This paper is part of the ongoing research project concerning the syntax of passive construction in English. Passive construction is notorious in both linguistics and education for its complex structures, varied meanings and implications, and the presence of numerous comparable constructions. To tackle these challenges, the purpose of this project is twofold. First, it contributes to a comparative study of the passive construction in English, Japanese, and other languages. Second, it contributes to pedagogy. To reach these aims, this paper uses a variationist framework to analyze a corpus of English passives. It also extends to descriptive and generative frameworks. The present study analyzes the English passives, specifically be-passives and get-passives, in Quebec, Canada, to identify the conditioning factors influencing their selection. The tokens of the passive sentences are examined in terms of their relations to age, sex, and social classes, as well as syntactic properties (e.g., agentivity). It is proposed that the choice of getpassives is affected by three independent factors: age, the presence or absence of a by-phrase, and the types of verbs used and how they are subcategorized and dynamic. Even though the corpus used in this study is fairly small, it contributes to the field by looking at a type of passive construction that has not been looked at much from different theoretical and descriptive angles. It also makes suggestions about how to do the research and what these findings mean for the form-meaning interface.
This paper is part of the ongoing research project concerning the syntax of passive construction in English. Passive construction is notorious in both linguistics and education for its complex structures, varied meanings and implications, and the presence of numerous comparable constructions. To tackle these challenges, the purpose of this project is twofold. First, it contributes to a comparative study of the passive construction in English, Japanese, and other languages. Second, it contributes to pedagogy. To reach these aims, this paper uses a variationist framework to analyze a corpus of English passives. It also extends to descriptive and generative frameworks. The present study analyzes the English passives, specifically be-passives and get-passives, in Quebec, Canada, to identify the conditioning factors influencing their selection. The tokens of the passive sentences are examined in terms of their relations to age, sex, and social classes, as well as syntactic properties (e.g., agentivity). It is proposed that the choice of getpassives is affected by three independent factors: age, the presence or absence of a by-phrase, and the types of verbs used and how they are subcategorized and dynamic. Even though the corpus used in this study is fairly small, it contributes to the field by looking at a type of passive construction that has not been looked at much from different theoretical and descriptive angles. It also makes suggestions about how to do the research and what these findings mean for the form-meaning interface.
Bu maqola ingliz tilidagi passiv konstruksiya sintaksisiga bag‘ishlangan joriy tadqiqot loyihasining bir qismi hisoblanadi. Passiv konstruksiya lingvistika va til o‘qitish sohasida murakkab tuzilishi, turli ma’no va ta’sirlari hamda ko‘plab o‘xshash konstruksiyalarning mavjudligi bilan mashhur. Bu muammolarni hal qilish uchun loyihada ikki asosiy maqsad belgilangan. Birinchidan, ingliz, yapon va boshqa tillardagi passiv konstruksiyalarni taqqoslashga ko‘maklashish. Ikkinchidan, ingliz tilini o‘qitish metodikasini rivojlantirish. Ushbu maqsadlarga erishish uchun maqolada ingliz tilidagi passiv fe’llar korpusini tahlil qilishda variativ yondashuv qo‘llaniladi. Tadqiqot natijalari tavsifiy va generativ tuzilmalarga ham tatbiq etiladi. Mazkur tadqiqotda Kanadaning Kvebek viloyatidagi ingliz tilidagi passiv shakllar, xususan, be-passives va get-passives konstruksiyalari o‘rganilib, ularning tanlanishiga ta’sir qiluvchi omillar aniqlanadi. Passiv gaplardagi leksik birliklar yosh, jins, ijtimoiy tabaqalanish hamda sintaktik xususiyatlar (masalan, agentivlik) nuqtayi nazaridan tahlil qilinadi. Get-passives tanlanishiga uchta mustaqil omil ta’sir ko‘rsatishi taxmin qilinadi: yosh omili; qo‘shimcha frazaning mavjudligi yoki yo‘qligi; ishlatilgan fe’llarning turlari va ularning kichik toifalarga bo‘linishi, shuningdek, ushbu shaklda qanday dinamik o‘zgarishlar sodir bo‘lishi. Tadqiqot materiallarining hajmi cheklangan bo‘lishiga qaramay, u ushbu yo‘nalishga ma’lum darajada hissa qo‘shadi. Xususan, ilgari turli nazariy va tavsifiy jihatlar asosida keng o‘rganilmagan passiv konstruksiya turini tahlil qiladi. Shuningdek, maqolada ushbu tadqiqotning o‘tkazilishiga oid tavsiyalar va olingan natijalarning shakl va ma’no o‘zaro aloqasini tushunishdagi ahamiyati haqida fikrlar bildiriladi.
