Cover not available
Article published In:
Chinese Language and Discourse
Vol. 13:2 (2022) ► pp.242–274

Factuality lens

Choosing the unmarked passive construction in Chinese conversation

ORCID logo | University of Arkansas

Why do speakers choose the Mandarin Chinese unmarked passive construction (UP) in conversation when they have other grammatical alternatives with roughly the same semantics? From the perspective of subjectivity, this study identifies the Factuality lens, a lens through which a situation is presented as a “fact” or a “truth” regardless of reality. My analysis of a video corpus of spontaneous talk show conversations using the discourse adjacent alternation method reveals that speakers tend to choose UP over other constructions to present a transitive event through the Factuality lens by emphasizing the factuality of a fact or making a non-fact appear as a fact – either deceivingly or openly in a fictitious narrative or a joke. The findings reveal that grammatical constructions can linguistically recreate a situation different from reality. The conclusion that Factuality lens is a factor that could influence speakers’ grammatical choice casts light on pragmatic consequence of grammatical choice and subjectivity in language use.

Keywords: lens, subjectivity, stance, pragmatics, alternation, Mandarin, grammar
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
    • 2.1Grammatical choices and their pragmatic consequences
    • 2.2Subjectivity and lens
    • 2.3The Chinese unmarked passive (UP) construction
  • 3.Data and method
    • 3.1Definitions of the new term identified in this study
    • 3.2Data
    • 3.3Method
  • 4.Results and analysis
    • 4.1Choosing unmarked passive to present a situation as a “fact”
      • 4.1.1Choosing unmarked passive to present a factual situation as a fact
      • 4.1.2Choosing unmarked passive to present a non-fact as a “fact”
        • 4.1.2.1Presenting a non-fact as a “fact” in hope that the audience believes so
        • 4.1.2.2Presenting a hypothetical situation as a “fact” in a fictitious narrative or a joke
    • 4.2Choosing unmarked passive to present a situation as a “truth”
  • 5.Discussion
    • 5.1Main findings and explanation
    • 5.2Theoretical discussions
      • 5.2.1The factuality lens
      • 5.2.2Factuality and the co-occurrence of grammatical constructions
      • 5.2.3Information structure
  • 6.Conclusions and implications
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 11 June 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cld.21005.su
References
Biber, Douglas, and Edward Finegan
1989 “Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect.” Text 9 (1): 93–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John W.
2007 “The stance triangle.” In Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction, ed. by Englebretson, Robert, 139–182. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duranti, Alessandro
1990 “Politics and grammar: Agency in Samoan political discourse.” American Ethnologist 171: 646–666. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Englebretson, Robert
2007a “Grammatical resources for social purposes: Some aspects of stancetaking in colloquial Indonesian conversation.” In Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction, ed. by Englebretson, Robert, 69–110. John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(Ed) 2007b Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction. John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles
1977 “The case for case reopened.” In Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 8: Grammatical Relations, ed. by P. Cole and J. M. Sadock, 59–81. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gentens, Caroline, María Sol Sansiñena, Stef Spronck, and An Van linden
2019 “Irregular perspective shifts and perspective persistence, discourse-oriented and theoretical approaches.” Pragmatics 29 (2): 155–169. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hazlett, Allan
2010 “The Myth of factive verbs.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. 80 (3): 497–522. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iwasaki, Shoichi, and Foong Ha Yap
(Eds) 2015 Stance-marking and stance-taking in Asian languages. Journal of Pragmatics 831[special issue]. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jin, Dawei, and Jun Chen
2019 “Scalarity, degree reading and maximality in a Mandarin numeral construction.” Language and Linguistics 20 (2): 148–179. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jing-Schmidt, Zhuo
2005 Dramatized Discourse: The Mandarin Chinese Ba-Construction. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kang, M. Agnes
2018 “Visual arguments and discriminatory discourse: Comparing modes and affordances in representations of Mainland Chinese in Hong Kong.” Language & Communication 601: 94–107. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri
1971 “Some observations on factivity.” Research on Language & Social Interaction 41: 55–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul and Carol Kiparsky
