十二、研究計畫內容：
（二）研究計畫之背景及目的
The bei-construction and the ba-construction as two of the most important grammatical constructions in Mandarin Chinese have been subject to much research and numerous debates for decades. However, an initial survey of the existing literature did not turn up any formal syntactic account of either ba or bei based on corpus data, while, not surprisingly, there are quite a few corpus-based functionalist studies on grammaticalization and the discoursal and pragmatic aspects of the two constructions, e.g., Wang (2005), McEnery and Xiao (2004, 2005), Jing-Schmidt (2005), Methven (2007), Yin (2005), Yang (2006), Chang (1998), and Wu (1999). However, except Yin (2005), which used only 119 hits of bei-passives and Yang (2006) used only 5000 hits of randomly selected strings containing the character 被 bei, both from the Taiwan-based Sinica Corpus, the data collected in the other studies cited above are almost exclusively from sources within Mainland China and the largest corpus used is the one-million word LCMC Chinese corpus (http://bowland-files.lancs.ac.uk/corplang/lcmc/), which also contains sources from within Mainland China only.
The first objective of the project proposed here is thus to construct a special purpose subcorpus1 of bei and ba with data extracted from the Sinica Corpus and the NCCU Corpus of Spoken Chinese. Both contain materials from sources within Taiwan only and are thus representative of Taiwan Mandarin. We may also include data collected from Internet sites clearly identified to be within Taiwan. This special purpose subcorpu then serves as the database for our study on the grammatical structures of the bei-construction and the ba-construction in Taiwan Mandarin. Furthermore, this corpus will then be made available online to serve as the database for the study of these two constructions from any linguistic perspective, be it syntactic, semantic, discoursal, or pragmatic.
Our second objective is to compile a comprehensive bibliography on published works dealing with ba and bei. This bibliography will likewise be made available online. Further, the online version will contain links to all articles that are open access and thus can again serve as an important resource on the study of these two important constructions.
Our third, and the more important, objective is to provide a unified formal analysis within Lexical-Functional Grammar (LFG) for the grammatical structures of the bei-construction and the ba-bei-construction in Taiwan Mandarin, based on evidence from corpus data as well as elicited data. This part of the project has three components: 1) review the relevant literature and re-evaluate the previous formal accounts where the bei-construction is factored into the short passive (without an overt agent) and the long passive (with an overt agent), e.g., Her (1989, 1991), Ting (1989), Huang (1999), and Wang (2001), and attempt a unified verbal analysis, 2) review the relevant literature and re-examine Bender’s (2000) incomplete verbal analysis of the ba-construction and attempt a complete verbal analysis, and 3) formally relate the two accounts derived to reveal Hsueh’s (1989) insight that the two constructions mirror each other, as shown in (1) and (2).
1 The term ‘special purpose subcorpus’ is a hybrid of Jennifer Pearson’s ‘special purpose corpus’ (see her
Corpora List discussion on this: http://gandalf.aksis.uib.no/corpora/2002-1/0010.html) and Sinclaire’s (1994) ‘subcorpus’, which is distinguished from ‘corpus’ and ‘component’.
(1) [A ba B + C]: in connection to A, B turns out to be what C describes. (2) [A bei B + C]: in connection to B, A turns out to be what C describes.
The general idea that corpus data and introspective or elicited data are complementary and both should be used in the study of formal syntax has been held by the project PI for some time (see Her 2005 and Her and Wan 2007 for discussions); however, the particular idea for this project originated from a conversation the PI had with his colleagues, where some of the data used in the studies on ba (e.g., Bender 2001) and bei (e.g., Her 1989, 1991, Ting 1998, Huang 1999) were questioned. And it was found that most of the formal syntactic studies on these two constructions shared roughly the same range of data, which have not been verified by data from a large corpus. The PI thus conducted a pilot study to see if the data on bei used in previous studies can be verified by genuine examples found by Google searches on the Internet sites within Taiwan.
There have been several different proposals regarding bei’s part-of-speech, varying from case marker (e.g., Li and Thompson 1974), preposition (e.g., Chao 1968, Hou 1979, Her 1985-6), co-verb (e.g., Chang 1977, Li and Thompson 1981), functional projector (or light verb) (e.g., Xu 2007), and verb. Among the generative grammarians, the current consensus seems to be that it is a verb. However, more specifically, Her (1989, 1991) argued, within Lexical-Functional Grammar (LFG), that bei as a verb comes in two forms, the short form (without the agent, as in (3)), and the long form (with the agent, as in (4)), the former involving functional control and the latter anaphoric control. This analysis is confirmed by two influential works on the subject, Ting (1989) and Huang (1999), both rendering an analysis within the mainstream derivational framework. Likewise, they demonstrated that bei as a verb requires two lexical entries, one for the ‘short passive’ and the other ‘long passive’; while the former involves A-movement, the latter requires A’-movement and predication instead, as shown in (3) and (4) respectively.
(3) 李四被打了。 IP NP V' V VP NP V' V NP Lisi bei PRO da-le t
Lisi got hit ....
(4) 張三被李四打了。 IP NP V' V IP NP V' V NP
Zhangsan bei OP Lisi da-le t Zhangsan was hit by Lisi.
...
... IP NOP
↑
Interestingly, these three researchers apparently came up with similar analyses quite independently. These studies all based this distinction between the short passive and the long passive on introspected data only, which indicate that, crucially, the short passive is not allowed in the following syntactic environments.
