Volume 13, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1877-7031
  • E-ISSN: 1877-8798
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



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.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Biber, Douglas, and Edward Finegan
    1989 “Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect.” Text9 (1): 93–124. 10.1515/text.1.1989.9.1.93
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1989.9.1.93 [Google Scholar]
  2. Du Bois, John W.
    2007 “The stance triangle.” InStancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction, ed. byEnglebretson, Robert, 139–182. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.164.07du
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164.07du [Google Scholar]
  3. Duranti, Alessandro
    1990 “Politics and grammar: Agency in Samoan political discourse.” American Ethnologist17: 646–666. 10.1525/ae.1990.17.4.02a00030
    https://doi.org/10.1525/ae.1990.17.4.02a00030 [Google Scholar]
  4. Englebretson, Robert
    2007a “Grammatical resources for social purposes: Some aspects of stancetaking in colloquial Indonesian conversation.” InStancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction, ed. byEnglebretson, Robert, 69–110. John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/pbns.164.05eng
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164.05eng [Google Scholar]
  5. (Ed) 2007bStancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction. John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/pbns.164
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164 [Google Scholar]
  6. Fillmore, Charles
    1977 “The case for case reopened.” InSyntax and Semantics. Vol. 8: Grammatical Relations, ed. byP. Cole and J. M. Sadock, 59–81. New York: Academic Press. 10.1163/9789004368866_005
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368866_005 [Google Scholar]
  7. Gentens, Caroline, María Sol Sansiñena, Stef Spronck, and An Van linden
    2019 “Irregular perspective shifts and perspective persistence, discourse-oriented and theoretical approaches.” Pragmatics29 (2): 155–169. 10.1075/prag.18050.gen
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.18050.gen [Google Scholar]
  8. Hazlett, Allan
    2010 “The Myth of factive verbs.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. 80 (3): 497–522. 10.1111/j.1933‑1592.2010.00338.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1933-1592.2010.00338.x [Google Scholar]
  9. He, Xiaoling
    2019Patient-Subject Constructions in Mandarin Chinese: Syntax, Semantics, Discourse. John Benjamins. 10.1075/scld.12
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scld.12 [Google Scholar]
  10. Iwasaki, Shoichi, and Foong Ha Yap
    (Eds) 2015 Stance-marking and stance-taking in Asian languages. Journal of Pragmatics83[special issue]. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.04.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.04.008 [Google Scholar]
  11. Jin, Dawei, and Jun Chen
    2019 “Scalarity, degree reading and maximality in a Mandarin numeral construction.” Language and Linguistics20 (2): 148–179. 10.1075/lali.00032.jin
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lali.00032.jin [Google Scholar]
  12. Jing-Schmidt, Zhuo
    2005Dramatized Discourse: The Mandarin Chinese Ba-Construction. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. 10.1075/sfsl.56
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sfsl.56 [Google Scholar]
  13. Kang, M. Agnes
    2018 “Visual arguments and discriminatory discourse: Comparing modes and affordances in representations of Mainland Chinese in Hong Kong.” Language & Communication60: 94–107. 10.1016/j.langcom.2018.02.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2018.02.003 [Google Scholar]
  14. Karttunen, Lauri
    1971 “Some observations on factivity.” Research on Language & Social Interaction4: 55–69. 10.1080/08351817109370248
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351817109370248 [Google Scholar]
  15. Kiparsky, Paul and Carol Kiparsky
    1971 “Fact.” Inpreparation in Linguistics, ed. byM. Bierwisch and K. E. Heidolph, 143–173. The Hague, Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Lambrecht, Knud
    1994Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topics, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620607
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620607 [Google Scholar]
