[Lingtyp] Transitive verbs with both active and passive readings

Sat Jul 29 09:41:07 UTC 2023

Hi Jianming,
It seems you are operating with a very narrow view of topic-comment. For me, topic is a relation to the comment; it is what the predicate is about. You seem to restrict topics such that actors are not considered topics in an AVP clause. Information structure can’t really be talked about without including the prosody of the clause. In the case of AVP, if the A is represented by an unstressed reference phrase, then it may be the topic of the predication.

I did not say all clauses were topic-comment; Y. R. Chao said that. I said all clauses in Mandarin can be explained using Knud Lambrecht’s typology of focus structures, which includes, aside from topic-comment (what he called “Predicate focus”), narrow focus on a single element of the clause (his “argument focus") and where the whole clause is in focus (what he called "sentence focus”). As I have explained (LaPolla and Poa 2005, 2006; LaPolla 2009; see also LaPolla 2017a and 2017b, 2023), you can explain the different constructions (clause types) in Mandarin using this typology and combinations of the different focus types. So, for example, a very frequent clause type in Mandarin is one type that Chao talked about as topic-comment without a topic, which means the whole clause is in focus, e.g. 下雨了 Xià yǔ le [fall rain change.of.state.aspect] ‘It’s raining'. This type presents the occurrence of an event or the introduction of a new referent, usually by having the involved referent appear in post-verbal position so it will not be understood as the topic of the clause. A narrow focus can be achieved with prosody alone, or by using a cleft structure. 

Focus structures can be combined, e.g. in the famous example（王冕）七岁时 . . . 死了父親 Wáng Miǎn qı̄ suì shí sǐ-le fùqīn [PN seven yrs.old time . . . die-PFV father] ‘Wang Mian suffered the dying of his father when he was seven years old’. This is a topic-comment structure, but in this case the comment takes the form an event-presentative clause, ‘the father died’, which is then predicated of the topic, ‘Wang Mian’. 
There are also constructions where the comment of a topic-comment construction is also a topic-comment construction, e.g. 我肚子餓了 Wǒ dùzi è-le [1sg belly hungry-PFV] 'I am such that my belly is hungry’, where the structure is [topic [topic-comment]] as the whole embedded [topic-comment] is a comment about me, but there is a secondary topic in that comment, so there is also a comment about my belly. The odd translation is because it contrasts with two other different information structure constructions: 我餓了肚子 Wǒ è-le dùzi [1sg hungry-PFV belly] ‘I suffered the hungriness of my belly’, where the belly is part of an event-presentative structure, so this example is the same focus structure as the Wang Mian example (it is actually quite common and not a special or odd structure); 我的肚子餓了 Wǒ-de dùzi è-le [[1sg-ASSOC belly] hungry-PFV] ‘My belly is hungry’, where ‘I’ and the belly form one constituent instead of two, and it is a simple predicate focus (topic-comment) structure.

I also did not say that placement of the reference phrase in preverbal position necessarily implies a passive reading. It depends on context and intonation.

I don’t think there is any semantics outside of particular uses in particular contexts, and I don’t think you can separate information structure from what you are calling “the logic of a prototypical transitive sentence”; in natural data all utterances have an information structure.

I doubt I have convinced you, so we will not bore the LingTyp crowd with any more back and forth, we will just agree to disagree.

All the best,
Randy

References

LaPolla, Randy J. 2009. Chinese as a Topic-Comment (not Topic-Prominent and not SVO) language. In Janet Xing (ed.), Studies of Chinese linguistics: Functional approaches, 9-22. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. https://randylapolla.info/Papers/LaPolla_2009_Chinese_as_a_Topic-Comment_Language.pdf

LaPolla, Randy J. 2017a. Topic and Comment. In Rint Sybesma (ed.), Encyclopedia of Chinese Language and Linguistics, Vol. 4, 370-37. Leiden: Brill, 2017.
https://randylapolla.info/Papers/LaPolla_2017_Topic_and_comment.pdf

LaPolla, Randy J. 2017. Notions of “subject”. In Rint Sybesma (ed.), Encyclopedia of Chinese Language and Linguistics, Vol. 3, 231-238. Leiden: Brill, 2017.
https://randylapolla.info/Papers/LaPolla_2016_Notions_of_subject.pdf

