A Contrastive Study Of The Form And Function Of English And Chinese Passive Voice

Voice is a grammatical category, while the definitions of thegrammatical category of passive voice are controversial in both Englishand Chinese. For example, there is no agreeable argument on whether thenotional passive (active in form but passive in meaning) belongs topassive or not. Thus the first thing we should do is to define thegrammatical category; otherwise, the contrastive studies cannot be carriedout. We will adopt the definitions of classifying voice and passive voiceproposed by Wang Zhijun (2002).Regarding English passives, different schools have differentopinions. The formalists represented by Chomsky hold that passivesentence and its active counterpart share the same deep structure, and thegrammatical markers are meaningless. However, the cognitive linguistsrepresented by Langacker argue that the grammatical markers have theirown functions. Shi Yuzhi employed the concept of"vector" to explain thegrammatical markers, which has a strong explanatory power.We compare English with Chinese passives from the perspective ofits form and function so as to discover the similarities and differencesbetween them. Based on Shi's research, we try to uncover the deepreasons behind the differences by employing the concepts of vector andieonieity. We make a contrastive analysis of the origin of passive makers,the way of marking in both English and Chinese and strive to explain thedifferences between them by using Shi's two discoveries and one law(stated as follows):(ⅰ) In conceptualization, the vector direction of Chinese verbs is notfixed. That is, there exist the possibilities of expressing differentdirections of the same action behavior.(ⅱ) In conceptualization, the vector direction of English verbs is fixed. The verbs can only be used to express the action behavior with thesame direction as the fixed one. Thus, whenever the change of thedirection of the vector is needed other grammatical means must beemployed to achieve it.(ⅲ) The essence of passivization is the change of the vectordirection of the verb, and its subject is the ending of the vector.Wang Zhijun (2002) listed some special Chinese passives withoutthe corresponding English counterparts such as"看守被罪犯跑了","他被人偷了两万块钱"in his doctoral thesis. He attributes the differencesto the difference in actual realization of subjectivity—the English passivetakes the patient's point-of-view whereas the Chinese one does not takethe causer's. We think Wang's explanation is somehow farfetched. Basedon Shi's two discoveries, we make a detailed and complete explanationfor it.We adopt the "Metafunctions Hypothesis" proposed by Halliday tocontrast the function of English passive with that of Chinese passive. Wediscover that there are many similarities as well as differences betweenthem in realizing the functions. We strive to reveal the underlying reasonsbehind the similarities and differences.The thesis is composed of four chapters. Chapter one reviews theprevious studies on this topic in different linguistic schools. Chapter twointroduces the main methods employed in this thesis. Chapter three is thecontrastive analysis between English and Chinese passives in form. Wediscover that both English and Chinese prototypical passives share thesimilarities in the following three aspects: (1) The same direction of thevector of the verb in passives; (2) The same grammaticalization of somepassive markers, for example: bei, jiao, chi in Chinese and V-ed inEnglish; (3) the same mechanism of generation: both English and Chinesepassives are generated by construing a causative event from theperspective of the affected entity rather than the agent/initiator. Even so, there still exist distinct differences between them in the following aspects:the frequency of use; the syntactic treatment of the demoted agent; thedegree of affectedness; the way of marking and the conceptualization ofverb. The thesis employs the concept of vector to explain the abovephenomena on the basis of professor Shi's research. In addition, thereexists sharp difference in stative passive. Considering the difference, weadopt the ICM of Events proposed by Croft (1991) and Fischer's (1999)iconicity (One form one function) to explain the deep reason for it.Chapter four adopts "Metafunctions Hypothesis" proposed by Halliday tocontrast English passives with Chinese ones from ideational function,interpersonal function and textual function. We attempt to uncover theunderlying reasons which bring about the similarities and differencesbetween them by using the concept of vector.