Эта статья является частью текущего исследовательского проекта, посвященного синтаксису пассивной конструкции в английском языке. Пассивная конструкция известна как в лингвистике, так и в преподавании своими сложными структурами, разнообразными значениями и следствиями, а также наличием многочисленных сопоставимых конструкций. Для решения этих проблем у данного проекта две цели. Во-первых, он способствует сравнительному изучению пассивной конструкции в английском, японском и других языках. Во-вторых, он содействует методике преподавания английского языка. Для достижения этих целей в данной статье используется вариативный подход для анализа корпуса английских пассивных глаголов. Он также распространяется на описательные и генеративные структуры. В настоящем исследовании анализируются английские пассивы, в частности be-passives и get-passives, в Квебеке, Канада, для выявления факторов, влияющих на их выбор. Лексемы пассивных предложений рассматриваются с точки зрения их связи с возрастом, полом и социальными классами, а также синтаксическими свойствами (например, агентивностью). Предполагается, что на выбор get-passives влияют три независимых фактора: возраст, наличие или отсутствие дополнительной фразы и типы используемых глаголов, а также то, как они подразделяются на подкатегории и в какой степени проявляется в них динамика. Несмотря на то что материал, используемый в данном исследовании, довольно мал, он вносит определенный вклад в эту область, рассматривая тип пассивной конструкции, который практически не рассматривался с разных теоретических и описательных точек зрения. В нем также даются предложения о том, как проводить исследование и что эти результаты означают для взаимодействия формы и значения.
| № | Муаллифнинг исми | Лавозими | Ташкилот номи |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | KITAOKA D.. | Tilshunoslik bo‘yicha falsafa doktori (PhD) | O‘zbekiston Davlat Jahon tillari Universiteti |
| № | Ҳавола номи |
|---|---|
| 1 | Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow, England: Pearson Educational Limited. |
| 2 | Byun, J. (2013). To be or to get? Diachronic and synchronic considerations on get- and be-passives. Seoul National University Working Papers in English Linguistics and Language, 11, 1–19. |
| 3 | Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. (1999). The English get-passive in spoken discourse: Description and implications for an interpersonal grammar. English Language and Linguistics, 3(1), 41–58. |
| 4 | Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. (2006). Cambridge grammar of English: A comprehensive guide, spoken and written English grammar and usage. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. |
| 5 | Cheshire, J. (2005). Syntactic variation and spoken language. In L. Cornips & K. Corrigan (Eds.), Syntax and variation: Reconciling the biological and the social (pp. 81–106). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. |
| 6 | Curme, G. O. (1935). Grammar of the English language: Volume 1: Parts of speech. Essex, England: Verbatim. |
| 7 | Dixon, R. M. W. (2005). A semantic approach to English grammar. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. |
| 8 | Dowty, D. (1979). Word meaning and Montague grammar. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Reidel Publishing Company. |
| 9 | Feagin, C. (1979). Variation and change in Alabama English: A sociolinguistic study of the white community. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press |
| 10 | Fleisher, N. (2005). Passive get, causative get, and the phasehood of passive vP. Proceedings from the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 41(1), 59–67. |
| 11 | Francis, W. N. (1958). The structure of American English. New York, NY: Ronald Press Co. |
| 12 | Frary, L. G. (1929). Studies in the syntax of the Old English passive with special reference to the use of wesan and weorðan. Language, 5(3), 7–79. |
| 13 | Fries, C. C. (1940). American English grammar. New York, NY: National Council of Teachers of English. |
| 14 | Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1972). A grammar of contemporary English. London, England: Longman. |
| 15 | Haegeman, L. (1985). The get-passive and Burzio’s generalization. Lingua, 66, 53–77. |
| 16 | Hatcher, A. G. (1949). To get/be invited. Modern Language Notes, 64(7), 433–446. |
| 17 | Hoshi, H. (1999). Passives. In N. Tsujimura (Ed.), The Handbook of Japanese Linguistics (pp. 191–235). Malden, MA: Blackwell. |
| 18 | Howard, I., & Niyekawa-Howard, A. M. (1976). Passivization. In M. Shibatani (Ed.), Japanese generative grammar (pp. 201–237). New York, NY: Academic Press. |
| 19 | Huang, L. (2000). Verb classification in Mayrinax Atayal. Oceanic Linguistics, 39(2), 364–390. |
