1. Introduction

This article introduces the special syntactic structures and functions of split constructions in both English and Chinese languages, emphasizing their importance in pragmatic expression. Splitting construction separates focus and presupposition through syntactic means to emphasize specific components. The split construction in English appears in the form of it+be+emphasis element+tha/wh - word, while in Chinese it appears in the form of (subject+) is+emphasis element+. This structure is used in both languages to highlight focal information, such as "it was hunger that drove him out" in English and "this girl was brought over by your sister-in-law" in Chinese. In addition, the functional equivalence between the Chinese sentence "is..." and the English split sentence "it is... that..." was also mentioned.

2. Research object

This paper discusses three main aspects of research on the focus of split sentences in English and Chinese: syntactic and semantic features, focus types, pragmatic features, and functions. The research involves the formation of split sentences, syntactic expression, focal structure, multi factor influence, cross linguistic differences, and the characteristics of 'de'. At the same time, the commonalities and differences in the evolution of focal markers and focal arguments of the typical English split structure "It is/was... that/who/where..." and the typical Chinese split structure "(...) is (...) of..." were explored, and their cognitive rationale was explained using prototype categories and cognitive theory. The research questions include the commonalities and differences in the focal markers and argument evolution of English Chinese split constructions, as well as the cognitive rationale behind these commonalities and differences.

3. Research methods

This chapter introduces the research methods, including the construction process of the self built English Chinese split construction diachronic corpus, the sources of the corpus, and the processing methods. The corpus contains texts of different genres from 1600 to 2020, divided into four historical periods, with a corpus size of approximately 6 million words in English and Chinese for each period. Using PowerGrep 5 software to process text and AntConc 3.5 software to retrieve split construction corpora, 2078 English and 9604 Chinese corpora were finally obtained. Two researchers annotated the corpus, and the Kappa test showed a consistency of 0.792. Based on corpus statistics, the usage of English Chinese split constructions in different periods provides a foundation for subsequent analysis. The frequency of split constructions in English does not change much, while the frequency of split constructions in Chinese is the lowest in the second period and the highest in the fourth period, and the frequency of split constructions in Chinese is much higher than that in English.

4. The evolution process, commonalities, and differences of focal markers in English Chinese split constructions

This chapter analyzes the evolution, commonalities, and differences of focal markers in English Chinese split constructions. The frequency of using the focal markers' that ',' which ', and' who 'in the English construction has changed over different historical periods, with the frequency of' that 'gradually decreasing and the frequency of' who 'increasing, especially in the context of focused agency and reception. The focal markers of Chinese split construction are composed of "yes" and "de", with "(...) is..." being the main one, and the frequency is much higher than "(...) is...". The commonality of the evolution of focal markers in English and Chinese lies in the stable focal markers that can focus on multiple types of arguments, with the focus on the agent and the receiver. The difference lies in the fact that the frequency of using English split structure focus markers is much lower than that of Chinese, and the total frequency of English focus markers is relatively stable, while Chinese reaches its highest in the fourth period. The historical evolution of English focus markers is mainly reflected in the changes in marker frequency, while the frequency of Chinese focus markers has not changed significantly.

5. The evolution process, commonalities, and differences of split construction arguments in English and Chinese

Explored the evolution process, commonalities, and differences of arguments in English Chinese split constructions. In the split construction, the predicate component interacts with the body component and assigns the discourse role. The 17 argument roles proposed by Yuan Yulin are divided into general arguments and super arguments, and this article only analyzes general arguments. General arguments are further divided into core arguments and peripheral arguments. Core arguments include subject and object, while peripheral arguments include reliance and environmental arguments. In the English split construction, the frequency of using core arguments has always exceeded that of peripheral arguments, especially in the third and fourth periods. In the Chinese split construction, the frequency of using core arguments has always exceeded that of peripheral arguments, but it significantly decreased in the fourth period. The commonalities in the evolution of split construction arguments in English and Chinese include a higher frequency of core arguments than peripheral arguments, the highest frequency of subject arguments, and a gradual increase in the frequency of object arguments. The differences include an increasing frequency of core arguments in English and a decreasing frequency of core arguments in Chinese; The frequency of English subject arguments remains stable, while the frequency of Chinese subject arguments decreases; The frequency of object arguments in English is higher than that in Chinese; The number of environmental arguments in English has decreased, while the number of environmental arguments in Chinese has increased; English has the lowest argument frequency, while Chinese has an increasing argument frequency. These similarities and differences reveal the similarities and differences in the evolution of arguments between English and Chinese.

6. Cognitive rationale for the similarities and differences in the diachronic evolution of English Chinese split constructions

This chapter explores the similarities and differences in the diachronic evolution of arguments, markers, and constructions in English Chinese split constructions, as well as the cognitive rationale behind these evolutions. The core arguments of the English Chinese split structure have high frequency and prototype, while the surrounding arguments in Chinese are prioritized as the focus in specific contexts, reflecting the importance of context and communicative purpose. The differences and priorities in the distribution of prototype arguments in English Chinese split constructions over time are the result of multiple forces working together. This paper explores the evolution of focal markers and argument expressions in English Chinese split constructions from three dimensions: detail, focus, and perspective. With the development of history, the division of focus markers in English construction has become increasingly refined, and the expression of Chinese arguments has also undergone a significant refinement process. The focus mechanism plays an important role in both English and Chinese split constructions, but there are differences between the two in the specific means of achieving focus highlighting. The choice of perspective in the English Chinese split construction affects the presentation of focal information and the determination of cognitive reference points. The English Chinese split construction exhibits significant diachronic characteristics in the evolution of perspectives. The historical evolution of the English Chinese split construction approach reflects the increasing attention of language users to focal information and the adjustment of cognitive reference points, reflecting the uniqueness of different languages in terms of perspective and cognitive reference point selection.

7. Conclusion

This chapter summarizes the similarities and differences in focal markers and argument evolution of English Chinese split constructions. Commonalities include stable focal markers in various historical periods, a higher frequency of use of core arguments than peripheral arguments, and the highest frequency of main arguments. The differences are reflected in the lower frequency of use of English focal markers compared to Chinese, emphasis on pragmatic effects in Chinese, increasing frequency of use of English core arguments and Chinese peripheral arguments, decreasing frequency of use of Chinese core arguments and English peripheral arguments, and increasing frequency of English subject arguments and object arguments while decreasing frequency of use of Chinese subject arguments. The cognitive motivation is the prototype effect, expression refinement, focus reinforcement, and cognitive reference point differences in the evolution of English Chinese split constructions.