1971 “Fact.” In preparation in Linguistics, ed. by M. Bierwisch and K. E. Heidolph, 143–173. The Hague, Mouton.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud
1994 Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topics, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W.
2007 “Cognitive Grammar.” In The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (Oxford Handbooks), ed. by Geeraerts, Dirk, and Hubert Cuyckens, 421–462. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Li, Charles N., and Sandra A. Thompson
1981 Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Liu, Yuehua, Wenyu Pan, & Wei Gu
2001 Shiyong Xiandai Hanyu Yufa [Practical Grammar of Modern Chinese]. Beijing: The Commercial Press.Google Scholar
Local, John, and Walker, Gareth
2008 “Stance and affect in conversation: On the interplay of sequential and phonetic resources.” Text & Talk 28 (6): 723–747. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyons, John
1982 “Deixis and subjectivity: Loquor, Ergo Sum?” In Speech, Place, and Action: Studies in Deixis and Related Topics, ed. by R. J. Jarvella, and W. Klein, 101–124. Chichester & New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Ochs, Elinor, and Schieffelin, Bambi
1989 “Language has a heart.” Text & Talk 91: 7–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Park, Joseph Sung-Yul
2011 “Framing, stance, and affect in Korean metalinguistic discourse.” Pragmatics 21 (2): 265–282. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saurí, Roser, and Pustejovsky, James
2012 “Are you sure that this happened? Assessing the factuality degree of events in text.” Computational Linguistics – COLI. 381: 1–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Su, Danjie, and Lu, Jianming
2010 “The construction-chunking approach for syntactic analysis and second language teaching.” Shijie Hanyu Jiaoxue [Journal of Chinese Teaching in the World] 24 (4): 557–567.Google Scholar
Su, Danjie
2012 “Construction as a chain of chunks: Theoretical framework of the construction-chunking approach.” Yuyan Kexue [Linguistic Sciences] 58 (3): 241–253.Google Scholar
2017a “Significance as a lens: Understanding the Mandarin ba construction through Discourse Adjacent Alternation.” Journal of Pragmatics 1171: 204–230. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017b A Discourse Approach to the Functions of Major Chinese Grammatical Constructions and Their Alternations in Conversation (Doctoral dissertation). University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar
2018 “Discourse-pragmatic functions of a Chinese topic-comment construction and L2 teaching strategies based on authentic media materials.” Taiwan Journal of Chinese as a Second Language 16 (1): 55–89.Google Scholar
2019 The M. Chinese Video Corpus (MCVC). UCLA, Los Angeles & University of Arkansas, Fayetteville.Google Scholar
In preparation). Subjectivity in language use: How lens differs from stance.
Su, Danjie & Hongyin Tao
2018 Teaching the shi…de construction with authentic materials in elementary Chinese, Chinese as a Second Language Research 7(1). 111–140. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stubbs, Michael
1996 Text and Corpus Analysis: Computer-Assisted Studies of Language and Culture. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Tao, Hongyin, and Yaqiong Liu
2010 “From register differences to grammatical differences: Grammatical constructions in natural speech and the media (Part 1).” Dangdai Xiuci Xue [Contemporary Rhetoric] (1): 37–44.Google Scholar
Tao, Hongyin
2001 “Discovering the usual with corpora: The case of remember .” In Corpus linguistics in North America: Selections from the 1999 Symposium, ed. by Simpson, Rita, and John Swale, 116–144. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Vallauri, E. L., and Masia, V.
2018 “Context and information structure constraints on factivity: the case of know .” Language Sciences 661: 103–115. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vandelanotte, Lieven
2019 “Changing perspectives: Something old, something new.” Pragmatics 29 (2): 170–197. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wu, Haiping
2015 “Encoding subjectivity with totality: A corpus-based study of [zhengge yi (CL) + X] in Mandarin.” In Stance-marking and stance-taking in Asian languages, ed. by Iwasaki, Shoichi, and Foong Ha Yap, 27–40. Journal of Pragmatics 831[special issue]. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wu, Ruey-Jiuan Regina
2004 Stance in talk: A Conversation Analysis of Mandarin final particles. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Xu, Yi
2014 A corpus-based functional study of shi…de constructions. Chinese Language and Discourse 5(2). 146–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Wei
2016 Jiyu yuliaoku de xiandai Hanyu biaoshi panduan yiyi “shi…de” jushi fazhan [A corpus-based analysis on the evolvement of Chinese judgmental shi…de structure]. Waiyu Yu Waiyu Jiaoxue [Foreign Languages and Their Teaching] 290(5). 20–31.Google Scholar
Zhu, Chunshen
1996 “Syntactic status of the agent: Its significance for information presentation in translating the passive between Chinese and English.” Multilingua 15 (4): 397–417. DOI logoGoogle Scholar