LaPolla, Randy J. 2023. Grammatical Relations. In Delia Bentley, Ricardo Mairal Usón, Wataru Nakamura, and Robert D. Van Valin Jr.(eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Role and Reference Grammar, 269 - 291. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2023. https://randylapolla.info/Papers/LaPolla_2022_Grammatical_relations.pdf

罗仁地、潘露莉。2005。〈焦点结构的类型及其对汉语词序的影响〉《焦点结构和意义的研究》（徐烈炯、潘海华主编，57-78页）。北京：北京外国语大学出版社。(LaPolla, Randy J. & Dory Poa. 2005. Jiaodian jiegou de leixing ji qi dui Hanyu cixu de yingxiang (The typology of focus structures and their effect on word order in Chinese). In Xu Liejiong and Haihua Pan (eds.), Jiaodian jiegou he yuyi de yanjiu (Studies on the structure and semantics of focus), 57-78. Beijing: Beijing Foreign Studies University Press.) 
https://randylapolla.info/Papers/LaPolla_and_Poa_2005_Jiaodian_Jiegou_de_Leixing_ji_Qi_dui_Hanyu_Cixu_de_Yingxiang.pdf

LaPolla, Randy J. & Dory Poa. 2006. On describing word order. Catching Language: The Standing Challenge of Grammar Writing, ed. by Felix Ameka, Alan Dench, & Nicholas Evans, 269-295. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. https://randylapolla.info/Papers/LaPolla_and_Poa_2006_On_Describing_Word_Order.pdf

——
Professor Randy J. LaPolla（罗仁地), PhD FAHA 
Center for Language Sciences
Institute for Advanced Studies in Humanities and Social Sciences
Beijing Normal University at Zhuhai
A302, Muduo Building, #18 Jinfeng Road, Zhuhai City, Guangdong, China

https://randylapolla.info <https://randylapolla.info/>
ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6100-6196    

