyun 大穀運 Jishe x
ɤ
31 ?
Tangkou 湯口 Jishe x
ɑ
31 ?
Huicheng 徽城 Jishe xe31 ?
Hongtan 宏潭 Xiuyi x
ɐ
55 ?
Haiyang 海陽 Xiuyi te55 *diai6 ‘pass’ 遞
Xikou 溪口 Xiuyi ti55 *diai6 ‘pass’ 遞
Tunxi 屯溪 Xiuyi ti42 *diai6 ‘pass’ 遞
Liukou 流口 Xiuyi p
ɤ
33 *pi3 ‘give’ 畀or *pi6 ‘have’ 比
Biyang 碧陽 Xiuyi p
ɛ
i31 *pi3 ‘give’ 畀or *pi6 ‘have’ 比
Qishan 祁山 Qiwu f
ɑ
11 *fun1 ‘distribute’ 分
Ruokeng 箬坑 Qiwu fÃ11 *fun1 ‘distribute’ 分
Ziyang 紫陽 Qiwu tom44 *ton1 ‘hold’ 端
Jiuchengcun 舊城村 Qiwu to55 *ton1 ‘hold’ 端
Kengtou 坑頭 Qiwu kA52 *kip7 ‘give’ 給
Qiukou 秋口 Qiwu k
ɑ
55 *kip7 ‘give’ 給
Anling 安淩 Jingzhan x
ɛ
21 ?
Jingde 旌德 Jingzhan pæ213 *pa3 ‘hold’ 把
Zhanda 占大 Jingzhan p
ɔ
35 *pa3 ‘hold’ 把
Suian 遂安 Yanzhou n422 *in4 ‘stretch’ 引
Jiande 建德 Yanzhou po55 *pa3 ‘hold’ 把
Shouchang 壽昌 Yanzhou nuә11 *na2 ‘take’ 拿
Chun’an 淳安 Yanzhou l
ɑ
53 *na2 ‘take’ 拿
Note: * suggests reconstructed form in historical linguistics.
When examining the forms of ‘give’ in these Hui varieties, we can identify no fewer
than ten distinct forms of the lexical verb ‘give’ in the eld (refer to the column ‘Forms of
GIVE’ in Table 2), despite the relatively small size of the Hui region (around 25,000 km2)
(Zhao 2012), plus the genetic and geographical proximity of these varieties. It is indeed
striking because the lexical item GIVE is conventionally used to evaluate the genetic relat‑
edness of languages, which is included not only in the intuition‑based Swadesh 100‑ and
200‑word lists (Swadesh 1951,1955), but also the empirically‑based Leipzig‑Jakarta list
(Tadmor 2009). Therefore, why should these genetically closely related languages of Hui
Chinese dier extensively from each other with regard to such a basic lexical item? What
is the nature of this variation within the class of these GIVE verbs?
While Hui Chinese lacks a writing system, Hui and Lu (2023) have conducted phono‑
logical reconstructions based on the Common Dialectal Chinese (CDC) proposed by Nor‑
man (2006) to restore the etymons of these so‑alleged GIVE verbs. Based on their ndings,
we are able to classify these ten dierent forms of GIVE into three types of etymon verbs
(refer to the column ‘Reconstructed Etymon’ in Table 2), which are all closely related to the
prototypical ditransitive verb ‘give’, according to Malchukov et al.’s (2010, p. 55) semantic
map of ditransitive verbs:
(i) GIVE‑type verb of caused possession, such as *kuo1 or *kuo5 ‘give’ [+give, + manner],
*fun1 ‘distribute’ [+give, +manner], *pi6 ‘give’ [+give, ‑manner] or kip7 ‘give’ [+give,
‑manner];
(ii) SEND‑type verbs of caused motion in an ‘allative path’ (Malchukov et al. 2010, p. 54),
such as *diai6 ‘pass’ [+send, +manner];
Languages 2023,8, 217 7 of 25
(iii) TAKE‑type verbs in an ‘instrumental path’ (Malchukov et al. 2010, p. 54), such as
*pa3 ‘hold’ [+take, +manner], *na1 ‘take’ [+take, +manner] and *in4 ‘stretch’ [+take,
+manner].
The distinctive etymons of modern Hui varieties play an important role in explaining
such radical cases of polygrammaticalization or grammaticalization chains (Craig 1991;
Heine et al. 1991) of ‘give’, according to the ‘persistence’ principle of grammaticalization,
when some reminiscence of the original forms is likely to retain (Hopper 1991). We will
discuss this point further in Section 5.
Having looked at its forms, we will now turn to the functional distribution of the
lexical verb ‘give’ in these datapoints.
4. The Polyfunctionality of GIVE in Hui Chinese
One of the features of Sinitic grammaticalization lies in the syncretism of dierent
grammatical functions (Mahews and Yip 2009;Ansaldo et al. 2018). In our investigation,
the lexical verb ‘give’ in these Hui varieties also co‑exists with all of its grammaticalized
forms. Aside from semantic bleaching, phonological reduction is sometimes observed,
although it may be more evident in some grammaticalized forms than others in certain
Hui varieties.
In sum, we identify a total of ten concomitant functions of the lexical verb GIVE in
27 varieties of Hui Chinese (The Supplementary Material Table S1, namely (i) the lexical
verb ‘give’, (ii) recipient marker ‘to’, (iii) benefactive marker ‘for’, (iv) purpose marker,
(v) permissive marker, (vi) passive marker, (vii) pretransitive disposal marker, (viii) alla‑
tive marker, (ix) locative marker ‘at/in’, and (x) temporal marker ‘till’. Among these func‑
tions, the last three functions are lile discussed in the literature. Given the density of
‘polysemy sharing’ (Chappell and Lü 2022) in a comparatively small geographical area,
we cannot help but wonder what the relationships between these distinctive functions are
and why some functions are missing in certain Hui varieties. We will start with a descrip‑
tive analysis of these functions, before providing explanations.