(5) The short passive does not allow long-distance gaps. Ex. 張三被*(李四)派警察抓走_e_了。
(6) The short passive does not allow a resumptive pronoun at the gap. Ex. 張三i被*(李四)打了他i一下。
(7) The short passive does not allow suo clitic. Ex. 張三被*(李四)所批評。
However, an initial investigation using the Internet as the corpus clearly indicates that the observations in (3)-(5) based on introspection do not reflect how bei is really used. The following are all genuine examples of short passives that contradict (5)-(7).
(8) Short passives that do have a long-distance gap.
Ex. a. 最後 Ortlieb 仍被想辦法固定住_e_了。2
b. 通道都已經被派兵把守_e_。3
2 http://www.hometec.com.tw/say_detail.asp?catid=2&scid=2&sid=24 3 http://www.wretch.cc/blog/moonturtle&article_id=19315996
c. 我還是會被企圖吃掉_e_吧？4
d. 資料被設法拷貝_e_了。5
(9) Short passives that do have a resumptive pronoun at the gap.
Ex. a. 他只是撞到學長就被找人打他。6
b. 他都和他們相處得很好，常常被要求他做這做那，他都很樂意做。7
c. 有人穿紅內褲只是想中頭彩被說成他倒扁。8
d. 比死更悲慘的，他竟然被奪走了他的死；失蹤把他驅逐於生與死。9
(10) Short passives that do have the suo clitic.
Ex. a. 過來的回教，在台灣卻不被所重視，甚至不敢當眾提起。10
b. 外面的誘惑那麼多，不知道老公會不會被所誘惑，我好怕哦！11
c. 老天爺是公平的，你能愛人，也一定會被所愛。12
d. 如果不相信緣分，是不是就要承認，自己的存在，其實是不被所 愛？13
Huang (1999: 449) also observes that place adverbials may occur with the long passive, as in (11a), but not the short passive, as in (11b). Ting (1998: 350) makes the same observation, shown in (12).
(11) a. 張三被李四在學校騙走了。 b*張三被在學校騙走了。 (12) *張三被在公司裡批評了。
Nonetheless, once again such an introspected observation is contradicted by data from naturally occurring texts found on Taiwan Internet sites. Four of the counterexamples collected are given here in (13).
(13) a. 妻子被在公共場所暴力毆打一次。14 b. 一個犯嚴重錯誤的人，會被在公開的地方審判。15 c. 如果檔不存在，它被在指定資料夾中創建。16 d. 這個問題的更進一步討論可能被在一些階段所需要。17 4 http://blog.pixnet.net/Alishaya/post/8540967 5 http://chs.mobile01.com/topicdetail.php?f=226&t=51836&p=8 6 http://www.eyny.com/thread-602566-1-7.html 7 http://blog.pixnet.net/landosue/post/9548991 8 http://www.wretch.cc/blog/season555&article_id=11331165 9 http://www.ncu.edu.tw/~edwiny/pdf/00-Yutafu.PDF 10 http://dspace.lib.ksu.edu.tw:8080/bitstream/123456789/419/1/專題製作.pdf 11 http://forum.frontier.org.tw/women/viewtopic.php?topic=26658&forum=8&8 12 http://tw.myblog.yahoo.com/juju10022000/article?mid=926&prev=1203&next=570&l=f&fid=29 13 http://blog.yam.com/c0ooooo/article/8157091 14 http://news.epochtimes.com.tw/7/9/28/66672.htm 15 http://www2.disciple.com.tw/disciple/Chungi_2002.nsf/0/514674F57053B91D48256B84003442AA 16 http://vsqa.net/blogs/chineliang/archive/2007/10/11/installshield-11-ini.aspx
Huang (1999: 447) makes the further observation that agent deletion is not allowed in the general environment in which bei occurs, i.e., the V-NP-V configuration, as shown in (14). This is an important argument for the distinct structures of the short passive and the long passive, because if the long passive allows agent deletion, it would be difficult to explain this exception to the otherwise general prohibition. However, again, many counterexamples were found to this so-called general prohibition, some precisely in a ‘short’ bei passive no less, as in (15).
(14) *李小姐，我逼 改嫁了。
(15) a. 我母親在我生父過逝後被逼 改嫁。18
b. 共產黨當權後，奶奶被逼 改嫁。19
c. 舅媽在大陸被共黨迫害後又被逼 改嫁。20
d. 老娘可就會被逼 改嫁ㄛ。21
Should further data confirm that bei indeed behaves similarly with or without the agent phrase, then the distinct structure and analysis for the short passive is unjustified, all
bei passives are in fact long passive in nature, and thus the agent phrase is simply optional.
If so, Tang’s (2001) debate on how to account for the obligatory agent phrase in the long passive is also a non-issue. In this project we will further investigate these issues and all other related issues, e.g., the so-called indirect passive and adversative passive, carefully, using both corpus data and elicited data and will attempt a unified analysis within LFG. We will also explore a universal characterization of ‘passive’ (e.g., Huang 1999: 481, Givón 2006: 338, Keenan and Dryer 2007) and thus hope to settle the issue whether the bei-construction is a genuine passive bei-construction.