邮编：519087
广东省珠海市唐家湾镇金凤路18号木铎楼A302
北京师范大学珠海校区
人文和社会科学高等研究院
语言科学研究中心 

> On 28 Jul 2023, at 7:18 PM, Wu Jianming <wu.jianming2011 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear Randy, 
>  
>       Many thanks for your reply. But I do have some different views.
>      
>      As you mentioned that “all word order patterns can be explained using Lambrecht’s typology of information structure patterns (focus structures)”.  As far as I know, while the topic-comment structure is an essential aspect of Chinese grammar, it alone is not sufficient to fully describe the intricacies of the language. The topic-comment structure refers to a sentence pattern where the topic (the known or shared information) is placed at the beginning, followed by the comment (new or specific information) that provides more details or describes the topic.
> However, Chinese grammar encompasses more than just the topic-comment structure. It includes various other aspects like word order, verb-noun selection/agreement, classifiers, aspect markers, particles, and more. These elements work together to form a comprehensive inventory of “means” for expressing meaning and conveying  information in Chinese.
>    
>      You mentioned that “bei is not necessary for what you are calling a passive reading, as the word order alone would have the same effect.” . But  a sentence like "张三李四打了" (Zhāngsān Lǐsì dǎle), Lit. Zhangsan Lisi hit “, is very ambiguous and rarely used.  But, "张三被李四打了" (Zhāngsān bèi Lǐsì dǎle)  Lit zhangsan Bei Lisi hit，can be interpreted as the subject (张三, Zhāngsān) is the recipient of the action performed by the agent (李四, Lǐsì). So, the sentence "张三被李四打了"" (Zhāngsān bèi Lǐsì dǎle)   translates to "Zhāngsān was beaten by Lǐsì" or "Lǐsì hit Zhāngsān" in English. Therefore, in Chinese, the placement of a noun phrase in the topic position does not necessarily imply a passive reading. However,  It is the presence of "被" (bèi) that specifically indicates the subject (张三, Zhāngsān) is the recipient of the action performed by the agent (李四, Lǐsì).
>  
>       Here, I think we should clarify the distinction between using topic-comment structures and marking the distinction between juxtaposed arguments or participants( the latter being called “simple strategy” in Croft’s term).   Semantic relations and discourse -pragmatics coexist in determining the meaning and interpretation of a sentence in any language but they are not the same.  
>       
> The logic of a prototypical transitive sentence like “John hit Mary” can be understood by breaking it down into its basic components .John (agent / subject) + hit (verb/predicate) + Mary (patient/object).  In a topic-comment structure, the sentence is organized around the presentation of a topic or known information, followed by a comment that provides new or specific information about the topic.  This structure allows for a focused and coherent discourse.   The logic of a topic-comment is therefore distinct from the logic of a prototypical transitive sentence like "John hit Mary."   Anna Siewierska's notion of basic word order addresses the fundamental aspect of how words tend to be ordered in a language so as to encode the very basic transitive event.   This then provides at least one small but crucial line of  “comparative  basis” for languages ,which often represents a well-accepted matching between the underlying cognitive structure of a sentence and the expression forms of the sentence in a language. But this does not means that languages won’t encourage variations and flexibility in word order due to various factors such as emphasis, information structure, and pragmatic considerations.
>  
> Thanks again and let us “求同存异” (seeking common ground while peserving differences)
>  
> Regards,
>  
> Jianming Wu 
>  
> Shanghai International Studies University
>  
>  
> Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows
>  
> From: Randy J. LaPolla <mailto:randy.lapolla at gmail.com>
> Sent: 2023年7月28日 17:37
> To: Wu Jianming <mailto:wu.jianming2011 at hotmail.com>
> Cc: Sergey Loesov <mailto:sergeloesov at gmail.com>; LINGTYP at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG <mailto:lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Transitive verbs with both active and passive readings
>  
> Hi Jianming,
> Constructions conventionalise (grammaticalise) in order to express a particular information packaging. In the case of passives, the goal is to have a marked topic appear as an unmarked topic, or to place the unmarked topic in focus position or remove it altogether. This is to allow for continuity of topic in switch reference referent tracking systems, which is generally a feature of language with an A/S pivot in at least some constructions. Morphosyntactically it usually is an intransitive clause with no agent, or an agent appearing as a non-direct argument, and there is marking on the verb to show the marked nature of the construction.
>  
> Mandarin does not have this sort of passive, and doesn’t need it, as it doesn’t have an A/S pivot in any constructions. It has differences of word order to put different arguments in topic or focus position, and all word order patterns can be explained using Lambrecht’s typology of information structure patterns (focus structures). In the examples you gave, bei is not necessary for what you are calling a passive reading, as the word order alone would have the same effect.
>  