4.1. Lexical Verb GIVE
The morphemes of GIVE listed in Table 2can all be used in an unmarked double
object construction [SUBJ give OBJRpt OBJTh] in Example (1)3. An alternation in a marked
indirect ditransitive construction, equivalent to the ‘dative shift’ in English, is aested in
most Hui varieties, too, as illustrated in Example (2).
(1) Shexian (Daguyun) Hui (Chen 2013, p. 155)
x
ɣ
31
ɑ
35 i42 pәŋ35
ɕ
y31.
give 1SG one CLF book
‘Give me a book.’
(2) Tunxi Hui
ɑ
24
ʨ
hiu5i
ɑ
44
ʦʰ
o11⁻21
ȵ
ie11 ti42‑
ʨ
hio li
ɑ
u24 l
ɔ
44
ʨ
ie11‑
ʦɿ
31
1.SG uncle yesterday give‑PFV two CLF chick‑egg
‘My uncle (on my mom’s side) gave two baskets of eggs…’
ti42
ɑ
24i
ɑ
n44.
RPT 1PL
‘…to me yesterday.’
What is worth pointing out is that while most Hui varieties in our investigation adopt
the Standard Mandarin type of unmarked double object construction [SUBJ give OBJRpt
OBJTh] in Example (1), some Hui varieties, like Shouchang Hui, showcase an opposite
word order of the recipient and the theme in Example (3b) like the Cantonese type [SUBJ
give OBJTh OBJRpt] (Chin 2011;Mahews and Yip 2011), in addition to the type shown
in Example (3a). The relative word order of these two variants of the double object con‑
struction, i.e., the IO‑DO order in ditransitives, is conventionally regarded as a parameter
Languages 2023,8, 217 8 of 25
of the North–South division between Sinitic languages (Hashimoto 1976). The fact that
Shouchang Hui allows exible linear word order of the recipient and the theme in Exam‑
ples (3a) and (3b) suggests possible language contact in its historical development.
(3) Shouchang Hui (Cao 1997, p. 320–21)
a. nuә11
ʦɑ
52 iә
ʔ
3pen24
ɕ
y112!
give 1SG one CLF book
‘Give me a book.’
Or
b. nuә11 iә
ʔ
3pen24
ɕ
y112
ʦɑ
52.
give one CLF book 1SG
‘Give me a book.’
4.2. GIVE as a Recipient Marker
The recipient function of the lexical verb ‘give’ is one of the most commonly aested
instances of the semantic shift of GIVE. In our study, the GIVE morpheme in all Hui vari‑
eties has a recipient marking function, too, exemplied by the morpheme f
ɑ
11 ‘give/RPT’ in
Qimen Hui (Example (4)). Besides Sinitic languages, this function is documented in West
African languages such as Akan (Example (5)), Ewe, and Yoruba, and Mainland Southeast
Asian languages like Thai, Malay, and Vietnamese (Lord et al. 2002).
(4) Qimen Hui (Hirata 1998, p. 300)
f
ɑ
11 n
ɔ
35 k
ɔ
⁰ m
ɑ
33 n
ɑ
11 f
ɑ
11
ʂɯ
:ә42.
DIS that CLF thing bring RPT 1SG
‘Bring that to me.’
(5) Akan (Lord et al. 2002, p. 219)
me‑t
ɔ
‑
ɔ
b
ɔɔ
l no ma‑a no.
I‑throw‑PST Ball DEF give‑PST him
‘I threw the ball at him’.
4.3. GIVE as a Benefactive Marker
The benefactive function of GIVE is sometimes discussed together with the recipient
function in the literature. Newman (1996) and Lord et al. (2002) account for their relevance
in that the recipient can potentially benet from the act of giving; thus, a ‘benefactive’ read‑
ing can sometimes apply to a recipient. Example (6) (Lord et al. 2002, p. 220) demonstrates
such a case in Thai, in which the morpheme GIVE can be interpreted both as a recipient
and a benefactive marker.
(6) Thai (Lord et al. 2002, p. 220)
chán kh
ǐ
an cotmˇ
aay h
Languages 2023, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 26
b.
nuə¹¹
iə
ʔ
³
pen²⁴
ɕ
y¹¹²
ʦ
ɑ⁵².
give
one
CLF
book
1SG
‘Give me a book.’
4.2. GIVE as a Recipient Marker
The recipient function of the lexical verb ‘give’ is one of the most commonly attested
instances of the semantic shift of GIVE. In our study, the GIVE morpheme in all Hui vari-
eties has a recipient marking function, too, exemplified by the morpheme fɑ11 ‘give/RPT’
in Qimen Hui (Example (4)). Besides Sinitic languages, this function is documented in
West African languages such as Akan (Example (5)), Ewe, and Yoruba, and Mainland
Southeast Asian languages like Thai, Malay, and Vietnamese (Lord et al. 2002).
(4) Qimen Hui (Hirata 1998, p. 300)
fɑ11
n
ɔ
³⁵
k
ɔ
⁰
mɑ³³
nɑ¹¹
fɑ11
ʂɯ
:ə⁴².
DIS
that
CLF
thing
bring
RPT
1SG
‘Bring that to me.’
(5) Akan (Lord et al. 2002, p. 219)
me-t
ɔ
-
ɔ
b
ɔɔ
l
no
ma-a
no.
I-throw-PST
Ball
DEF
give-PST
him
‘I threw the ball at him’.