While after the important works by Ting (1998) and Huang (1999), among others, the verbal status of bei is now less controversial, the proper part-of-speech of ba is still a contentious issue. In the literature, ba has been analyzed as a case marker (e.g., Liang 1971, Goodall 1986, Huang 1992), preposition (e.g., Her 1991, Huang 1998; L.-Y. Huang 1990, A. Li 1990, McCawley 1992), co-verb (Li and Thompson, 1981), and again a sort of light verb heading a functional projection (Zou 1993, Sybesma 1999). However, Hashimoto (1971), Ross (1991), Yang (1995), Bender (2000), and Li (2003) argue, convincingly in our view, that it is a verb. In particular, Bender (2000) and Li (2003) demonstrate that ba is a three-place predicate that subcategorizes for a subject, an object, and a VP complement. Bender (2000: 127) formally renders the lexical entry of ba in (16) within the grammatical framework of Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG). An example of the f-structure under this analysis is given in (17). 17 http://www.tipo.gov.tw/cooperation/cooperation_4_3_2.asp 18 http://www.izincan.com/board/novelsys.php?arid=17605 19 http://hk.epochtimes.com/5/10/14/10024.htm 20 http://news.epochtimes.com.tw/5/6/22/4837.htm 21 http://17hado.com/vbb3/archive/index.php/t-5188.html
(16) ba V
(↑ PRED) = ‘ba <(↑ SUBJ)(↑ OBJ)(↑ XCOMP)>’22 (↑ OBJ) = (↑ XCOMP TOPIC)
(17) 他把橘子剝了皮。 f-structure23
PRED ‘ba <(↑SUBJ) (↑OBJ) (↑XCOMP)>’ OBJ [‘orange’]
SUBJ [‘3sg’] TOPIC
XCOMP PRED ‘peel <(↑SUBJ) (↑OBJ)>’
SUBJ [….]
OBJ [‘peel’]
An important feature of Bender’s account is that ba’s object controls the XCOMP’s TOPIC, indicated by the solid curved line. TOPIC as grammaticalized discourse function is subject to the Extended Coherence Condition (ECC) and thus must be is functionally identified with or anaphorically binds another function (Bresnan and Mchombo 1987: 8). In the f-structure of (17), the TOPIC in the complement clause, juzi ‘orange’, enters a possessor-possessed relation with OBJ in the local f-structure and thus anaphorically binds the latter, as indicated by the dotted curved line on the left. This topic analysis of ba’s object nicely accounts for the unbounded nature of the gap, if any, in the embedded VP complement; see (18).
(18) 警察局發現是臺灣人，結果把他派人送__回賓館了。24
In (18), the TOPIC of the embedded clause, which is controlled by ba’s object, ta ‘he’, enters into a long-distance control relation with the object of the embedded verb song ‘send’. According to Taso (1986), a non-controversial topic in Chinese has the following properties.
(19) Topic properties (Tsao 1986: 4)
a. Topic invariably occupies the S-initial position of the first sentence in a topic chain.
b. Topic can optionally be separated from the rest of the sentence by one of the four pause particles: a (ya), na, me, and ba.
22 Bender (2000) uses the function COMP. I modify it to be XCOMP, which is more in line with the LFG
conventions.
23 Note that the f-structure information is also drastically simplified. For example, the matrix subject function
should have a full set of attribute-value pairs indicating person, number, and PRED. The current ‘3sg’ and ‘orange’ (for the object function) is a ‘short-hand’ convention in the LFG literature.
c. Topic is always definite or generic.
d. Topic is a discourse notion; it may, and often does, extend its semantic domain to more than one sentence.
e. Topic is in control of the pronominalization or deletion of all the coreferential NPs in a topic chain.
f. Topic, except in cases where it is also subject, plays no role in such processes as reflexivization, passivization, and Equi-NP deletion.
Thus, while LFG’s ECC can be taken to be a universal constraint, the possible relations listed in (19) can be seen as Mandarin-specific restrictions on the kind of adjuncts that are allowed to serve for the incorporation of the topic (Bender 2000: 128). In this project, we will further investigate this issue with corpus data and elicited data to determine whether it is justified.
Meanwhile, however, it is interesting to note that this topic analysis of the ba-NP is similar to Her’s (1989, 1991) topic analysis of the bei subject. Thus, the topic analysis is likewise compatible with the A’-movement analysis that Ting (1998) and Hunag (1999) advocate for the bei long passive. However, Bender’s analysis of ba is not complete in that it leaves the subject of the embedded clause unaccounted for. The f-structure in (17) is repeated below in (20). An XCOMP’s SUBJ, by definition, must be functionally or anaphorically controlled. In (20), it is unclear how SUBJ in the embedded clause is controlled. This issue is explicitly left for future research in Bender (2000: 129).
(20) 他把橘子剝了皮。 f-structure
PRED ‘ba <(↑SUBJ) (↑OBJ) (↑XCOMP)>’ OBJ [‘orange’]
SUBJ [‘3sg’] TOPIC
XCOMP PRED ‘peel <(↑SUBJ) (↑OBJ)>’
SUBJ [….] ?
OBJ [‘peel’]
Hsueh (1989) argued that the ba-construction should not be seen as having a disposal reading and the bei-construction should not be interpreted as a passive construction. In this project, we expect to argue for Hsueh’s point on ba not being ‘disposal’, but we anticipate to argue against his view on bei not being passive. We further hope to validate and put in concrete formal analyses his insight that the two constructions mirror each other, as shown again in (20) and (21).
(21) [A ba B + C]: in connection to A, B turns out to be what C describes. (22) [A bei B + C]: in connection to B, A turns out to be what C describes.