  17. Langacker, Ronald W.
    2007 “Cognitive Grammar.” InThe Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (Oxford Handbooks), ed. byGeeraerts, Dirk, and Hubert Cuyckens, 421–462. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Li, Charles N., and Sandra A. Thompson
    1981Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Liu, Yuehua, Wenyu Pan, & Wei Gu
    2001Shiyong Xiandai Hanyu Yufa [Practical Grammar of Modern Chinese]. Beijing: The Commercial Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Local, John, and Walker, Gareth
    2008 “Stance and affect in conversation: On the interplay of sequential and phonetic resources.” Text & Talk28 (6): 723–747. 10.1515/TEXT.2008.037
    https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2008.037 [Google Scholar]
  21. Lyons, John
    1982 “Deixis and subjectivity: Loquor, Ergo Sum?” InSpeech, Place, and Action: Studies in Deixis and Related Topics, ed. byR. J. Jarvella, and W. Klein, 101–124. Chichester & New York: John Wiley.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Ochs, Elinor, and Schieffelin, Bambi
    1989 “Language has a heart.” Text & Talk9: 7–25. 10.1515/text.1.1989.9.1.7
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1989.9.1.7 [Google Scholar]
  23. Park, Joseph Sung-Yul
    2011 “Framing, stance, and affect in Korean metalinguistic discourse.” Pragmatics21 (2): 265–282. 10.1075/prag.21.2.05par
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.21.2.05par [Google Scholar]
  24. Saurí, Roser, and Pustejovsky, James
    2012 “Are you sure that this happened? Assessing the factuality degree of events in text.” Computational Linguistics – COLI. 38: 1–39. 10.1162/COLI_a_00096
    https://doi.org/10.1162/COLI_a_00096 [Google Scholar]
  25. 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]
  26. 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]
  27. 2017a “Significance as a lens: Understanding the Mandarin ba construction through Discourse Adjacent Alternation.” Journal of Pragmatics117: 204–230. 10.1016/j.pragma.2017.06.019
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.06.019 [Google Scholar]
  28. 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]
  29. 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 Language16 (1): 55–89.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 2019The M. Chinese Video Corpus (MCVC). UCLA, Los Angeles & University of Arkansas, Fayetteville.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. . (In preparation). Subjectivity in language use: How lens differs from stance.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Su, Danjie & Hongyin Tao
    2018 Teaching the shi…de construction with authentic materials in elementary Chinese, Chinese as a Second Language Research7(1). 111–140. 10.1515/caslar‑2018‑0005
    https://doi.org/10.1515/caslar-2018-0005 [Google Scholar]
  33. Stubbs, Michael
    1996Text and Corpus Analysis: Computer-Assisted Studies of Language and Culture. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 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]
  35. Tao, Hongyin
    2001 “Discovering the usual with corpora: The case of remember.” InCorpus linguistics in North America: Selections from the 1999 Symposium, ed. bySimpson, Rita, and John Swale, 116–144. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Vallauri, E. L., and Masia, V.
    2018 “Context and information structure constraints on factivity: the case of know.” Language Sciences66: 103–115. 10.1016/j.langsci.2018.02.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2018.02.001 [Google Scholar]
  37. Vandelanotte, Lieven
    2019 “Changing perspectives: Something old, something new.” Pragmatics29 (2): 170–197. 10.1075/prag.18046.van
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.18046.van [Google Scholar]
  38. Wu, Haiping
    2015 “Encoding subjectivity with totality: A corpus-based study of [zhengge yi (CL) + X] in Mandarin.” InStance-marking and stance-taking in Asian languages, ed. byIwasaki, Shoichi, and Foong Ha Yap, 27–40. Journal of Pragmatics83[special issue]. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.04.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.04.009 [Google Scholar]
  39. Wu, Ruey-Jiuan Regina
    2004Stance in talk: A Conversation Analysis of Mandarin final particles. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.117
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.117 [Google Scholar]
  40. Xu, Yi
    2014 A corpus-based functional study of shi…de constructions. Chinese Language and Discourse5(2). 146–184. 10.1075/cld.5.2.02xu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cld.5.2.02xu [Google Scholar]
  41. 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]
  42. Zhu, Chunshen
    1996 “Syntactic status of the agent: Its significance for information presentation in translating the passive between Chinese and English.” Multilingua15 (4): 397–417. 10.1515/mult.1996.15.4.397
    https://doi.org/10.1515/mult.1996.15.4.397 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): alternation; grammar; lens; Mandarin; pragmatics; stance; subjectivity
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error