4.3. GIVE as a Benefactive Marker
The benefactive function of GIVE is sometimes discussed together with the recipient
function in the literature. Newman (1996) and Lord et al. (2002) account for their relevance
in that the recipient can potentially benefit from the act of giving; thus, a ‘benefactive’
reading can sometimes apply to a recipient. Example (6) (Lord et al. 2002, p. 220) demon-
strates such a case in Thai, in which the morpheme GIVE can be interpreted both as a
recipient and a benefactive marker.
(6) Thai (Lord et al. 2002, p. 220)
chán
khǐan
cotmay
H â y
kháw
(4)
I
write
letter
give
he
‘I wrote a letter for him/to him.’
Despite a difference in terminology, what we would like to refer to as a ‘benefactive
marker’ in this study is not the post-verbal recipient/benefactive marker, but the pre-ver-
bal benefactive marker in the construction [NP1 BEN NP2 VP], like yu ‘give’ in Medieval
Chinese (Example (7)).
(7) Medieval Chinese yu ‘BEN’ (Sun 1996, p. 22)
yu
lao
seng
guo
jing
shui-ping
for
old
monk
pass
clean
water-bottle
‘(Someone) rinsed the bottle clean for the old monk.’
This type of pre-verbal benefactive construction is commonly observed in peripheral
Hui varieties, i.e., the Jing-zhan and Yanzhou subgroups of Hui, e.g., Jingde Hui, Zhanda
Hui, Suian Hui, Jiande Hui, and Chun’an Hui. It is also possible in one central Hui variety,
namely Biyang Hui of the Xiyi Group. An example from Jiande Hui is shown below.
(8) Jiande Hui (Cao 2017, p. 280)
po55
ɑŋ213
ɕ
ie55
fɑom423
ɕ
in334.
BEN
1SG
write
CLF
letter
ykháw (4)
I write leer give he
‘I wrote a leer for him/to him.’
Despite a dierence in terminology, what we would like to refer to as a ‘benefactive
marker’ in this study is not the post‑verbal recipient/benefactive marker, but the pre‑verbal
benefactive marker in the construction [NP1BEN NP2VP], like yu ‘give’ in Medieval Chi‑
nese (Example (7)).
(7) Medieval Chinese yu ‘BEN’ (Sun 1996, p. 22)
yu lao seng guo jing shui‑ping
for old monk pass clean water‑bole
‘(Someone) rinsed the bole clean for the old monk.’
This type of pre‑verbal benefactive construction is commonly observed in peripheral
Hui varieties, i.e., the Jing‑zhan and Yanzhou subgroups of Hui, e.g., Jingde Hui, Zhanda
Hui, Suian Hui, Jiande Hui, and Chun’an Hui. It is also possible in one central Hui variety,
namely Biyang Hui of the Xiyi Group. An example from Jiande Hui is shown below.
Languages 2023,8, 217 9 of 25
(8) Jiande Hui (Cao 2017, p. 280)
po55
ɑ
ŋ213
ɕ
ie55 f
ɑ
om423
ɕ
in334.
BEN 1SG write CLF leer
‘Write a leer for me.’ (po55 = ‘give’)
4.4. Give as a Purpose Marker
Another function pertinent to the recipient marker is the purpose function. It is some‑
times termed a complementizer (Bisang 1996;Lai 2001). Due to the fact that Hui varieties
generally lack overt morphological marking for syntactic relationships, we opt to use the
term ‘purpose marker’ instead of ‘complementizer’ to emphasize its cognitive schema.
Since the recipient phrase ‘to somebody’ naturally represents the goal of a giving act,
which can then be further extended from a person (‘to somebody’) to an event (‘for some‑
body to do something’), it is not surprising that the same GIVE morpheme for the recipient
can also be employed to mark purpose by way of verb serialization, a highly productive
strategy in West African languages and Mainland Southeast Asian languages, including
Sinitic languages. Although our investigation and the existing literature only oer con‑
crete examples of purpose marking in Tunxi Hui (9) and Wuyuan Hui, we can reasonably
infer that this function is likely present in all Hui varieties based on comparative linguistic
data from other Sinitic languages like Hakka (Lai 2001) and Cantonese (Chin 2011).
(9) Tunxi Hui
pu11‑21 in 11 lәn24 fuә11 ti42
ɑ
24
ʨʰ
i
ʔ
5,
NEG need make rice PURP 1SG eat
‘No need to cook for me.’
ɑ
24
ʨ
i
ɑ
u24mi
ɛ
11
ʨʰ
i
ʔ
5liu24
ʨʰ
io.
1SG just now eat ANT SFP
‘I just had something.’
4.5. GIVE as a Permissive Marker
Permission is another widely adopted function of the morpheme GIVE in Hui Chinese.
Out of 27 datapoints, the GIVE morphemes in 24 Hui varieties share the identical form with
their permissive markers, except for Suian Hui, Chun’an Hui, and Shouchang Hui of the
Yanzhou subgroup. An example in Tunxi Hui is demonstrated in Example (10).
(10) Tunxi Hui
n
44 p
ɑ
24 pu11 ti42
ɑ
24 kә
ʔ
5n
44 k
ɑ
u42.
2SG dad NEG PERM 1SG COV.with 2SG talk
‘Your dad doesn’t allow me to tell you.’ (ti42 = ‘give’)
4.6. GIVE as a Passive Marker
A related function of permission in Hui Chinese is the passives. The distribution
of passive markers showcases an areal paern that overlaps with that of the permissive
marker mentioned above (Figure 4)5. In other words, a polysemy ‘split’ (Stassen 1997;
Koch 2012;Chappell and Lü 2022) is aested in 27 Hui varieties, where the majority (24/27)
make use of the same morpheme for GIVE, PERMISSIVE and PASSIVE, whereas among
the three exceptions, Chun’an Hui and Suian Hui employ the SUFFER‑type passives
iә24/ts
ʰ
ә31 ‘meet, suer’ and f
ɑ
422 ‘aack/suer’, respectively, and Shouchang Hui adopts
the CAUSATIVE‑type of passives i
ɑ
33 ‘causative’.
