Cover not available
Article published In:
Chinese Language and Discourse
Vol. 11:1 (2020) ► pp.84–106

Non-canonical passives in Chinese

A mental space account

| Nanjing University

This paper examines a non-canonical passive construction in Chinese. In this construction, the passive marker bei can proceed a constituent including intransitive verbs, adjectives and nouns, in such expressions as bei zisha/‘commit suicide,’ bei xingfu/‘happy’ or bei gaotie/‘high speed train.’ Following Mental Space Theory (Fauconnier 1994, 1997), this paper argues that the construction serves as a space builder, which prompts conceptualizers to build a counterfactual space to hold the event conveyed by the constituent but deny the event or its associated assumption in the base space. The Mental Space operations produce the interpretations of the construction featured by ambiguity and irony. This study demonstrates the existence of dedicated counterfactual constructions in Chinese. It showcases an attempt to posit cognitive operations as the constructional function and outlines a cognitively plausible procedure to derive specific interpretations of the construction in the context.

Keywords: the non-canonical passive construction, constructional function, Mental Space, counterfactuality, irony
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Form/function pairing of the non-canonical passive construction
    • 2.1The form of the construction
    • 2.2The function of the construction
    • 2.3The pairing of form and function
      • 2.3.1The pairing as a dedicated counterfactual construction
      • 2.3.2The pairing as a prompt to carry out cognitive operations
      • 2.3.3From cognitive operations to interpretations
  • 3.Interpreting the construction in context: A cognitive procedure
  • 4.The ironic effect of the construction
  • 5.Conclusions and implications
  • Notes
  • References


This article is currently available as a sample article.