The two examples in (22), where bei and ba as used by the speakers as two parallel lexical items that freely alternate, are interesting and indicative that Hsueh’s mirror generalizations in (20) and (21) are on the right track.
(23) a. 朋友就是被（把？）你看透了還能喜歡你的人。25
b. 我的寫作是把自己放在一個confusion裡頭，然後努力不要
被／把（自己）推出去。26
In this project, we will thus further investigate the three-place predicate analysis of
ba in general and the topic analysis of ba-NP in particular. We will explore the corpus data
in Taiwan Mandarin and re-examine some of the questionable or controversial introspective data used in previous syntactic studies on ba in seeking a complete analysis. We hope to ultimately come up with a unified account for the two constructions, bei and ba.
（三）研究方法、進行步驟及執行進度。
We will first construct a special purpose subcorpus of bei and ba as used in Taiwan Mandarin. Data will be collected from the Sinica Corpus, the NCCU Corpus of Spoken Chinese, and perhaps also Internet sites within Taiwan. Elicited data from grammaticality judgment experiments may also be incorporated in the corpus as a separate module. Meanwhile, we will also compile a comprehensive bibliography on published works dealing with ba and bei and input all references in the program Endnotes.
In seeking a systematic account of the syntactic structures of ba and bei in Taiwan Mandarin, we expect to use both the generative methodology and the corpus methodology. Thus, corpus data will be complemented with data elicited from native Taiwan Mandarin informants. In doing the pilot study on Internet data leading to this project proposal, the PI came to truly appreciate Fillmore’s (1992:35) acknowledgment that corpora allow the establishment of new facts, some of which one ‘couldn't imagine finding out about in any
other way’. However, the fact remains that corpora, however big, do not contain all
possible sentences and, more importantly, do not provide any negative evidence in the form of ungrammatical sentences, which is crucial to generative argumentation. Therefore, this study also aims to demonstrate that the generative approach and the corpus approach can indeed complement each other, which Fillmore (1992) and Her and Wan (2007) advocate and some of the generativists and corpus linguists also support (e.g., Smith 1999: 15, Newmeyer 2003: 687, Kennedy 1998: 8, Biber et al. 1998: 10, 271).
While idealization is necessary, it must be emphasized that idealization away from speech errors, for instance, still allows one to use performance mistakes such as slips of the tongue as evidence… All our understanding of linguistic knowledge…has to be supported by evidence, and where that evidence comes from is limited only by our imagination and ingenuity. (Smith 1999:15)
25 http://www.dahjinn.com.tw/rubber-made-products/rubber-diaphragms/recycled-rubber-diaphragm.htm 26 http://iwebs.url.com.tw/main/html/filmism/384.shtml
The use of both introspection and corpus-based analysis can contribute to linguistic analysis and description. Corpora cannot tell us everything how a language works. For example, they cannot be used as a basis for stating what structure or processes are not possible. (Kennedy 1998:8)
The project PI’s main specialization is generative syntax, the first Co-PI, Claire Hsuen-hui Chang, teaches both corpus linguistics and field methods, and the second Co-PI, Kawai Chui, is the chief force behind the MOE’s ATU project NCCU Corpus of Spoken Chinese. Thus, this research team also hopes to demonstrate that the two kinds of linguists can work together.
The formal theoretical framework assumed in our formal formulation of syntactic analyses is LFG. As a non-derivational generative framework, LFG takes seriously the insight that some generalizations regarding the mapping between the predicate argument structure and the syntactic structure must be stated at an independent level of predicate valence (Levin 1987, Rosen 1989, Bresnan and Kanerva 1989, Bresnan and Zaenen 1990, Grimshaw 1990, Jackendoff 1990, Alsina 1993, 1996, Mohanan 1994, Neeleman 1994, Butt 1995, Butt and King 2000, among others), and thus poses an argument structure (a-structure), which links the lexical semantic structure and the syntactic structure of a predicator (e.g., Bresnan and Kanerva 1989, Bresnan and Zaenen 1990). The particular conception of the a-structure assumed here is based on Baker (1983) and Bresnan (1996, 2001).
(24) Lexical semantics (e.g., beat <beater beatee>) ↓
a-structure (e.g., beat <agent theme>) ↓
syntactic structure (e.g., beat <(↑SUBJ) (↑OBJ)>)
Furthermore, to capture the RG concept of grammatical relations, LFG posits two parallel planes of syntactic representation: constituent structure (c-structure) and functional structure (f-structure) (Kaplan and Bresnan 1982). The c-structure encodes the categorical hierarchies, usually represented as tree configurations. The f-structure, formally a feature structure, is the central locus of grammatical information, such as grammatical functions (e.g., SUBJ and OBJ), tense, aspect, polarity, case, person, number, gender, etc. These parallel structures are linked by correspondence principles and together provide the complete syntactic description.
T
ENTATIVES
CHEDULEThe First Year:
1st-4th month: to train assistants, establish infrastructure, and obtain sources of data 3rd-7th month: to compile the comprehensive bibliographies of published works on bei
3rd-8th month: to construct the special purpose bei subcorpus
7th-10th month: to conduct necessary elicitation experiments and derive a formal LFG analysis for bei
9th-11th month: to review and evaluate progress and implement necessary measures 9th or 10th month: to prepare a paper presentation for an international conference
11th-12th month: to write the interim report for NSC and also to have a manuscript ready to submit to international journal.