Languages 2023,8, 217 10 of 25
Languages 2023, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 26
Figure 4. Distribution of passive markers in Hui Varieties of Sinitic languages.
Examples (11) to (15) demonstrate the GIVE-passive, SUFFER-passive, and CAUSA-
TIVE-passive in four different Hui datapoints.
(11) Daguyun Hui (GIVE-passive) (Chen 2013, p. 158)
nɑ³³
ʨ
i
⁴
² uɑ³⁵ x
ɤ
³¹ kei⁵⁵
that CLF bowl PASS 3SG
‘That bowl was broken…’
tɑ³⁵-⁵⁵ pʰo²¹⁴ tʰɑ⁴² li.
hit broken RVC SFP
‘…by him/her.’ (x
ɤ
³¹= ‘give’)
(12) Jiande Hui (GIVE-passive) (Cao 2017, p. 330)
mə
ʔ
2
ʦ
aɑ⁵⁵ u
ɛ
²¹³ po⁵
⁵
ki³³⁴ k
ɔ
⁴
² pʰɑ²¹³ pə
ʔ
⁵.
that CLF bowl PASS 3SG hit RVC SFP
‘That bowl was broken by him/her’. (po⁵⁵ = ‘give’)
(13) Chun’an Hui (SUFFER-passive) (Cao 2017, p. 330)
len24 kɑ0 uɑ55 tshə31/iə24 kh
ɯ
445 tɑ
ʔ
5 pʰɑ24 pɑ0.
that CLF bowl PASS 3SG break RVC SFP
‘That bowl was broken by him/her’. (tshə31/iə24 = ‘suffer’)
(14) Suian Hui (SUFFER-passive) (Cao 2017, p. 330)
i33 k
ɛ
422 uɑ213 fɑ422 kh
ɯ
33 tɑ24 pʰɑ55 l
ɛ
0.
that CLF bowl PASS 3SG break RVC SFP
‘That bowl was broken by him/her’. (fɑ422 = ‘suffer’)
(15) Shouchang Hui (CAUSATIVE-passive) (Cao 2017, p. 330)
mi24 kɑ33 ŋuə24 iɑ33 kə
ɯ
52 kʰ
ɤ
11 pʰɑ33 pɑ0.
that CLF bowl PASS 3SG break RVC SFP
‘That bowl was broken by him/her’. (iɑ33 = ‘causative’)
The isolated cases of the SUFFER-passives in Chun’an iə24/tsʰə31 ‘meet, suffer’ and
Suian Hui fɑ422 ‘attack/suffer’ are likely attributable to government-initiated migration.
According to Cao (2002), government-led migration of the Xin’anjiang Reservoir area in
Zhejiang Province has resulted in language enclaves of the original inhabitants, for in-
stance, in Chun’an and Sui’an counties, who used to live near the present-day Xin’anjiang
Figure 4. Distribution of passive markers in Hui Varieties of Sinitic languages.
Examples (11) to (15) demonstrate the GIVE‑passive, SUFFER‑passive, and CAUSA
TIVE‑passive in four dierent Hui datapoints.
(11) Daguyun Hui (GIVE‑passive) (Chen 2013, p. 158)
n
ɑ
33
ʨ
i42 u
ɑ
35 x
ɤ
31 kei55
that CLF bowl PASS 3SG
‘That bowl was broken…’
t
ɑ
35‑55 p
ʰ
o214 t
ʰɑ
42 li.
hit broken RVC SFP
‘…by him/her.’ (x
ɤ
31 = ‘give’)
(12) Jiande Hui (GIVE‑passive) (Cao 2017, p. 330)
mә
ʔ
2
ʦ
a
ɑ
55 u
ɛ
213 po55 ki334 k
ɔ
42 p
ʰɑ
213 p ә
ʔ
5.
that CLF bowl PASS 3SG hit RVC SFP
‘That bowl was broken by him/her’. (po55 = ‘give’)
(13) Chun’an Hui (SUFFER‑passive) (Cao 2017, p. 330)
len24 k
ɑ
0u
ɑ
55 tshә31/iә24 kh
ɯ
445 t
ɑʔ
5p
ʰɑ
24 p
ɑ
0.
that CLF bowl PASS 3SG break RVC SFP
‘That bowl was broken by him/her’. (tshә31/iә24 = ‘suer’)
(14) Suian Hui (SUFFER‑passive) (Cao 2017, p. 330)
i33 k
ɛ
422 u
ɑ
213 f
ɑ
422 kh
ɯ
33 t
ɑ
24 p
ʰɑ
55 l
ɛ
0.
that CLF bowl PASS 3SG break RVC SFP
‘That bowl was broken by him/her’. (f
ɑ
422 = ‘suer’)
(15) Shouchang Hui (CAUSATIVE‑passive) (Cao 2017, p. 330)
mi24 k
ɑ
33 ŋuә24 i
ɑ
33 kә
ɯ
52 k
ʰɤ
11 p
ʰɑ
33 p
ɑ
0.
that CLF bowl PASS 3SG break RVC SFP
‘That bowl was broken by him/her’. (i
ɑ
33 = ‘causative’)
The isolated cases of the SUFFER‑passives in Chun’an iә24 /ts
ʰ
ә31 ‘meet, suer’ and
Suian Hui f
ɑ
422 ‘aack/suer’ are likely aributable to government‑initiated migration.