| 20 | Ishizuka, T. (2017). The passive voice.In M. Shibatani, et al. (Eds.), Handbook of Japanese Syntax (pp. 403 – 446). Boston/Berin. Mouton De Gruyter. DOI 10.1515/9781614516613-012 |
| 21 | Jespersen, O. (1909–1949). Modern English grammar on historical principles (Parts 1–7). London, England: Allen & Unwin. |
| 22 | Kim, K. (2012). External-introducing heads: Voice and Appl. In M. C. Cuervo & Y. Roberge (Eds.), The end of argument structure? (pp. 131– 154). Bingley, England: Emerald Group Publishing. |
| 23 | Kubo, M. (1992). Japanese passives. In Working papers of the Department of Languages and Cultures (Vol. 23, pp. 231–302). Sapporo, Japan: University of Hokkaido. |
| 24 | Kuno, S. (1973). The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. |
| 25 | Kuroda, S.-Y. (1979). On Japanese passives. In B. George, E. Kobayashi, & M. Inoue (Eds.), Exploring in linguistics: Papers in honor of Kazuko Inoue (pp. 305–347). Tokyo, Japan: Kenkyusha. |
| 26 | Labov, W. (1972). Language in the inner city. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. |
| 27 | Labov, W. (1975). What is a linguistic fact? Lisse, Netherlands: Peter de Ridder Press. |
| 28 | Labov, W. (1996). When intuitions fail. In L. McNair, K. Singer, L. Dolbrin, & M. Aucon (Eds.), Papers from the Parasession on Theory and Data in Linguistics (pp. 77–106). Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society |
| 29 | Labov, W., Cohen, P., Robins, C., & Lewis, J. (1968). A study of the nonstandard English of Negro and Puerto Rican speakers in New York City. Philadelphia, PA: U.S. Regional Survey. |
| 30 | Lakoff, R. (1971). Passive resistance. Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 7, 149–162. |
| 31 | Langacker, R. W. (2000). Grammar and conceptualization. New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter. |
| 32 | Lavandera, B. R. (1978). Where does the sociolinguistic variable stop? Language in Society, 7(2), 171–182. |
| 33 | Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. |
| 34 | Macaulay, R. (1991). Locating dialect in discourse: The language of honest men and bonnie lassies in Ayr. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. |
| 35 | Medina, P. G. (2009). Semantic and pragmatic constraints on the English get-passive. In C. Butler & J. Martín Arista (Eds.), Deconstructing constructions (pp. 271–294). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing. |
| 36 | Mihara, K. (1994). Nihongono tougo kouzou [Japanese syntactic structures]. Tokyo, Japan: Shohakusha. |
| 37 | Mihara, K., & Hiraiwa, K. (2004). Shin Nihongono tougo kouzou [Japanese syntactic structures, new edition]. Tokyo, Japan: Shohakusha. |
| 38 | Miyagawa, S. (1989). Structure and case marking in Japanese. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. |
| 39 | Morita, H. (2012). The Japanese passives revisited. Annual Bulletin of Aichi Prefectural University, 44, 49–75. |
| 40 | Poplack, S., Walker, J., & Malcolmson, R. (2006). An English “like no other”? Language contact and change in Quebec. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 51(2–3), 185–213. |
| 41 | Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1972). A grammar of contemporary English. London, England: Longman. |
| 42 | Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Harlow, England: Pearson Education Limited. |
| 43 | Rickford, J. R. (1985). Ethnicity as a sociolinguistic boundary. American Speech, 60(2), 99–125. |
| 44 | Riddle, E., & Sheintuch, G. (1983). A functional analysis of pseudopassives. Linguistics and Philosophy, 6(4), 527–563. |
| 45 | Sankoff, G., & Laberge, S. (1978). The linguistic market and the statistical explanation of variability. In D. Sankoff (Ed.), Linguistic variation: Models and methods (pp. 239–250). New York, NY: Academic Press. |
| 46 | Schleef, E., & Meyerhoff, M. (2010). Sociolinguistic methods for data collection and interpretation. In M. Meyerhoff & E. Schleef (Eds.), The Routledge sociolinguistics reader (pp. 1–26). New York, NY/London, England: Routledge. |
| 47 | Shibatani, M. (1983). Sociolinguistics and transformational grammar. Ohak Yonku, 19, 103–112. |
| 48 | Shibatani, M. (1990). The languages of Japan. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. |
| 49 | Siewierska, A., & Bakker, D. (2013). Passive agents: Prototypical vs. canonical passives. In D. Brown, M. Chumakina, & G. G. J. Corbett (Eds.), Canonical morphology and syntax (pp. 151–189). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. |
| 50 | Svartvik, J. (1966). On voice in the English verb. The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton & Co. |
| 51 | Tomasello, M. (Ed.). (1998/2003). The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. |
| 52 | Weiner, J., & Labov, W. (1983). Constraints on the agentless passive. Journal of Linguistics, 19(1), 29–58. |