> Btw, there was a big debate back in the 1990’s about the idea of “basic word order”. Nowadays many of us see each word order as motivated by a particular context (to express a particular information packaging in that context), and and don’t believe in such thing as a “neutral, objective” context, only more or less frequent clause patterns (frequent not because of being basic, but because they fit more contexts). What you are calling the basic pattern is still a topic-comment structure, a predicate focus structure in Lambrecht’s terms (based on your idealisation—in natural language data intonation must be taken into account), which in this case has the agent as topic and the patient within the focus. This is the most frequent pattern because of the topicality of agents, and the high frequency at which patients are introduced within the focus, but that is not the same as calling it the basic form, as it, like all clause types, is motivated by a particular information structure.
>  
> All the best,
> Randy
>  
> ——
> Professor Randy J. LaPolla（罗仁地), PhD FAHA 
> Center for Language Sciences
> Institute for Advanced Studies in Humanities and Social Sciences
> Beijing Normal University at Zhuhai
> A302, Muduo Building, #18 Jinfeng Road, Zhuhai City, Guangdong, China
>  
> https://randylapolla.info <https://randylapolla.info/>
> ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6100-6196    
>  
> 邮编：519087
> 广东省珠海市唐家湾镇金凤路18号木铎楼A302
> 北京师范大学珠海校区
> 人文和社会科学高等研究院
> 语言科学研究中心 
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> 
> 
> 
> On 28 Jul 2023, at 11:36 AM, Wu Jianming <wu.jianming2011 at hotmail.com <mailto:wu.jianming2011 at hotmail.com>> wrote:
>  
> Dear Randy, 
>  
> As we know, the function of “voice” in language is to indicate the relationship between the subject (the doer or the entity performing the action) and the verb (the action or state being performed). However, it's important to note that the surface forms used to indicate voice can vary across languages. In Chinese, for instance, voice is not typically marked through grammatical inflections or word order changes (e.g. e.g. 老师发了成绩单 [teacher distribute grade sheets] and 学生发了成绩单 [student distribute grade sheets]) . Instead, voice is usually inferred from the context or the use of specific words or constructions.
>  
> In fact, in Chinese, functional words like "bei" (被) and "ba" (把)  are used to indicate an asymmetry between participants or a change in the syntactic structure of a sentence, similar to how voice markers  in other languages(e.g. relational or indexing morphemes). While these functional words in Chinese may not be referred to as "voice markers" per se, they do serve a similar function in changing the syntactic structure of a sentence to indicate indicate an asymmetry between participants
>  
>    Active: 我写了这篇文章。 (Wǒ xiě le zhè piān wénzhāng.) -Lit.  I write ASP this article.  A > V > P (asymmetry)
>     Passive: 这篇文章被我写了。 (Zhè piān wénzhāng bèi wǒ xiě le.) – Lit. This article BEI(被) me  write ASP. (this article was written by me)  (P > A asymmetry through BEI) 
> Active: 我把房间打扫干净了。 (Wǒ bǎ fángjiān dǎsǎo gānjìng le.) – Lit.  I  BA（把）the room.clean ASP ( A > P asymmetry through BA) 
>  
> In a neutral, objective context, a prototypical transitive event in Chinese can indeed be represented using the basic AVP (Active-Verb-Object) or SVO (Subject-Verb-Object) order ( This is how Siewierksa 1988: 8）define basic word order, but this insight seems to be abandoned by many in favor of more attested surface forms in spoken or written corpus).  Here are some examples, where asymmetric word order correspondes to case or agreement markers in other langages.
>  
> AVP (Active-Verb-Object):
> 我看电影。 (Wǒ kàn diànyǐng.) - I watch movies.
> 她吃苹果。 (Tā chī píngguǒ.) - She eats apples.
> 他写书。 (Tā xiě shū.) - He writes books.
>  
>     Indeed, Mandarin Chinese often uses a topic-comment structure in sentence construction. This means that the sentence begins with a topic or a known piece of information, followed by the comment or new information about the topic. This structure allows speakers to emphasize certain aspects of the information being conveyed.
>      However, it is also true that the basic word order (strictlly following Anna’s definition)  in Mandarin Chinese is typically Subject-Verb-Object (SVO) or Actor-Verb-Phrase (AVP) for encoding prototypical transitive events. This word order is commonly used in declarative sentences and is considered the most standard and authentic way of expressing such events. This word order aligns with the way events are conceptually organized in the world, particularly in terms of the temporal axis.
>  
> Regards,
>  
> Jianming Wu 
>  
> Shanghai International Studies University
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> 从 Windows 版邮件 <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986>发送
>  
> 发件人: Randy J. LaPolla <mailto:randy.lapolla at gmail.com>
> 发送时间: 2023年7月28日 10:18
> 收件人: Wu Jianming <mailto:wu.jianming2011 at hotmail.com>
> 抄送: Sergey Loesov <mailto:sergeloesov at gmail.com>; LINGTYP at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG <mailto:lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> 主题: Re: [Lingtyp] Transitive verbs with both active and passive readings
>  
> Hi Jianming,
> Thanks for your reply.
>  