The Second Year:
1st-4th month: to compile the comprehensive bibliographies of published works on ba
3rd-7th month: to construct the special purpose ba subcorpus
3rd-8th month: to review the existing literature and examine the subcorpus
5th-8th month: to conduct necessary elicitation experiments and derive a formal LFG
analysis for ba
7th-10th month: consolidate and integrate the two analyses, the two subcopora, and the two bibliographies
9th-11th month: to review and evaluate progress and implement necessary measures 9th or 10th month: to prepare a paper presentation for an international conference
11th-12th month: to write the interim report for NSC and also to have a manuscript ready to submit to international journal.
（四）預期完成之工作項目及成果
1) Items that we anticipate to accomplish in the project include:
a. Two comprehensive (online) bibliographies of published works on bei and ba b. Two special purpose (online) subcorpora on bei and ba
c. A comprehensive formal LFG analysis for bei d. A comprehensive formal LFG analysis for ba
e. An integrated formal LFG analysis on the parallelism of bei and ba f. Two to four conference presentations
g. Two journal articles
2) We further anticipate that the team members in the project will have the following benefits in linguistic training and experience:
a. the PI will gain in-depth knowledge of corpus-building, corpus methodology, and the Mandarin bei and ba
b. the co-PI will gain firsthand experience in LFG
c. the RAs will also gain valuable firsthand experience in information gathering, data collection, and documentation management
d. the RAs will witness how a research project is planned and methodically and scientifically carried out, which will be valuable for their MS theses
e. the RAs will learn how to construct grammatical hypotheses and argumentation f. the RAs will gain experience with the non-derivational theory of LFG and its
formal grammar formulations
g. the RAs will receive training in essay writing, conference presentations, and journal submissions
References
Alsina, Alex. 1993. Predicate Composition: A Theory of Syntactic Function Alternations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.
Alsina, Alex. 1996. The Role of Argument Structure in Grammar: Evidence from Romance. Stanford, California: CSLI Publications.
Baker, Mark. 1983. Objects, Themes, and Lexical Rules in Italian. In Papers in
Lexical-Functional Grammar, Levin Lori, Malka Rappaport, and Annie E Zaenen L. (eds.),
Indiana University Linguistics Club.
Bender, E., 2000. The Syntax of Mandarin BA: reconsidering the verbal analysis. Journal of East Asian Languages, 105-145.
Biber, Douglas, Susan Conrad, and Randi Reppen. 1998. Corpus Linguistics: Investigating
Language Structure and Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bohner, G., 2001. Writing about rape: Use of the passive voice and other distancing text features as an expression of perceived responsibility of the victim. The British Journal of Social Psychology (4) 4, 515-530.
Bresnan, J., 1977. Variables in the Theory of Transformations. In: Culicover, P., Wasow, T., Akmajian, A. (eds.), Formal Syntax. New York: Academic Press, pp. 157-196.
Bresnan, J., 1982. The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. MIT Press, Cambridge.
Bresnan, Joan (l996). Lexicality and Argument Structure. Paper presented at Collogue de Syntax et Semantique Paris, October 12-14, 1995.
http://csli-www.stanford.edu/users/bresnan/
Bresnan, Joan. 2001. Lexical-Functional Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Bresnan, Joan and Kanerva, Jonni. 1989. Locative inversion in Chichewa: A case study of factorization in grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 20, 1-50.
Bresnan, J., Mchombo, S. A., 1987. Topic, Pronoun, and Agreement in Chichewa. In: Iida, M., Wechsler, S., Zec, D. (eds.), Working Papers in Grammatical Theory and Discourse Structure: Interactions of Morphology, Syntax and Discourse. CSLI, Stanford, pp. 1–59.
Bresnan, Joan and Zaenen, Annie. l990. Deep Unaccusativity in LFG. In Grammatical
Relations: A Cross-theoretical Perspective, K. Dziwirek, P. Farrell and E. Mejias
(eds.), 45-57. Stanford, California: CSLI Publications.
Butt, Mariam. 1995. The Structure of Complex Predicates in Urdu. Stanford, California: CSLI Publications.
Butt, Mariam and King, Tracy Holloway (eds.). 2000. Argument Realization. Stanford, California: CSLI Publications.
Chang, C., in press. The Iterative Event Construction “V-Lai-V-Qu” in Chinese: A Constructional Approach. Journal of Chinese Language Teaching.
Chang, R. 1977. Coverbs in Spoken Chinese. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Florida.
Chang, Xiaofeng. 1998. A comprehensive analysis of the ba-construction in Mandarin Chinese. PhD Dissertation, Columbia University Teachers College.
Chao, Y. 1968. Grammar of Spoken Chinese (Berkeley: University of California Press) Chappell, H. 1980. Is the get-passive adversative?. Papers in Linguistics 13, 411-452. Chomsky, N., 1980. On Binding. Linguistic Inquiry 11, 1–46.
Chiu, B., 1993. The Inflectional Structure of Mandarin Chinese. Doctoral dissertation, University of California Los Angles.
Chiu, B., 1995. An Object Clitic Projection in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 4, 77–117.
Chu, C., 1984. Chinese Word Order and Its Change. Yuyan Yanjiu 1, 115-127. Cinque, G., 1990. Types of A’-dependencies. MIT Press, Cambridge.
Cole, P., Hermon, G., Sung, L., 1990. Principles and Parameters of Long-distance Reflexives. Linguistic Inquiry 21, 1–22.
