Hermann is not alone in advocating this position.<fnref n="16" />

There are other linguists who have also pointed out that preverbal *gei* can mean either "on behalf of", "instead of" or "to" depending on the context, such as Lü Shu-xiang (1980: 196), Y.C. Li (1971: 24), Zhu De-xi (1979: 83) and Shou-hsin Teng (1975: 151). Li and Thompson (1981: 386) slightly differ in their particular analytic standpoint: Although they characterize the dichotomy of *gei* constructions in a similar way to Teng and Hermann as one of *gei* marking a benefactive noun phrase preverbally as opposed to marking a noun phrase with the indirect object postverbally, they regard the problem of ambiguity with the preverbal benefactive construction as historical, arising from the comparatively recent introduction of *gei* to mark the indirect object preverbally in modern Mandarin (1981: 386-7, their numbering and translation of example):

> This is a manifestation of the general structural change which is pushing the language toward the verb final type ... for more than a millenium. ... The appearance of the indirect object in the preverbal position, however, is confined to only a few verbs, such as *xiě* ('write'), *liú* ('keep, save'), *dǎ* ('diànhuà') ('telephone') ...

<footnote n="16">16. Hermann's analysis is in fact based on that of Teng Shou-hsin (1975). Also note that preverbal *gei* is used to form a passive construction, described in the introduction and below. S₃ may only be regarded as polysemous or more accurately 'ambiguous' in this sense and not in the way Hermann intends. However, the adversative *gei* passive has entirely different semantic requirements to that of the benefactive *gei* construction even though their syntax is superficially identical.</footnote>
They exemplify this ambiguity with the following sentence:

(47) wo gei ta xie le yi feng xin
I to for 3 sg write PFV one CL letter
I wrote a letter to him/her.
for

Contrary to these two kinds of analyses, I will propose that we need only one semantic representation for the preverbal *gei* construction ($S_3$) to account for these two or three possibilities of interpretation at "surface level" that holds however within a purely synchronic framework.

First of all, to successfully account for this seeming polysemy, the "lowest common denominator" of meaning for the three possible interpretations needs to be factored out. I consider and will try to justify that this is one of the subject wanting to cause a beneficial state of affairs to come about for the indirect object and consequently that the maximum three interpretations of any given example of an $S_3$ construction are contextual inferences and not due to the existence of three semantically different but syntactically identical constructions. After showing how a unified semantic treatment can be given for this construction, the task of decomposing these complex descriptive terms into more elemental units for use in the semantic representation will be tackled:

Li and Thompson's example (47) could also have the specific interpretation of "I wrote a letter instead of him/her" depending on the context, as well as those they give of "I wrote a letter for him/her" and "I wrote a letter to him/her". Let us think of three suitable contexts that reveal the semantic feature of "benefit" which I claim underlies all these interpretations and is
conspicuously missing from the English and Chinese paraphrases
pointed out so far: I might write a letter instead of my friend
because she is unable to do it herself (she has a broken hand/is
illiterate or is simply too busy and I want to save her time) or
then again, I might write a letter to my friend as I know she would
like to receive a letter from me and hear the latest news. Thirdly,
I could write a letter for my friend (to someone else) to help her
find a job. The problem to date is that superficially observed, it
would seem that the first two meanings of these three separate
interpretations of the above example could presumably be encoded by
a ti construction ('instead of') in Chinese (discussed below) and
the S₂ dative construction of intended benefit with postverbal
gei. Similarly, the third meaning could be encoded by a wei
construction ('in the interest of') which will also be discussed
below. The semantic feature missing in these three different
constructions but uniting the three possible interpretations of the
S₃ example is that in each a beneficial state of affairs is caused
for the friend in question, denoted by the indirect object that is
marked by gei. - This is the particular component of meaning
especially singled out for encoding by the S₃ construction and
clearly distinguishing the latter from the other two gei
constructions. (Note that the dative S₂ construction encodes an
action of intended benefit to the I.O.)

The English translations of the given Chinese examples of
the benefactive construction S₃ may be considered then to describe
specific instances of how a situation of "benefit" is created for
another person, while omitting at the same time to paraphrase the
feature of benefit.
The presentation of the semantic structure of the benefactive construction with preverbal *gei* S<sub>3</sub>, precedes a discussion which contrasts the semantic features of the S<sub>3</sub> construction with the semantically related *ti* and *wei* constructions in Chinese and ends with a discussion contrasting S<sub>3</sub> with the other two *gei* constructions: S<sub>1</sub> and S<sub>2</sub>.

S<sub>3</sub>: <u>THE BENEFACTIVE CONSTRUCTION WITH PREVERBAL GEI</u>

SUBJECT - GEI - INDIRECT - VERB PHRASE
OBJECT

<u>Wo</u> <u>gei</u> <u>ta</u> <u>ji-le</u> <u>yifeng xin.</u>
I GEI him send:COM one:CL letter

I posted a letter for him.

