The Comparative Study On Chinese Causative Pivotal Constructions And English Causative Object-complement Constructions

A comparative study has been conducted on Chinese Causative Pivotal Constructions (PCc) and English Causative Object-complement Constructions (OCc). The core meaning of Pivotal Constructions (PC) and Object-complement (OC) constructions is causing, therefore, PCc and OCc were studied in the causative category.The comparative study has been made on the semantic and grammatical features of PCc and OCc. The theory in cognitive linguistics was employed in the study, with the research methods in Corpus Linguistics as a reference. The major examples are from the Corpus of Chinese Language(CCL), the Lancaster Corpus of Mandarin Chinese(LCMC), British National Corpus(BNC), Freiburg-LOB Corpus of British English(FLOB). Following the cognitive hypothesis of"human experience conceptualization schematization linguistic forms", this dissertation aims at a tentative explanation of their individuality and universality and probes into the way of comparing Chinese and English with the corpus methods.The dissertation comprises 8 chapters with about 150,000 words.The first chapter is an introduction. The scope for this dissertation is Chinese Causative Pivotal Constructions and English Causative Object-complement constructions with causal meaning, and with the syntagmatic structure of NP1+V cause P1+NP2+VP2, and NP2 is both the object of NP1 and the logical subject of NP2. The significance of the study, the theories employed, the source of examples and terms used were defined.Chapter Two expounded the relationship between PCc and OCc and causative category, and thus studied PCc and OCc within the causative category, and showed how the present study drew on and developed from the previous achievements in the study of causative category. The dissertation reviewed the study of PCc and OCc. The study of Pivotal constructions was reviewed first. Causation is the major meaning conveyed by Chinese Causative Pivotal Constructions. Then the study of Chinese Causative Pivotal Construction was reviewed in causative category. And the same was done for OC and OCc. Finally, on the theory of Force Dynamics, PCc and OCc were classified into 3 subcategories: CAUSE, ENABLE(HELP/LET) and PREVENT considering the three binary parameters: the intrinsic tendency of affectee to act, opposition between affector-affectee and result to affectee. The parameters of the causal elements are animacy, intention, volition, control and etc.Chapter Three analyzed the cognitive foundation of PCc and OCc. The basic relationship between things can be understood by categorization by schema and the features of elements by categorization by prototypes. Force-schema reveals the cognitive foundation of PCc and OCc. The four semantic elements are the causer, causee, force and change. Every element has its prototype and belongs to a category.From Chapter Four to Chapter Seven, The three subcategories were compared and studied between Chinese and English respectively.Chapter Four and Five compared PCc and OCc of CAUSE subcategory. The inherent tendency of the causee is opposed by the causer, and causee does not have a tendency for the endstate. On the differences in the way of causing, CAUSE can be classified into pure causatives (SHI and MAKE for short) and interpersonal causatives.From the types of caused events, SHI and MAKE have the same event types, the trigger configuration and the prompt configuration. The causee is highly non-volitional. The CAUSE-change type in the trigger configuration shows differences in VP2 in Chinese and English, that is, BECOME type in Chinese and SEEM type in English.According to the concordance and statistics of LCMC and FLOB, the majority of causees are [-animate] and [-intention].The number of causees with [+animate] in English is larger than that in Chinese. But the number in Chinese is the on the rise due to the contact with English. In addition, the priority order for the numbers in the causee's slot is,in Chinese: event>thing>activity>personin English: thing>person>activity>eventThis order is regulated by the end-weight grammatical principle in English and the sequential order of cause-effect in Chinese.SHI and MAKE sentences have the same meaning for the constructions, but there are some differences in their expressions. The realization of the caused events is marked by MAKE in English, but it is expressed by the combination of SHI and the grammatical or lexical devices showing the change in Chinese. There is no tense and aspect for V2 in English, but the V2 of BECOM type can be modified by adverbs of time in Chinese.Typical interpersonal CAUSE expresses the causal relationship between people. It can be identified by transforming into imperative sentences, and it is an indirect imperative. On the differences in the scales of strength of interpersonal causatives, they are classified into four groups: APPIONT/ELECT, SEND/URGE, ORDER/ASK and TELL. The comparison was made semantically and grammatically in Chinese and in English.ORDER/ASK type is the focus of Chapter Five. RANG2, JIAO2 and have2, get2 are seemingly equivalents. The parameters of intention, volition, control and the success of the result are compared between Chinese and English. The findings are they are not identical, and RANG2 and JIAO2 can be used more widely than get2 and have2.The other members in interpersonal CAUSE are covered, too.Chapter Six compared the subcategory of ENABLE in Chinese and English. The inherent tendencies of the causee and the causer are in concordance, and the causee has a tendency for the endstate.HELP in Chinese is often confused with two-verb sentences, but it is not the case in English. According to the causer's involvement in HELP, HELP can be a continuum of"HELP-FOR","HELP-COOPERATE"and"HELP-CAUSE". No grammatical markers in Chinese distinguish the three, but by the context. "HELP-FOR"is not an OC construction in English, HELP-TO is"HELP-COOPERATE", and"HELP-CAUSE"without"to".The causer in LET/LET ALONE yields to the causee's volition to do something. In LET the causer's force tends to be weaker, while the causee's tends to the stronger, thus showing a strong volition for certain action. In LET ALONE, the causee may be volitional or not. The grammatical differences in Chinese and English were covered.Chapter Seven compared PREVENT in Chinese and English. The inherent tendency of the causee is opposed by the causer, and causee has a tendency for the endstate, but is blocked by the causer.According to the differences in the way of causing, PREVENT can be classified into two types. One is the way of causing is not specific, but general, the other is with"speech". It is uncertain whether the result is realized in Chinese and in English. Some differences exist in the grammar of Chinese and English.Chapter Eight is the conclusion. It summarized the discussion and findings in the dissertation, and sorted out the ways of organizing the study. Then the uncovered aspects concerning the study was pointed out and the problems to be studied in the future were put forward.