Croft, W., 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford University Press.
Crouch, R., King, T., Maxwell III., J., Riezler, S., Zaenen, A., 2004. Exploiting f-structure input for sentence condensation. In: Butt, M., King, T. (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG04 Conference. CSLI Publications.
Culicover, P., 1993b. Focus and Grammar. In: Ackema, P., Schoorlemmer, M. (eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop on the Semantic and Syntactic Analysis of Focus. OTS Working Papers, Research Institute for Language and Speech, Utrecht University, pp. 1-19
Culicover, P., 1993a. Evidence Against ECP Accounts of That-t Effect. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 557-561.
Culicover, P., 1993b. Focus and Grammar. In: Peter, A., Maaiki, S. (eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop on the Semantic and Syntactic Analysis of Focus. OTS Working Papers, Research Institute for Language and Speech, Utrecht University, pp. 1-19
Culicover, P., Jackendoff, R., 2005. Simpler Syntax. Oxford University Press.
Dai, Enya Jin-huei. 2005. Conceptualization and cognitive relativism on result in Mandarin Chinese: The case study of Mandarin Chinese ba construction using a cognitive and centering approach. PhD Dissertation, Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College.
Du, Hang. 2004. The acquisition of the Chinese ba-construction by adult second language learners. PhD Dissertation, University of Arizona.
Duranti, A. and Ernest, B. 1977. On the Notion of “Direct Object”. In: Byarushengo, E., Duranti, A., Hyman, L. (eds.), Haya Grammatical Structure. Southern California Occasional Papers in Linguistics, pp. 54-71.
Falk, Y., 2001. Lexical-Functional Grammar: An Introduction to Constrain-Based Syntax. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
Fan, J. 1994. Yingyu he Hanyu beidongshi zhi bijiao (A comparison of passives in English and Chinese). Journal of East China Normal University 1993/3, 95-96.
Fillmore, C., 1992. “Corpus linguistics” or “computer-aided armchair linguistics”. In: Jan S., (ed.), Directions in Corpus Linguistics: Proceedings of Nobel Symposium 82 Stockholm. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 35-60.
Fu, J., 1994. On Deriving Chinese Derived Nominals: Evidence for V-to-N Raising. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Givón, Talmy. 2006. Grammatical relations in passive clauses: A diachronic perspective. In: Abraham, Werner, Leisiö, L. (eds.), Passivization and Typology: Form and function. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 337–350.
Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument Structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT press.
Goodall, Grant. 1986. “On Argument Structure and L-marking with Mandarin Chinese Ba,” in Joyce McDonough and Bernadette Plunkett (eds.), Proceedings of NELS 17, volume 1, pp. 232–242.
Gu, T. 2003. Ying Han beidong jushi de bijiao (A comparison of the passive sentences in English and Chinese). Journal of Suzhou Teachers College 18/2, 47-48.
Hashimoto, Anne Y. (1971) “Descriptive Adverbials and the Passive Construction,”
Unicorn 7, 84–93.
Her, O., 1985-6. To dispense with OV word order in Modern Mandarin. Papers in East Asian Languages 3, 18-47.
Her, O., 1989. An LFG account for Chinese BEI sentences. Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association 24 (3), 67-89.
Her, O., 1991. Grammatical Functions and Verb Subcategorization in Mandarin Chinese. Taipei: Crane Publishing Co. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Hawaii, 1990.)
Her, O., 2006. Justifying part-of-speech assignments for Mandarin gei. Lingua 116, 1274-1302.
Her, O., Wan, I., 2007. Corpus and the nature of grammar revisited. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics 33 (1), 67-111.
Hoshi, H., 1991. The Generalized Projection Principle and the Subject Position of Passive Constructions. Journal of Japanese Linguistics 13, 53-89.
Hoshi, H., 1994a. Passive, Causative, and Light Verbs: A Study on Theta Role Assignment. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Hoshi, H., 1994b. Theta-role Assignment, Passivization, and Excorporation. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 3, 147-173.
Hou, J., 1979. Grammatical Relations in Chinese. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Southern California.
Hsieh, M., 2001. Form and Meaning: Negation and Question in Chinese. Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California.
Hsueh, F., 1989. The Structural Meaning of Ba and Bei Constructions in Mandarin Chinese. In: Tai, J., Hsueh, F. (eds.), Functionalism and Chinese Grammar. Chinese Language Teachers Association, pp. 95–126.
Huang, J., 1982 [1998]. Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar, Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Also as 1998. Logical Relations
in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar, Garland, New York.
Huang, C.-T. James. 1992. “Complex Predicates in Control,” in Richard K. Larson, Sabine Iatridou, Utpal Lahiri, and James Higginbotham (eds.), Control and Grammar, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 109–147.
Huang, J.,1999. Chinese Passives in Comparative Perspective. Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studies 29 (4), 423-510.
Huang, C., Tang, C., 1991. On the Local Nature of the Long-Distance Reflexive in Chinese. In: Koster, J., Reuland, E. (eds.), Long Distance Reflexives. Cambridge University Press, London, pp. 263-282.
Huang, Li-yi Pamela. 1990. The Deep Word Order and Some Prepositional Constructions
of Chinese, PhD dissertation, University of Washington.
