| This dissertation takes “passive” as a concept existing pervasively within the category of language “meaning” rather than “form”. Linguistic studies in the latter half of twentieth century, however, were overwhelmingly dominated by the“formalist” approach represented by Generative Grammar. Therefore, the passive-related studies have for a long time been focusing on the formal characteristics of language, emphasizing the identity of each component and the analysis of syntagmatic relations. This approach might be valid in analyzing such a language as English which is bound with morphological changes, especially of verbs,but a comparison between different languages under this approach lacks a common ground.Taking a “functionalist” approach of linguistic study, this dissertation argues that the starting point of a contrastive linguistic study between English and Chinese should be in “meaning”. With the “three angles” of linguistic analysis put forward by Systemic-Functional Linguistics as research methodology, this dissertation aims to tackle three questions on the common theoretical basis of SFL and Cognitive Linguistics.(1) What are the representations that express “passivity” at clause level inEnglish and Chinese?(2) What are the functional and cognitive similarities of English and Chinese“passive constructions”?(3) To what extent are English and Chinese “passive constructions”contextually constrained?Besides the two “passive constructions” generally acknowledged in English, the“Be+V-en” and “Get+V-en” constructions, forms like “V1(necessitative verbs) +V2-ing” and “Be+V-able” can also be used to express “passive meaning”. There is a different degree of “passiveness” among all the constructions. In addition to passives with a mark like “BEI, RANG, JIAO and GEI”, there is a way to express the meaning without an overt mark, which is special of Chinese in the realization of passive meaning.The two basic functions of English and Chinese passives are promotion of Patient and demotion of Agent, which may be considered two sides of the same coin.It is also argued that “transitivity” which is traditionally related to verbs should beexpanded to clausal level, for only clauses “cognitively transitive” can be passivized.“Active”, “Middle” and “Passive” constructions form a “Voice Continuum” which means that the boundaries between those categories are not clear-cut.Every “passive construction” has its distinctive function and distributional pattern among different genres of text. English and Chinese adopt different approaches to realizing language users’ “subjectivity”, and they differ in the“animacy” of Patient-Subject in “passive constructions”. In addition, “functionalist perspective” takes language form and meaning as a unified whole, in which meaning and function shape the form. This idea can be reflected through a new construction coined in recent years in Chinese.This dissertation confirms the gradient nature of linguistic categories and context-dependence of language forms by tentatively integrating the theoretical assumptions and research methodology put forward by SFL and CL. Results show that English “passive constructions” tend to rely on rules, whereas Chinese ones depend mainly on lexical approaches which indicate more flexible choices.“Objectivity” in English “passive constructions” is reflected by the fact that Agent-demotion occurs more often and the Patient tends to be inanimate. Chinese“passive constructions” show a higher degree of “subjectivity” with the unconstrained Animacy of Patient and lower proportion of Agent-demotion.This dissertation provides a comprehensive exploration of a common semantic category in English and Chinese. The theoretical significance lies in communication between assumptions of two different paradigms. Practically, this study extends the scope of analysis on “passive constructions”. The research conducted bears important implications in teaching of both English and Chinese, and translation between the two as well. |
PDF Full Text Request