[Lingtyp] Double-marked passive
Christian Lehmann
christian.lehmann at uni-erfurt.de
Mon Mar 22 11:35:21 UTC 2021
Dear Danqing,
allow me an elementary question, being ignorant about Chinese: Why don't
you analyze thus your two examples:
(1) Jiang4 bei4 sha1.
general suffer [kill] 'The general suffered killing = The
general was killed'
(2) Jiang4 bei4 wang2 sha1.
general suffer [king kill] 'The general suffered the King's
killing = The general was killed by the King'
This bracketing is meant to represent an analysis by which bei4 is an
auxiliary, preceding a phrase headed by the full verb, in both cases.
Although grammaticalized, as you say, it is then neither a marker on the
verb nor a preposition marking a passive agent, but just a passive
auxiliary.
Christian
> Dear Colleagues:
>
> The function word /bei4/ is viewed as a particle (for the verb) in
> some cases and as a preposition in others in Chinese linguistics. It
> is a unique element even as a member of the preposition inventory.
> That is due to its unique grammaticalization pathway. Let me say a few
> words to explain it.
>
> As Chao Li says, /bei4/ originally was a verb denoting 'to
> suffer'. It can take either a noun (such as pain, insult) or a verb as
> its object, and the verbal object underwent no change in its verbal
> form. When /bei4/ takes a verbal argument in Classic Chinese, the
> argument can be optionally modified by an agent noun, thus, we have
> two forms of such 'suffering construction':
>
> (1) Jiang4 bei4 sha1.
> general suffer kill 'The general suffered killing = The general
> was killed'
>
> (2) Jiang4 bei4 wang2 sha1.
> general suffer king kill 'The general suffered the King's
> killing = The general was killed by the King'
>
> Later, according to some criteria, the above constructions underwent
> grammaticalization. '/Bei4/' in (1) was reanalyzed as a passive
> particle (marker) on the verb, while '/bei4/' in (2) was reanalyzed as
> a preposition, with the possessive agent noun reanalyzed as an oblique
> agent. This is a unique pathway among Chinese prepositions because
> most prepositions in Chinese came from verbs occurring in serial verb
> constructions.
>
>
> (1) is the source of the so-called short passive sentence in
> Mandarin while (2) is the source of the so-called long passive sentence.
> For the details regarding the grammaticalization of /bei4/, see
> Zhang, Hongming 1994, The grammaticalization of /bei/ in Chinese, in
> /Chinese Languages and Linguistics 2/, ed. by Jen-Kuei Li, Academia
> Sinica, Taipei.
>
> Danqing
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Monday, March 22, 2021, 1:32:25 AM GMT+8, Chao Li
> <chao.li at aya.yale.edu> wrote:
>
>
> Dear Martin,
>
> It perhaps depends on what you mean by “verb-coded”. For example, in
> what sense is the English passive construction verb-coded? In a
> Mandarin sentence like (1), the meaning is passive and crucially it is
> coded with the passive morpheme /bèi/, which historically could be
> used as a verb that means “to suffer”. The single argument in (1) can
> also correspond to the Patient argument of an active sentence like (2)
> or (3). Moreover, it can be said that the Agent argument gets
> suppressed in (1). Therefore, it appears reasonable to analyze (1) as
> a passive construction both Chinese-internally and
> crosslinguistically. As for whether a /bèi/-construction like (4) can
> be analyzed as a passive construction that fits the definition, such
> an analysis is possible if one accepts the (controversial and
> debatable) assumption that /bèi/ in (4) assumes not only its primary
> role of being a passive marker but also an additional role of being a
> preposition.
>
> image.png
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Chao
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 21, 2021 at 10:07 AM Martin Haspelmath
> <martin_haspelmath at eva.mpg.de <mailto:martin_haspelmath at eva.mpg.de>>
> wrote:
>
> According to my favourite definition of "passive construction",
> these Mandarin examples are (apparently) not passive constructions:
>
> "A passive voice construction is a verb-coded valency construction
> (i) whose sister valency construction is transitive and not
> verb-coded, and (ii) which has an S-argument corresponding to the
> transitive P, and (iii) which has a suppressed or oblique-flagged
> argument corresponding to the transitive A".
>
> According to this definition, a passive construction "marks both
> the agent and the verb" (unless the agent is suppressed or
> otherwise absent). But Ian Joo's question was probably about
> languages where the SAME marker can occur on the verb and on the
> oblique agent. This would be very unusual, because passive voice
> markers are not expected to be similar to an oblique agent flag.