Published online: 3 June 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cld.19001.zha
References
Au, Terry Kit-Fong
1983 “Chinese and English Counterfactuals: The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis Revisited”. Cognition, 151: 155–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1984 “Counterfactuals: In Reply to Alfred Bloom”. Cognition, 171: 289–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bezuidenhout, Anne
2004 “Procedural Meaning and the Semantics/pragmatics Interface.” In The Semantics/Pragmatics Distinction, ed. by Bianchi Claudia, 101–131. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Blakemore, Diane
1987 Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
1989 “Denial and Contrast: A Relevance-theoretic Analysis of but .” Linguistics and Philosophy, 121: 15–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000 “Indicators and Procedures: nevertheless and but .” Journal of Linguistics, 361: 463–486. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bloom, Alfred H.
1981 The Linguistic Shaping of Thought: A Study in the Impact of Language on Thinking in China and the West. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan
2007 Frequency of Use and the Organization of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010 Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carston, Robyn
2016 “The Heterogeneity of Procedural Meaning.” Lingua, 175–1761: 154–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chappell, Hillary, and Dingxu Shi
2016 “Major Non-canonical Clause Types: Ba and Bei .” In A Reference Grammar of Chinese, ed. by Chu-ren Huang, & Dingxu Shi, 451–482. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chen, Wenbo
2010 “Hanyu Xinxing ‘Bei+X’ Jiegou de Yuyi Renzhi Jiedu [Cognitive and Semantic Construal of the New Kind of ‘Bei+X’ Construction].” Dangdai Xiucixue [Contemporary Rhetoric], 41: 80–87.Google Scholar
Chen, Xinren
2017 “Extensions of the Chinese Passive Construction: A Memetic Account.” East Asian Pragmatics, 21: 59–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coulson, Seana
2005 “Sarcasm and the Space Structuring Model.” In The Literal and the Non-literal in Language and Thought, ed. by Seana Coulson, & Barbara Lewandowska-Tomasczyk, 9–22. Berlin: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Croft, William
2001 Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012 Verbs: Aspect and Causal Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, Barbara
1998 Conditionals and Prediction: Time, Knowledge and Causation in Conditional Constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2012 The Language of Stories: A Cognitive Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dancygier, Barbara, and Eve Sweetser
2005 Mental Spaces in Grammar: Conditional Constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014 Figurative Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles
1994 Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1997 Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner
1998 “Conceptual Integration Networks.” Cognitive Science, 221: 133–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002 The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Giora, Rachel
1995 “On Irony and Negation.” Discourse Processes, 191: 239–264. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele
1995 Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2006 Constructions at Work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hall, Alison
2007 “Do Discourse Connectives Encode Concepts or Procedures?” Lingua, 1171: 149–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huang, C.-T. James, and Na Liu
2014 “Xinxing Feidianxing Beidongshi ‘Bei XX’ de Jufa Yuyi Jiegou [The Syntax and Semantics of the New Non-canonical Bei XX Construction].” Yuyan Kexue [Linguistic Sciences], 51: 225–241.Google Scholar
Jing-Schmidt, Zhuo
2017 “What Are They Good for? A Constructionist Account of Counterfactuals in Ordinary Chinese.” Journal of Pragmatics, 1131: 30–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jing-Schmidt, Zhuo, and Ting Jing
2011 “Embodied Semantics and Pragmatics: Empathy, Sympathy and Two Passive Constructions in Chinese Media Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics, 431: 2826–2844. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George
1987 Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald
1993 “Reference-point Constructions.” Cognitive Linguistics, 41:1–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008 Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liu, Lisa Garbern
1985 “Reasoning Counterfactually in Chinese: Are There any Obstacles?” Cognition, 211: 239–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shen, Jiaxuan
2010 “Shishuo xinyu Sanze Pingshuo: Bei-Zisha, Xixiao-gongzuo, You-haojiu [Comments on Three New Popular Expressions in Current Chinese – Bei-zisha, Xixiao-gongzuo, You-haojiu ].” Dangdai Xiucixue [Contemporary Rhetoric], 41: 93–95.Google Scholar
Shi, Chunhong
2013 “Xin ‘Bei’ ziju de Shengcheng Jizhi, Yuyi Lijie ji Yuyong Xiaoying [The Generative Mechanism, Semantic Interpretation and Pragmatic Effect of New Bei Passive Constructions].” Dangdai Xiucixue [Contemporary Rhetoric], 11: 12–28.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson
1995 Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Taylor, John
1996 Possessives in English: An Exploration in Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wang, Yin
2011 “ ‘Xin BeiZi Goushi’ de Cihui Yazhi Jiexi: Dui ‘Bei Ziyuan’ Yilei XinBiaoda de Renzhi Goushi Yufa Yanjiu [Analysis of ‘New Construction with ‘Bei’’ via Lexical Coercion: A Research on ‘Bei Ziyuan’ in Cognitive Construction Grammar].” Waiguoyu [Journal of Foreign Languages], 31: 13–20.Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre
2011 “The Conceptual–Procedural Distinction: Past, Present, Future.” In Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives, ed. By Victoria Escandell-Vidal, Manuel Leonetti, and Aoife Ahern, 3–31. West Yorkshire: Emerald Group Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016 “Reassessing the Conceptual–procedural Distinction.” Lingua, 175–1761: 5–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre, and Dan Sperber
1992 “On Verbal Irony.” Lingua, 871: 53–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012 Meaning and Relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Xiong, Xueliang, and Ling He
2012 “Chuyi BeiZi Xinyong [Towards a Novel Use of bei in Chinese].” Jiefangjun Waiguoyu Xueyuan Xuebao [Journal of PLA University of Foreign Languages], 51: 1–4.Google Scholar
Yao, Jun, Jie Song, and Michael Singh
2013 “The Ironical Chinese bei-construction and its Accessibility to English Speakers.” Journal of Pragmatics, 551: 195–209. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yong, Qian
2016 “A Corpus-based Study of Counterfactuals in Mandarin.” Language and Linguistics, 171: 891–915. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yuan, Hongmei, & Jingyu Liang
2016 “ ‘Bei+X’ Goushiyi de Gainian Zhenghe Fenxi [A Conceptual Integration Analysis of the Constructional Meanings of “Bei+X” Construction].” Waiyu Yanjiu [Foreign Languages Research], 11: 33–39.Google Scholar
Yuan, Yulin
2015 “Hanyu Fanshishi Biaoda jiqi Siwei Tedian [Counterfactual Expressions in Chinese and the Distinctive Thinking They Reflect].” Zhongguo Shehui Kexue [Social Sciences in China], 81: 126–144.Google Scholar
Yus, Francisco
2000 “On Reaching the Intended Ironic Interpretation.” International Journal of Communication, 101: 27–78.Google Scholar
Zhang, Jianli, and Junwei Zhu
2010 “Bei XX Ju de Goushi yufa Tantao [A Construction Grammar Approach to “bei XX” Structure].” Hangzhou Shifan Daxue Xuebao [Journal of Hangzhou Normal University], 51: 120–128.Google Scholar
Ziem, Alexander
2014 Frames of Understanding in Text and Discourse: Theoretical Foundations and Descriptive Applications. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Su, Danjie
2022. Speakers’ subjective evaluation of adversity. Chinese Language and Discourse. An International and Interdisciplinary Journal DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 october 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.