According to Cao (2002), government‑led migration of the Xin’anjiang Reservoir area in
Zhejiang Province has resulted in language enclaves of the original inhabitants, for in‑
stance, in Chun’an and Sui’an counties, who used to live near the present‑day Xin’anjiang
Reservoir and the Thousand Islands Lake and had to emigrate to and scaer in neighbor‑
ing provinces, Jiangxi in particular. As an exemplication, Cao (1997) postulates that the
geographical and eco‑cultural factors of the Suian Hui account for such an isolated case,
namely mountainous areas, self‑contained transportation, and economy, as well as lack of
Languages 2023,8, 217 11 of 25
education. The CAUSATIVE‑passive in Shouchang Hui, on the other hand, may be due to
language contact with Northern Mandarin varieties, the ‘base camp’ of this type of passive.
We will provide further analysis of the source of agent markers in Hui varieties from
the perspective of language contact and micro‑areal typology in Section 5.
4.7. GIVE as a Pretransitive Disposal Marker
Though the Hui languages under investigation exhibit a canonical SVO word order,
the SOV word order is also plausible via secondary topicalization or a ‘pretransitive con‑
struction’, in which the overly marked object precedes the main verb (Chao 1968;Mahews
and Yip 2008). Pretransitive constructions can be further categorized into the disposal type
and the causative type. A much‑discussed case in Standard Mandarin is bǎ‘PRET’, mark‑
ing either a disposal construction stating how an entity is aected or manipulated (Wang
1947;Li and Thompson 1981), or a causative construction causing an experiencer to experi‑
ence some emotions6. In this study, by disposal marker, we refer to the overt object marker
for the subtype of pretransitive constructions with the semantics of disposal, as compared
to those with the semantics of causation. It is also conventionally termed as the ‘object
marker’ in Chappell (2015). Like the permissive–passive function, we have also observed
a geographical clustering of the distinct semantic sources of pretransitive disposal marker
(Figure 5)7.
Languages 2023, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 26
Figure 5. Areal distribution of distinct sources of the pretransitive disposal marker.
(16) Fuliang Hui (GIVE-disposal) (Xie 2012, p. 104)
n
21 to55 mən24 ko⁵⁵ tɑu²¹.
2SG DIS door close RVC
‘(You) please close the door!’ (to55 = GIVE)
(17) Daguyun Hui (HELP-disposal) (Chen 2013, p. 156)
pa31 na33 ko m
ɣ
33s
ɿ
33 tɑ31 x
ɣ
31 ɑ35 n
ɣ
.
DIS that CLF thing take RPT 1SG SFP
‘(Please) take that thing to me.’ (pa31 = HELP)
(18) Hongtan Hui (HOLD-disposal) (Yuan 2009, p. 117)
n45 n
ɐ
55 pA55
ʃ
iE33 kh
ɔ
213 x
ʌ
31,
2SG need DIS money put RVC
‘(You) Need to put away your money,’ (pA55 = HOLD)
p
ʌ
45 io213 tE45/th
ʌ
45 tio213 lA0.
NEG let fall/take.off RVC SFP
‘Don’t let it drop.’
4.8. GIVE as an Allative Marker
The allative function of GIVE indicating directionality is observed in Tunxi Hui in
our own fieldwork, although this function is presumed to exist in the two adjacent data-
points of Haiyang Hui and Xikou Hui8 as well, with a shared etymon reconstructed as
*diai6 (See Table 2). An example is given in Example (19).
(19) Tunxi Hui
n
⁴
⁴
iɑn⁴
⁴
ʨ
ʰiu¹¹-ȵiɛ44 ti⁴
²
tuə11−21-
ʨ
ʰie¹¹
ɕ
i¹¹ m
ɔ
³¹
ʨ
iɑn
⁴
²
ɕ
i44,
2PL last-year ALL Tunxi play that CLF time
‘When you came to Shanghai for sightseeing last year,’
ɑ²⁴
ʨ
iɛ⁴²xə³¹ pu¹¹
ɕ
i24 k
ɔ
¹¹ li²⁴.
1SG right NEG COV.at home in
‘I happened to be not at home.’
Figure 5. Areal distribution of distinct sources of the pretransitive disposal marker.
Three distinct sources of pretransitive disposal markers are found in 27 Hui varieties,
namely GIVE‑disposals in Example (16), HELP‑disposals in Example (17), and
HOLD/TAKE‑disposals in Example (18). Indigenous Hui groups such as Xiu‑yi and Ji‑she
Hui varieties tend to employ the pretransitive disposal marker grammaticalized from the
lexical verb ‘help’, whereas peripheral Hui groups such as Qi‑wu and Jing‑zhan commonly
make use of grammatical markers developed from the lexical verb ‘give’. Sporadic HOLD‑
type pretransitive markers are also aested in some Hui varieties, especially in the Ji‑she
and Yanzhou Hui subgroups. Notice that the simultaneous use of pretransitive disposal
markers with two or more sources is identied in some varieties, too. For instance, Qishan
Hui, Suian Hui, and Chun’an Hui utilize both GIVE and HOLD disposals, and Liukou Hui
allows both GIVE and HELP disposals, whereas Sanyang Hui and Huicheng Hui employ
both HELP and HOLD disposals. In the extreme case of Haiyang Hui, three lexical sources
co‑exist as pretransitive disposal markers. Chappell (2015) observes a similar phenomenon
in her pan‑Sinitic study on object markers and categorized the GIVE and HELP disposals as
an areal feature for Central Transitional Sinitic languages, including Hui. Our data further
Languages 2023,8, 217 12 of 25
support her observation that the GIVE and HELP disposals may indeed be an innovation
unique to Central Transitional and Southeastern Sinitic languages, including some typical
Hui languages. The co‑occurrence of two or more disposal markers in some varieties, on
the other hand, provides another piece of evidence that the HOLD‑type disposals in these
varieties are likely a ‘borrowed’ form modeled on Standard Mandarin, in competition with
the indigenous pretransitive disposal markers grammaticalized from HELP or GIVE verbs,
as in Qishan Hui, Suian Hui, Chun’an Hui, Liukou Hui, and Haiyang Hui.