>
> Now my question is: Are these Mandarin (and Shanghainese)
> BEI/GEI-constructions passives? They have traditionally been
> called passives, but since the BEI element is obligatory, while
> the agent can be omitted (/Zhangsan bei (Lisi) da le/ 'Zhangsan
> was hit (by Lisi)'), it cannot be a preposition or case prefix. At
> least that would seem to follow from the definition of
> "affix/adposition". So I think this construction doesn't fall
> under a rigorous definition of "passive construction". (Rather, it
> is a sui generis construction.)
>
> Some authors might say that it is a "noncanonical passive" (cf.
> Legate, Julie Anne. 2021. Noncanonical passives: A typology of
> voices in an impoverished Universal Grammar. /Annual Review of
> Linguistics/ 7(1). doi:10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031920-114459
> <https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031920-114459>), but
> there does not seem to be a clear limit to this vague notion (is
> every topicalization construction a noncanonical passive?). I do
> not know of a fully explicit definition of "passive construction"
> that clearly includes the Mandarin BEI constructions.
>
> Best wishes,
> Martin
>
> Am 28.02.21 um 19:46 schrieb bingfu Lu:
>> A better example in Mandarin may be:
>> Zhangsan bei-Lisi gei-da-le.
>> Zhangsan PASS-Lisi PASS-hit-PRF
>> `Zhangsan was hit by Lisi.'
>>
>> 'bei' is etymologically related to 'suffer' while‘给’ to 'give'.
>>
>> In fact,
>> Zhangsan bei-(Lisi) da-le.
>> can also change to
>> Zhangsan gei-(Lisi） da-le.
>>
>> Furthermore, in Shanghainese, the PASS is a morpheme homophonic
>> to the morpheme for 'give'.
>>
>> regards,
>> Bingfu Lu
>> Beijing Language University
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, February 28, 2021, 10:26:36 PM GMT+8, JOO, Ian
>> [Student] <ian.joo at connect.polyu.hk>
>> <mailto:ian.joo at connect.polyu.hk> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Dear typologists,
>>
>> I wonder if you are aware of any language whose passive
>> construction marks both the agent and the verb.
>> For example, in Mandarin, the agent receives the passive marker
>> /bei./
>>
>> (1) Zhangsan bei-Lisi da-le.
>> Zhangsan PASS-Lisi hit-PRF
>> `Zhangsan was hit by Lisi.'
>>
>> When the agent is omitted, the verb receives /bei/.
>>
>> (2) Zhangsan bei-da-le.
>> Zhangsan PASS-hit-PRF
>> `Zhangsan was hit.'
>>
>> But, in some occasions, both the agent and the verb receive /bei/:
>>
>> (3) Zhangsan bei-Lisi bei-da-le.
>> Zhangsan PASS-Lisi PASS-hit-PRF
>> `Zhangsan was hit by Lisi.'
>>
>> Are you aware of any other language where a construction like (3)
>> is possible?
>> The only one I am aware of at the moment is Vietnamese.
>> I would greatly appreciate any help.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Ian
>>
>>
>> /Disclaimer:/
>>
>> /This message (including any attachments) contains confidential
>> information intended for a specific individual and purpose. If
>> you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this
>> message and notify the sender and The Hong Kong Polytechnic
>> University (the University) immediately. Any disclosure, copying,
>> or distribution of this message, or the taking of any action
>> based on it, is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful./
>>
>> /The University specifically denies any responsibility for the
>> accuracy or quality of information obtained through University
>> E-mail Facilities. Any views and opinions expressed are only
>> those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent those of
>> the University and the University accepts no liability whatsoever
>> for any losses or damages incurred or caused to any party as a
>> result of the use of such information./
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lingtyp mailing list
>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>> <mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>> <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lingtyp mailing list
>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org <mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp>
>
> --
> Martin Haspelmath
> Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
> Deutscher Platz 6
> D-04103 Leipzig
> https://www.shh.mpg.de/employees/42385/25522 <https://www.shh.mpg.de/employees/42385/25522>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> <mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> <mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
--
Prof. em. Dr. Christian Lehmann
Rudolfstr. 4
99092 Erfurt
Deutschland
Tel.: +49/361/2113417
E-Post: christianw_lehmann at arcor.de
Web: https://www.christianlehmann.eu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20210322/e0021688/attachment.htm>
More information about the Lingtyp
mailing list