> When you say “without a specific context”, you are actually creating two interpretive contexts in your mind to create the two different meanings; there is no such thing as understanding language (or any phenomenon) without creating a context of interpretation. The fact that you can create these two meanings from the same form means there is no voice opposition in the language. The semantics of the referents referred to can influence the interpretation, but that is also not voice, e.g. 老师发了成绩单 [teacher distribute grade sheets] and 学生发了成绩单 [student distribute grade sheets] are normally understood out of specific context as having different transitivity structures, with ’teacher’ as agent, but ‘students' as patient, but this is not voice.
>  
> Y. R. Chao argued that bei and ba are  "pre-transitive" markers that help to disambiguate the direction of action, not passive and active markers.He also argued that even in the structure N V N’, the direction of action is not necessarily from the initial N to the N’, and he used the example of ‘dog bite man’. 
>  
> If you agree with Chao (and Lü Shuxiang, and me) that Mandarin is topic-comment, not subject-predicate, there is no “basic AVP” order. As Chao said, all clauses are topic comment, though in some cases there is no topic.
>  
> All the best,
> Randy
> ——
> Professor Randy J. LaPolla（罗仁地), PhD FAHA 
> Center for Language Sciences
> Institute for Advanced Studies in Humanities and Social Sciences
> Beijing Normal University at Zhuhai
> A302, Muduo Building, #18 Jinfeng Road, Zhuhai City, Guangdong, China
>  
> https://randylapolla.info <https://randylapolla.info/>
> ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6100-6196    
>  
> 邮编：519087
> 广东省珠海市唐家湾镇金凤路18号木铎楼A302
> 北京师范大学珠海校区
> 人文和社会科学高等研究院
> 语言科学研究中心 
>  
>  
> 
> On 28 Jul 2023, at 7:22 AM, Wu Jianming <wu.jianming2011 at hotmail.com <mailto:wu.jianming2011 at hotmail.com>> wrote:
>  
> Dear Randy 
>  
>     The concept of nouns, verbs, voice, and transitivity indeed involves matching content and forms in language.  In Chinese, the expression "chicken not eat" can carry the same meaning as "chicken not eaten" or "chicken not eating" without a specific context. This implies that the active and passive content of voice, which determines how the verb relates to the subject, does exist in Chinese. However, within a known context, the expression forms can be omitted or become redundant.
>    On the other hand, using constructions like "bei + Agent" or "ba + Patient" provides a better way to encode both the content and forms of voice in Chinese, particularly when necessary. This showcases the flexibility and uniqueness of the language in conveying meaning.
> So, in Chinese, when it comes to voice, we indeed have both the content side and the expression side of voice, with constructions like "bei +A" , “ba +P” or the basic AVP order being utilized as needed.  But for an isolated NP+VP construction without a context, the active or passive status of the verb is sometimes ambiguous.
>  
> Regards,
>  
> Jianming Wu 
>  
> Shanghai International Studies University
>  
>  
> Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows
>  
> From: Randy J. LaPolla <mailto:randy.lapolla at gmail.com>
> Sent: 2023年7月27日 22:04
> To: Sergey Loesov <mailto:sergeloesov at gmail.com>
> Cc: LINGTYP at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG <mailto:lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Transitive verbs with both active and passive readings
>  
> Hi Sergey,
> Y. R. Chao argued that as Mandarin Chinese verbs have no inherent direction of action, a corollary of the topic-comment (not subject predicate) structure of clauses, Mandarin Chinese has no voice distinction (Mandarin Primer, 1948: 35, with his Romanisation replaced by Pinyin and glosses added):
>  
> “An important corollary to this [topic-comment structure-RJL] is that the direction of action in verbs is to be inferred from the context. Thus, in talking about feeding poultry, Jı̄ bù chı̄ le [chicken NEG eat PFV] means 'The chickens are not eating any more,' but as a reply to a host offering more chicken, the same sentence would mean '(As for) chicken, (I) am not going to eat any more.' Again, Liǎng-ge rén zuò yı̄-bǎ yı̌zi [two CL people sit one-CL chair]' Two people sit on one chair' : Yı̄-bǎ yı̌zi zuò liǎng-ge rén [one-CL chair sit two-CL people] 'One chair seats two people.' In short, there is no distinction of voice in Chinese verbs." 
>  
> Hope this helps.
>  
> All the best,
> Randy
> ——
> Professor Randy J. LaPolla（罗仁地), PhD FAHA 
> Center for Language Sciences
> Institute for Advanced Studies in Humanities and Social Sciences
> Beijing Normal University at Zhuhai
> A302, Muduo Building, #18 Jinfeng Road, Zhuhai City, Guangdong, China
>  
> https://randylapolla.info <https://randylapolla.info/>
> ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6100-6196    
>  
> 邮编：519087
> 广东省珠海市唐家湾镇金凤路18号木铎楼A302
> 北京师范大学珠海校区
> 人文和社会科学高等研究院
> 语言科学研究中心 
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> 
>  
> 
> On 27 Jul 2023, at 5:28 PM, Sergey Loesov <sergeloesov at gmail.com <mailto:sergeloesov at gmail.com>> wrote:
>  
> Dear colleagues,
> 
> Do you know of languages that have past-tense forms of transitive verbs with both active and passive readings? In particular, languages in which the same token can appear as both active and passive, depending on the context?
> 
> This seems to be the case in the unwritten language Modern Western Aramaic, spoken in the Syrian Anti-Lebanon/Kalamoun. Thus, ifṯeḥ (a Perfect-Resultative verb form) may mean ‘he (has) opened’ and ‘he has been opened/he is opened.’
> 
>  
> Thank you very much,
> 
>  
> Sergey
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org <mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20230729/b9a097d2/attachment.htm>