(16) Fuliang Hui (GIVE‑disposal) (Xie 2012, p. 104)
n
21 to55 mәn24 ko55 t
ɑ
u21.
2SG DIS door close RVC
‘(You) please close the door!’ (to55 = GIVE)
(17) Daguyun Hui (HELP‑disposal) (Chen 2013, p. 156)
pa31 na33 ko m
ɣ
33s
ɿ
33 t
ɑ
31 x
ɣ
31
ɑ
35 n
ɣ
.
DIS that CLF thing take RPT 1SG SFP
‘(Please) take that thing to me.’ (pa31 = HELP)
(18) Hongtan Hui (HOLD‑disposal) (Yuan 2009, p. 117)
n45 n
ɐ
55 pA55
ʃ
iE33 kh
ɔ
213 x
ʌ
31,
2SG need DIS money put RVC
‘(You) Need to put away your money,’ (pA55 = HOLD)
p
ʌ
45 io213 tE45/th
ʌ
45 tio213 lA0.
NEG let fall/take.o RVC SFP
‘Don’t let it drop.’
4.8. GIVE as an Allative Marker
The allative function of GIVE indicating directionality is observed in Tunxi Hui in our
own eldwork, although this function is presumed to exist in the two adjacent datapoints
of Haiyang Hui and Xikou Hui8as well, with a shared etymon reconstructed as *diai6 (See
Table 2). An example is given in Example (19).
(19) Tunxi Hui
n
44i
ɑ
n44
ʨʰ
iu11‑
ȵ
i
ɛ
44 ti42 tu ә11‑21‑
ʨʰ
ie11
ɕ
i11 m
ɔ
31
ʨ
i
ɑ
n42
ɕ
i44,
2PL last‑year ALL Tunxi play that CLF time
‘When you came to Shanghai for sightseeing last year,’
ɑ
24
ʨ
i
ɛ
42xә31 pu11
ɕ
i24 k
ɔ
11 li24.
1SG right NEG COV.at home in
‘I happened to be not at home.’
4.9. GIVE as a Locative Marker
Another related function of the allative, i.e., locative function is also evident in Tunxi
Hui in Example (20).
(20) Tunxi Hui
A: x
ɛ
44‑le
ʨ
y11 ti42 l
ɑʔ
31‑5li
ɑ
?
PN.red‑DIM live LOC where Q
‘Where does Lile Red live?’
B: khә44
ʨ
y11 ti42 lә
ʔ
24‑5‑k
ɑ
11 mo42li.
3SG live LOC old‑street there
‘She lives near the Old Street.’
A bridging context (Evans and Wilkins 2000;Heine 2002) of the allative and locative
functions is found in Example (21), which can express either the allative function ‘to’ or
the locative function ‘at/in’. However, given a disambiguating context, e.g., whether this
conversation suggests a habitual event with some shared knowledge as in Example (22)
or a specic event, e.g., heading for school in Example (23), both the speaker and hearer
Languages 2023,8, 217 13 of 25
will be able to tell apart the intended function of ti42, which shares the same form with the
lexical verb ‘give’.
(21) Tunxi Hui ti42 ‘ALL/LOC’
n44 ti42 xo
ʔ
11‑5t
ɑ
u44 tso42 tә
ʔ
5‑mә11?
2SG ALL/LOC school do what
‘What are you going to school for?’ or ‘What are you doing at school?’
(22) Tunxi Hui ti42 ‘LOC’
A: n
44 ti42 l
ɑʔ
24‑5li11 tso42 s
ɿ
11
ɑ
?
2SG LOC where do thing Q
‘Where do you work?’
B:
ɑ
24 ti42 xo11t
ɑ
u44 tso42 s
ɿ
11
1SG LOC school do thing
‘I’m working at school.’
A: n
44 ti42 xo
ʔ
11‑5t
ɑ
u44 tso42 tә
ʔ
5‑mә11 s
ɿ
11
ɑ
?
2SG LOC school do what thing Q
‘What do you do at school?’
B: ko24 ue
ʔ
11‑5
ɕ
i
ɛ
11 u
ɑ
11!
do hygiene SFP
‘(I’m) cleaning (at school).’ (‘I am a janitor at school.’)
(23) Tunxi Hui ti42 ‘ALL’
A: n44 ti42 xo
ʔ
11‑5t
ɑ
u44 tso42 tә
ʔ
5‑mә11?
2SG ALL school do what
‘What are you going to school for?’
B: t
ɔ
11 mә11‑21‑s
ɿ
11 u
ɑ
11!
take thing SFP
‘To retrieve something.’
4.10. Give as a Temporal Marker ‘Till’
Like the allative and locative functions, the temporal marking function of the mor‑
pheme GIVE is only aested in Tunxi Hui, as shown in Example (24).
(24) Tunxi Hui
ti42 m
ɛ
44‑ni
ɛ
44
ʦ
ә31 k
ɑ
u31 u
ɛ
31
ǃ
ALL next‑year again talk SFP
‘(Let’s) talk about it next year!’
Another morpheme t
ɛ
31 ‘wait’ is competing with ti42 ‘pass/give’ for the same function
of temporal marking for future events, as shown in Example (25).
(25) Tunxi Hui
t
ɛ
31 m
ɛ
44‑ni
ɛ
44
ʦ
ә31 k
ɑ
u31 u
ɛ
31
ǃ
wait next‑year again talk SFP
‘(Let’s) talk about it next year!’