Huang, S., 1966. Subject and Object in Mandarin. POLA 13, 25-103. Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ji, C. 2001. Beidongju zhong ‘bei’, ‘rang’ de fengong (The distinction between bei and
Jiao, X. and Dou, Q. 2002. On comparison between the notional passive sentences of English and Chinese. Journal of Northwest Sci-Tech University of Agriculture and
Forestry (Social Science) 2/2, 82-84.
Jing-Schmidt, Zhuo. 2005. Dramatized Discourse: The Mandarin Chinese ba-construction. John Benjamins
Kandybowicz, J., 2006. Comp-trace effects explained away. In: Donald, B., David, M., Michael, S. (eds.), Proceedings of the 25th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 220-228.
Kaplan, Ron and Bresnan, Joan (1982). Lexical-Functional Grammar: A Formal System for Grammatical Representation. In The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, Bresnan (ed.), 173-281. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Kayne, R., 2002. Pronoun and their antecedents. In: Epstein, S., Seely, D. (eds.), Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program. Maiden: Blackwell, pp. 133-166.
Keenan, E., Dryer, M., 2007. Passive in the World's Languages. In: Shopen, T. (Ed.), In Clause Structure, Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. 1, Second Edition. Cambridge University Press, pp. 325-361.
Kennedy, Graeme. 1998. An Introduction to Corpus Linguistics. London: Longman.
Lakoff, R. 1971. Passive resistance, in Chicago Linguistic Society (ed.) Papers from the
Seventh Regional Meeting of Chicago Linguistic Society, 149-162.
Lasnik, H., Fiengo, R., 1974. Complement Object Deletion. Linguistic Inquiry 5, 535-571. Levin, Lori. 1987. Toward a Linking Theory of Relation Changing Rules in LFG. Technical
Report No. CSLI-87-115. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Li, A., 1990. Order and Constituency in Mandarin Chinese. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Li, C., Thompson, S., 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Li, D., 2003. Causative and Resultative Constructions in Mandarin Chinese: A Multiperspectival Approach. Doctoral dissertation, Göteborg University, Göteborg, Sweden. Li, M. 2001. ‘Bei, shou, ai’ ju bian (Differences in the words bei, shou and ai). Journal of
Tianjin Adult Higher Learning 3/3, 44-46.
Li, R. 1980. Guanyu beidong ju (About passive sentences). Journal of Yangzhou Teachers’
University 1980/2.
Li, S. 1994. Xiandai Hanyu Bei-ziju Yanjiu (A Study of Bei-sentences in Modern Chinese) (Beijing: Beijing University Press).
Li, W. 2004. Jiaqiang chuzhi/beidong yushi de zhuci gei (The auxiliary word gei in reinforcing the disposition/passive voice). Language Teaching and Research 2004/1, 55-61.
Li, Y., 1972. Sentences with Be, Exist, and Have in Chinese. Language 48 (3).
Li, Z. 2004. The semantic property of Chinese passives and its cognitive explanation.
Journal of PLA University of Foreign Languages 27/6, 7-11.
Liang, James Chao-ping (1971) Prepositions, Co-verbs, or Verbs? A Commentary on
Chinese
McCawley, J., 1992. Justifying part-of-speech assignments in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 20 (2), 211-246.
McEnery, A.M. and Xiao, R.Z. 2004. A corpus-based two-level model of situation aspect.
Journal of Linguistics 40: 325–363.
Corpus-based Contrastive Study. Corpus Linguistics 2005, 14-17 Jul 2005, Birmingham, UK. Available at http://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/63/.
Medina, A.,2004. Rutas de evolución de marcador de voz tu/ru en lenguas tarachaitas. Segundo Seminario de Voz, Cambio de Valencia y Formación de palabras, Dpto de Linguística, Universidad de Sonora.
Methven, Andrew 2007. Voice Changes in Translation -A Comparative Study of Active and Passive Voice in Chinese and English. MS. SOAS, London. Available online at:
http://ace-translation.com/articles/Voice_Changes_in_Translation_A_Comparative_Study_of_A ctive_and_Passive_Voice_in_Chinese_and_English.pdf
Mohanan, Tara. 1994. Argument Structure in Hindi. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Morimoto, Y., 1999. An optimality account of argument reversal. In: Butt, M., King, T.
(eds.), Proceedings of the LFG99 Conference. CSLI Publications.
Neeleman, Ad. 1994. Complex Predicates. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Utrecht University.
Newmeyer, Frederick. 1991. Functional explanation in linguistics and the origins of language. Language and Communication 11:3-28.
Newmeyer, Frederick. 2003. Grammar is Grammar and Usage is Usage. Language 79:682-707.
Niu, B. 2003. Bei zi de yuyi shuliang tezheng he beidongju (The semantic quantitativeness of bei and the passive construction in Chinese). Journal of the Faculty of Chinese,
Ji’nan University 2003/2, 35-45.
Penelope, J., 1990. Speaking Freely: Unlearning the Lies of Our Fathers' Tongues. Toronto: Pergamon Press Canada.
Reynolds, R., 1995. “Passive” Morphology in Mandarin. Paper presented at the North America Conference on Linguistics, University of Wisconsin at Madison.
Ross, Claudia. 1991. “Coverbs and Category Distinctions in Mandarin Chinese,” Journal of
Chinese Linguistics 19, 79–115.
Shi, D. 1997. Issues on Chinese passives. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 25, 41–70. Shi, D. 2000. Topic and topic-comment constructions in Chinese. Language 76, 383-408. Sinclair, John. 1994. Corpus typology: A framework for classification. Unpublished
EAGLES working paper, Birmingham.
