Factuality lens
Choosing the unmarked passive construction in Chinese conversation
Why do speakers choose the Mandarin Chinese unmarked passive construction (UP) in conversation when they have
other grammatical alternatives with roughly the same semantics? From the perspective of subjectivity, this study identifies the
Factuality lens, a lens through which a situation is presented as a “fact” or a “truth” regardless of reality. My analysis of a
video corpus of spontaneous talk show conversations using the discourse adjacent alternation method reveals that speakers tend to
choose UP over other constructions to present a transitive event through the Factuality lens by emphasizing the factuality of a
fact or making a non-fact appear as a fact – either deceivingly or openly in a fictitious narrative or a joke. The findings reveal
that grammatical constructions can linguistically recreate a situation different from reality. The conclusion that Factuality lens
is a factor that could influence speakers’ grammatical choice casts light on pragmatic consequence of grammatical choice and
subjectivity in language use.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Literature review
- 2.1Grammatical choices and their pragmatic consequences
- 2.2Subjectivity and lens
- 2.3The Chinese unmarked passive (UP) construction
- 3.Data and method
- 3.1Definitions of the new term identified in this study
- 3.2Data
- 3.3Method
- 4.Results and analysis
- 4.1Choosing unmarked passive to present a situation as a “fact”
- 4.1.1Choosing unmarked passive to present a factual situation as a fact
- 4.1.2Choosing unmarked passive to present a non-fact as a “fact”
- 4.1.2.1Presenting a non-fact as a “fact” in hope that the audience believes so
- 4.1.2.2Presenting a hypothetical situation as a “fact” in a fictitious narrative or a joke
- 4.2Choosing unmarked passive to present a situation as a “truth”
- 5.Discussion
- 5.1Main findings and explanation
- 5.2Theoretical discussions
- 5.2.1The factuality lens
- 5.2.2Factuality and the co-occurrence of grammatical constructions
- 5.2.3Information structure
- 6.Conclusions and implications
- Acknowledgments
- Notes
-
References
References (42)
References
Biber, Douglas, and Edward Finegan. 1989. “Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect.” Text 9 (1): 93–124.
Du Bois, John W. 2007. “The stance triangle.” In Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction, ed. by Englebretson, Robert, 139–182. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Duranti, Alessandro. 1990. “Politics and grammar: Agency in Samoan political discourse.” American Ethnologist 171: 646–666.
Fillmore, Charles. 1977. “The case for case reopened.” In Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 8: Grammatical Relations, ed. by P. Cole and J. M. Sadock, 59–81. New York: Academic Press.
Hazlett, Allan. 2010. “The Myth of factive verbs.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. 80 (3): 497–522.
Iwasaki, Shoichi, and Foong Ha Yap (Eds). 2015. Stance-marking and stance-taking in Asian languages. Journal of Pragmatics 831[special issue].
Kang, M. Agnes. 2018. “Visual arguments and discriminatory discourse: Comparing modes and affordances in representations of Mainland Chinese in Hong Kong.” Language & Communication 601: 94–107.
Karttunen, Lauri. 1971. “Some observations on factivity.” Research on Language & Social Interaction 41: 55–69.
Kiparsky, Paul and Carol Kiparsky. 1971. “Fact.” In preparation in Linguistics, ed. by M. Bierwisch and K. E. Heidolph, 143–173. The Hague, Mouton.
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topics, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge University Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. 2007. “Cognitive Grammar.” In The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (Oxford Handbooks), ed. by Geeraerts, Dirk, and Hubert Cuyckens, 421–462. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
Li, Charles N., and Sandra A. Thompson. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Liu, Yuehua, Wenyu Pan, & Wei Gu. 2001. Shiyong Xiandai Hanyu Yufa [Practical Grammar of Modern Chinese]. Beijing: The Commercial Press.
Local, John, and Walker, Gareth. 2008. “Stance and affect in conversation: On the interplay of sequential and phonetic resources.” Text & Talk 28 (6): 723–747.
Lyons, John. 1982. “Deixis and subjectivity: Loquor, Ergo Sum?” In Speech, Place, and Action: Studies in Deixis and Related Topics, ed. by R. J. Jarvella, and W. Klein, 101–124. Chichester & New York: John Wiley.
Ochs, Elinor, and Schieffelin, Bambi. 1989. “Language has a heart.” Text & Talk 91: 7–25.
Saurí, Roser, and Pustejovsky, James. 2012. “Are you sure that this happened? Assessing the factuality degree of events in text.” Computational Linguistics – COLI. 381: 1–39.
Su, Danjie, and Lu, Jianming. 2010. “The construction-chunking approach for syntactic analysis and second language teaching.” Shijie Hanyu Jiaoxue [Journal of Chinese Teaching in the World] 24 (4): 557–567.
Su, Danjie. 2012. “Construction as a chain of chunks: Theoretical framework of the construction-chunking approach.” Yuyan Kexue [Linguistic Sciences] 58 (3): 241–253.
Su, Danjie. 2017a. “Significance as a lens: Understanding the Mandarin ba construction through Discourse Adjacent Alternation.” Journal of Pragmatics 1171: 204–230.
Su, Danjie. 2017b. A Discourse Approach to the Functions of Major Chinese Grammatical Constructions and Their Alternations in Conversation (Doctoral dissertation). University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA.
Su, Danjie. 2018. “Discourse-pragmatic functions of a Chinese topic-comment construction and L2 teaching strategies based on authentic media materials.” Taiwan Journal of Chinese as a Second Language 16 (1): 55–89.
Su, Danjie. 2019. The M. Chinese Video Corpus (MCVC). UCLA, Los Angeles & University of Arkansas, Fayetteville.
Su, Danjie. (In preparation). Subjectivity in language use: How lens differs from stance.
Su, Danjie & Hongyin Tao. 2018. Teaching the shi…de construction with authentic materials in elementary Chinese, Chinese as a Second Language Research 7(1). 111–140.
Stubbs, Michael. 1996. Text and Corpus Analysis: Computer-Assisted Studies of Language and Culture. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Tao, Hongyin, and Yaqiong Liu. 2010. “From register differences to grammatical differences: Grammatical constructions in natural speech and the media (Part 1).” Dangdai Xiuci Xue [Contemporary Rhetoric] (1): 37–44.
Tao, Hongyin. 2001. “Discovering the usual with corpora: The case of remember
.” In Corpus linguistics in North America: Selections from the 1999 Symposium, ed. by Simpson, Rita, and John Swale, 116–144. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Vallauri, E. L., and Masia, V. 2018. “Context and information structure constraints on factivity: the case of know
.” Language Sciences 661: 103–115.
Wu, Haiping. 2015. “Encoding subjectivity with totality: A corpus-based study of [zhengge yi (CL) + X] in Mandarin.” In Stance-marking and stance-taking in Asian languages, ed. by Iwasaki, Shoichi, and Foong Ha Yap, 27–40. Journal of Pragmatics 831[special issue].
Zhang, Wei. 2016. Jiyu yuliaoku de xiandai Hanyu biaoshi panduan yiyi “shi…de” jushi fazhan [A corpus-based analysis on the evolvement of Chinese judgmental shi…de structure]. Waiyu Yu Waiyu Jiaoxue [Foreign Languages and Their Teaching] 290(5). 20–31.
Zhu, Chunshen. 1996. “Syntactic status of the agent: Its significance for information presentation in translating the passive between Chinese and English.” Multilingua 15 (4): 397–417.
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. 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.