Although both constructions are found in natural recordings, there is an observed
tendency for speakers to prefer t
ɛ
31 ‘wait’ to ti42 ‘pass/give’ in marking this temporal rela‑
tionship.
For detailed analyses of the allative, locative, and temporal functions of GIVE in Tunxi
Hui, please refer to Lu and Hui (2023).
4.11. Give as an Imperative Marker
The last co‑existing function of GIVE involves six datapoints in our investigation.
When it occurs, it is largely accompanied by the rst‑person singular pronoun ‘1.SG’, i.e.,
‘give‑me’, normally with the subject being the second‑person pronoun, as in Examples (26)
and (27).
Languages 2023,8, 217 14 of 25
(26) Xianggao Hui (Shen 2012, p. 123)
(n
35)(k
ɤ
35‑ŋ
ɔ
35)
ʨʰ
i32 k
ɒ
52
ʦʰ
in22 n
22 u
ɒ
35 f
ɒ
22
ǃ
2SG IMP‑1SG eat clean this CLF rice
‘(You) please nish this bowl of rice!’
(27) Jixi Hui (Zhao 2003, p. 139)
(n213) (po213 ‑
ɔ
213) ku
ɑ
213 tsh
ɣʔ
32 khi35!
2SG IMP‑1SG roll out go
‘(You) get out of here!’
The imperative use of GIVE is not a novel invention of Hui Chinese. As a maer of
fact, it is also present in Mandarin varieties (28), as well as genetically unrelated languages
like Russian (29) and Italian (Kuteva et al. 2019).
(28) Xuzhou varieties of Central Plains Mandarin (Kuteva et al. 2019, p. 198)
ke55 uo213 i213t
ɕ
i35t
ɕʰ
y51.
IMP 1SG stand.up
‘Stand up!’
(29) Russian (Kuteva et al. 2019, p. 197)
Davaj pojdjom v kino! (9)
give.IMP.SG go.1PL in movies
‘Let’s go to the movies!’
In this section, we have provided a descriptive analysis of a multitude of functions
associated with the morpheme GIVE, as well as their distributions in 27 varieties of Hui
Chinese. In the next section, we aim to account for such radical polyfunctionality from the
perspective of semantic extension, polygrammaticalization, and cooptation.
5. Explanation for Polysemy Sharing of GIVE
Semantic extension, polygrammaticalization, and cooptation join hands in shaping
the multiplicity of functions found in the Hui varieties in our study. We will address these
mechanisms one by one.
5.1. Semantic Extension
The distinctive forms of the morphemes for ‘give’ are a notable characteristic in Hui
varieties of Sinitic languages (Table 2). It is unusual to observe such a signicant divergence
in closely related and geographically adjacent language varieties for a presumably basic
concept ‘give’. As an explanation, Zhang (2011) suggests that the ‘give’ verbs in modern
Sinitic languages may not have originated as the prototypical ditransitive verb ‘give’, but
as verbs meaning ‘send’, ‘take’, ‘hold’, etc. Fortunately, phonological reconstructions of
relevant verbs in Hui varieties (Hui and Lu 2023) shed light on their etymons, conrming
their origin as verbs for SEND, TAKE, and HOLD. These verbs have likely extended to
‘give’ both semantically and functionally from a peripheral ‘give’ verb to the prototypical
ditransitive ‘give’ verb, based on a route proposed by Malchukov et al. (2010, p. 55) on
ditransitive verbs.
Parallel to the dierence in forms, there are three functions of GIVE (namely allative,
locative, temporal) that are only observed in Tunxi Hui, and possibly in its neighboring va‑
rieties of Hui Chinese with cognates of ti42. These functions, however, are explicable only if
they were grammaticalized not from GIVE, but from a SEND‑type verb ‘pass’, the etymon
of which Tunxi Hui ti42, Xikou Hui ti55, and Haiyang Hui te55 can be traced back to. This
is because directionality and the sense of ‘goal’ are inherently embedded in the semantics
of ti42 ‘pass’. By extending the concept of goal from a human recipient to a location, PASS
grammaticalizes into an allative marker. From the allative [+location, +direction] function,
a locative function of ti42 ‘at/in’ is developed by losing its semantic feature [+direction].
Lastly, the temporal marking of ti42 ‘to, till’ can be explained with the ‘ubiquity of concep‑
tual transfer from time to space’ (Haspelmath 1997, p. 140) aested cross‑linguistically, as
Languages 2023,8, 217 15 of 25
ti42 ‘to, towards’, an allative in location, can be extended to ti42 ‘to, till’, an allative in time.
A detailed analysis of this grammaticalization chain can be found in Lu and Hui (2023).
To summarize, the lexical verb corresponding to the sense of GIVE may have been
missing in Hui Chinese. Instead, SEND‑type verbs like ti42,te55, and ti55 with the etymon
*diai6 ‘pass’ [+send, +manner], and TAKE‑type verbs like tom44,to55,n422,nuә11, and la53
with the etymons *ton1 ‘hold’, *pa3 ‘hold’, *in4 ‘stretch’, and *na2 ‘take’ may have emerged
as winners in the competition against other verbs with similar semantics. Through seman‑
tic extension, these verbs gradually took over both the meaning and the function of the
prototypical ditransitive verb ‘give’ in each of the Hui varieties.
Following this semantic extension from SEND or TAKE to GIVE, separate grammat‑
icalization pathways emerge, including one grammaticalization cline starting from SEND
and leading to the development of an allative marker before further evolving into locative
or temporal markers, and the multiple grammaticalization clines in relation to GIVE. In
the next section, we will discuss the mechanism of these grammaticalization pathways in
greater detail.