Smith, N., 1999. Chomsky: Ideas and Ideals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sybesma, Rint (1999) The Mandarian VP, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Tan, F., 199l. The Notion of Subject in Chinese. Stanford, CA: Stanford University dissertation.
Tang, C., 1989. Chinese Reflexives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 7, 93–122. Tang, C., 1990. Chinese Phrase Structure and the Extended X'-Theory. Doctoral
dissertation, Cornell University.
Tang, Sze-Wing. 2001. A complementation approach to Chinese passives and its consequences. Linguistics 39(2), 257-295.
Tang, S. 2004. Hanyu beidongju de san-ge jufa wenti (Three syntactic issues of Chinese passives). Available online from
http://www.cbs.polyu.edu.hk/tang/papers/passives%20syntax.pdf.
Taranto, G. 2002. Causative and Passive GET - an event-structure analysis. Ms., University of California San Diego. Available online from
Ting, J., 1995. A Non-Uniform Analysis of the Passive Construction in Mandarin Chinese, Doctoral dissertation, University of Rochester.
Ting, J., 1996. The resumptive pronominal clitic suo in Mandarin Chinese. Bulletin of the National Pingtung Institute of Commerce 4, 309–335.
Ting, J., 1998. Deriving the Bei-Construction in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 7, 1-34.
Ting, J., 2005. On the syntax of the suo construction in Classical Chinese. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 33 (2), 233-267.
Ting, J., Chang, M., 2004. The category of gei in Mandarin Chinese and grammaticalization. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics 2 (2), 45-74.
Tsao, F., 1986. A Topic-Comment Approach to the Ba Construction. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 15, 1–55.
Tsao, F., 1996. On verb classification in Chinese. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 24 (1), 138-191.
Valdez, Y., 2004. La voz pasiva en Tarahumara de la variante de Urique, Segundo Seminario de Voz, Cambio de Valencia y la Formación de Palabras, Dpto de Linguística, Universidad de Sonora.
Wang, Chuan-Chih. 1999. Delimitation: Evidence from Mandarin. PhD Dissertation, University of Kansas.
Wang, Jianhong. 2005. A corpus-based functional analysis of the bei-construction in Chinese written discourse: A study with special reference to the be-passive in English. PhD Dissertation, Ball State University, Indiana.
Wang, L. 1957. Hanyu beidongju de fazhan (Development of Chinese passives). Yuyanxue
Luncong (Studies in Linguistics) Vol. 1 (Beijing: Commercial Printing House).
Wang, P., 1970. A Transoformational Approach to Chinese ba and bei. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.
Wang, Y. 1997. Ying Han beidongju zhi bijiao (A comparison of passives in English and Chinese). Journal of Henan Institute of Education 60/2, 84-86.
Wu, Xinhua. 1999. A corpus-based construction grammar analysis of the Mandarin ba constructions. PhD Dissertation, University of Hawaii.
Xiao, Z. and McEnery, A. 2004. Aspect in Mandarin Chinese (Amsterdam: John Benjamins).
Xu, De-kuan. 2007. A Minimalist Analysis of Bei-Construction. Foreign Language
Research 4: 60-63.
Yin, Hui. 2004. Grammaticalization of Mandarin transfer verbs gei and bei as passive markers. Proceedings of the 2004 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association.
Yang, Hui-Ling. 2006. Grammaticalization of the Chinese morpheme bei: Using
diachronic and synchronic corpora. MA thesis, Arizona State University.
Yu, G. 2001. Ying Han beidong jushi duibi (Contrasting passive sentences in English and Chinese). Journal of Xi’an Foreign Languages University 9/1, 5-8.
Yang, Suying. 1995. “Ba and Bei Constructions in Chinese,” Journal of the Chinese
Language Teachers Association 30, 1–36.
Zhang, N., 2004. Move is Remerge. Language and Linguistics 5, 189–209.
Zhang, Q. 1999. Bei zi ju yanjiu gaishu (A study of sentences with the Chinese character
Zhou, C. and Xia, W. 2002. Ying Han liang yuyan zhong beidongshi de bijiao (Comparing passive constructions in English and Chinese). Journal of Ji’nan University 12: 37-38. Zhou, H. and Jin, H. 2004. Ying Han beidongju de shiyong xianzhi (Comparison of passive
voice between English and Chinese). Journal of Xiaogan University 24/1, 59-61. Zhou, S. 2004. Hanyu beidongju biaozhi de leixingxue kaocha (Typological study of
passive markers in Chinese). Language and Translation (Chinese) 79, 14-18. Zou, Ke. 1993. “The Syntax of the Chinese BA Construction,” Linguistics 31, 715–736. 王林哲2007 也談“被”、“把”同現句. 語文學刊 , Journal of Language and Literature
Studies 9: 111-114.
申熙一1988 漢語「把字句」的研究：語句、語意與語用。東海大學碩士論文
張瑩如 1995 「把」「給」的語源與發展過程：以接觸引發的演變初探。清華大學碩 士論文
張淑慧, 劉恬良 (2006) On Bei Constructions in Chinese: An LFG Analysis.中州學報 張麗麗 2006 The Semantic Development from Causatives to Passives in Chinese.語言暨
語言學
張榮興 2007 從角色指稱語法看漢語連續動詞的語意與句法連結. 語言暨語言學 劉明 2007 黎錦熙先生的“把”字句和語法化研究. Journal of Henan Normal University.