5.2. Polygrammaticalization
Besides semantic extension, grammaticalization can account for the majority of the
multiple functions of GIVE in our study of Hui varieties. There are ve separate grammat‑
icalization clines that can be identied among the ten functions of ‘give’ in this study:
1. Lexical verb ‘give’ > Benefactive ‘for’
2. Lexical verb ‘give’ > Recipient ‘to’
3. Lexical verb ‘give’ > Recipient ‘to’ > Purpose marker
4. Lexical verb ‘give’ > Recipient ‘to’ > Pretransitive disposal marker
5. Lexical verb ‘give’ > Causative‑Permissive > Passive
To begin with, the lexical verb ‘give’ can also function as a benefactive marker, as dis‑
cussed in Newman’s (1996) cognitive analysis of ‘give’. This function becomes apparent
when ‘give’ collocates with ‘donary verbs’, as the prototypical sense of giving inherently
carries a nuance of beneting (Newman 1996, pp. 218–19). This grammaticalization path‑
way is also reported in the World Lexicon of Grammaticalization (Kuteva et al. 2019).
The next grammaticalization cline (ii) from the lexical verb ‘give’ to the recipient ‘to’
is also widely aested cross‑linguistically. It is not only a pan‑Sinitic phenomenon, but is
also well‑established in languages of West Africa and East and Southeast Asia (Lord et al.
2002). During this process, the semantics of the lexical verb ‘give’ are bleached. Hence,
the lexical verb ‘give’ is decategorized into a functional category, i.e., a ‘coverb’ (Mahews
and Yip 2011) or preposition by reanalysis via serial verb constructions [give NPth RPT
marker NPrpt].
From the recipient marker, the morpheme ‘give’ then develops two new functions,
(iii) the purpose marker and (iv) the pretransitive disposal marker. Although both are out‑
comes of grammaticalization, they dier in each other in that the purpose marker cline is a
case of cognitive‑driven language‑internal grammaticalization, whereas the pretransitive
disposal marker pathway is an instantiation of contact‑induced replica grammaticalization
(Heine and Kuteva 2003,2005;Mahews and Yip 2009). Such a dierence in grammatical‑
ization mechanisms also results in a divergence in the distribution of these two functions.
The purpose marker function is fairly common in many Sinitic languages, by extending
the goal of the action of giving from a recipient ‘RPT’ [+ human being] to an event ‘PURP’
(Lai 2001;Lu and Hui 2023). The pretranstive disposal marker function of ‘give’, however,
is scarcely recorded in the literature, except for a few works, e.g., on Central Transitional
Sinitic languages in Chappell’s (2015) investigation as well as this study. Besides, this
lexical–functional sharing displays geographical clustering not only within Hui varieties
(Figure 5), but also in Chappell’s (2015) pan‑Sinitic study on disposal markers as an area‑
specic feature of Central Transitional Sinitic languages. Its scarcity and areal convergence
point to the likelihood of a type of contact‑induced grammaticalization known as replica
grammaticalization, in which the grammaticalization process that has taken place in the
Languages 2023,8, 217 16 of 25
model language is transferred to the replica language (Heine and Kuteva 2003,2005). What
makes the transfer of this grammaticalization process from ‘give’ to pretransitive disposal
marker possible is probably the underlying etymology of GIVE in the replica language.
Many varieties of Hui displaying the ‘give’‑disposal grammaticalization cline happen to
possess a GIVE verb that originated as TAKE or HOLD verbs (see Table 3). TAKE and
HOLD verbs are natural sources for disposal markers in Sinitic languages, e.g., bǎ把‘hold’
in Standard Mandarin. In the case of Hui Chinese, the reminiscence of the etymological
meaning of HOLD or TAKE of the current GIVE verbs facilitates the polysemy sharing be‑
tween ‘give’ and the disposal marker. At rst, grammaticalization from HOLD or TAKE
to disposal marker took place via the bridging context [Vtake/DISP marker NPth Vgive
NPrpt]. Later on, after these verbs of HOLD and TAKE were extended to function as the
prototypical ditransitive GIVE, adjacent languages likely borrowed this grammaticaliza‑
tion pathway via replica grammaticalization with the synchronic lexical–functional paral‑
lel of ‘give’ and the disposal marker. To this end, semantic extension, language‑internal
grammaticalization, and replica grammaticalization join hands in shaping the concurrent
use of ‘give’ and the pretransitive disposal marker in varieties of Hui Chinese.
Table 3. GIVE as pretransitive disposal markers in Hui varieties.
Datapoint Subgroup GIVE Reconstructed
Etymon
Types of
Verbs
GIVE as
DISP
Haiyang (Xiuning) Xiuyi te55 *diai6 ‘pass’ 遞PASS +
Liukou (Xiuing) Xiuyi p
ɤ
33 *pi3 比or *pi6 ‘give’畀GIVE +
Biyang (Yixian) Xiuyi p
ɛ
i31 *pi3 比or *pi6 ‘give’畀GIVE +
Qishan (Qimen) Qiwu f
ɑ
11 *fun1 ‘distribute’ 分GIVE +
Fuliang Qiwu to55 *ton1 ‘hold’ 端TAKE/HOLD +
Jingde Jingzhan pæ213 *pa3 ‘hold’ 把TAKE/HOLD +
Zhanda Jingzhan p
ɔ
35 *pa3 ‘hold’ 把TAKE/HOLD +
Suian (Yanzhou) Yanzhou n422 *in4 ‘stretch’ 引TAKE/HOLD +
Jiande (Yanzhou) Yanzhou po55 *pa3 ‘hold’ 把TAKE/HOLD +
Chun’an (Yanzhou) Yanzhou l
ɑ
53