Person A

Person B

Something happened to person B
that person A wanted
because A did something
I'm thinking of it as of something good for B

3.1 <u>COMPARISON OF THE BENEFACTIVE GEI CONSTRUCTION WITH THE TI AND WEI CONSTRUCTIONS</u>

The benefactive *gei* construction exists side-by-side with
two other semantically related constructions using the prepositions
*ti* - 'on behalf of' or 'instead of' and *wei* - 'for the sake of'. In
the latter two constructions, *ti* and *wei* occur in prepositional
phrases preceding the verb phrase in the same way as *gei* does in
benefactive S<sub>3</sub>.

Let us discuss the use of *ti* first of all: The
construction with *ti* encodes proxy action; that is, action carried
out on behalf of another.<fnref n="17" /> It remains neutral with respect to
benefit for the indirect object:

TI:

SUBJECT - TI - INDIRECT - VERB PHRASE
OBJECT

Wo ti Zhang San mai huoche piao.

I instead of (name) buy train ticket

I bought a train ticket on behalf of Zhang San.

whereas the construction with *wei* encodes that the subject's action
is symbolic of the way the latter feels toward the person denoted by
the indirect object:

WEI:

SUBJECT - WEI - INDIRECT - VERB PHRASE
OBJECT

Zhang San wei Mali pa le yizuo shan.

(name) for:the:sake:of (name) climb COM one:CL mountain

Zhang San climbed a mountain for Mary's sake.

In standard Chinese, *ti* is restricted to the meaning of
carrying out an action in place of someone else,<fnref n="18" /> that is,
substituting for another person, although not necessarily because
the latter wants it. This obviously reflects and is related to its
main verb usage 'substitute for' or 'take the place of':

<footnote n="17">17 Only *ti* combined with action predicates comes under discussion here. It may also co-occur with some stative predicates e.g. *Wo ti ni gaoxing* "I'm happy on your behalf".</footnote>

<footnote n="18">18 Chao (1968: 332) makes this point as well for Northern Mandarin as opposed to the Central dialects where *ti* is also used in the sense of Benefactive *gei*. I found that my two main informants, one from Beijing and the other from Harbin, used *ti* exclusively for 'instead of' as is typical of northern speakers. I will consider this to be standard usage.</footnote>
Verbal use of ti:

60. Ni xie huir, wo lai ti ni.
you rest while I come TI you
You rest for a while and I'll take your place.

Wei in its prepositional use of 'for the sake of' has a more literary flavour as does its English counterpart and is consequently not a common feature of colloquial speech.<fnref n="19" /> As a verb, it is typically used as the second verb in a serial verb construction with several usages, two of them being verbs which mean 'become' and 'act as'. The verbal usage is mainly restricted to the written language as well (c.f. Lü Shuxiang 1981: 483).

61. Xuan ta wei zhuxi.
select her act chairperson
Elect her as the chairperson.

Let us first compare the semantic structures of *ti* and *wei* with that of the *gei* benefactive, $S_3$:<fnref n="20" /> In this discussion, the aim is to show that the benefactive construction with preverbal *gei* ($S_3$) encodes not only that the subject intends to create a beneficial state of affairs for the indirect object but also that the subject causes this to come about.

In contrast to this, the construction with *wei* will be shown to single out only the feature of imagining that the subject's symbolic action could cause a beneficial state of affairs amongst

<footnote n="19">19 Li and Thompson (1981: 385) also note that *wei* is "the more archaic form" of the two prepositional constructions with *gei* and *wei*.</footnote>

<footnote n="20">20 Here "ti" and "wei" are used as abbreviations for "the construction with TI" and the "construction with WEI" respectively.</footnote>
others for encoding in its semantic structure while the construction
with *ti* 'chooses' an entirely different set of semantic features.

At first glance, it would seem that simple intransitive
verbs may not be used in S₃:

62. *Zhang San gei Mali pao-bu qu.
(name) GEI (name) run/go
(Zhang San ran/went for Mary's sake.)

However, this is not a syntactically defined restriction
as we find that while simple intransitive verbs are excluded, as
part of a more complex verb phrase they are acceptable, provided
that they conform to the semantic requirements of S₃ outlined
above:

63. Zhang San gei Mali pao dao tushuguan qu.
(name) GEI (name) run to library go
Zhang San ran to the library for Mary.

64. Zhang San gei Mali qu mai cai.
(name) GEI (name) go buy vegetable
Zhang San went to buy vegetables for Mary.

In the benefactive construction, the purpose of the
action has to be clear in each example in order to be able to
construe what kind of benefit will be gained from it. With sentence
(62) "He ran for Mary's sake", no clear inference can be made at all
with respect to this semantic parameter.

On the other hand, in (63) "Zhang San ran to the library
for Mary" it can easily be inferred that Mary benefitted as a result
of this event: her books were returned or new ones borrowed. In
contrast to the case for *gei*, it is perfectly acceptable however to
use *wei* with intransitive verbs such as "run", "eat", "drink" and "go", when used as atelic activity verbs:

65. Zhang San *wei* Mali pao-bu/(qu).
(name) WEI (name) run/go
Zhang San ran/(went) for Mary's sake.

66. Zhang San *wei* (*gei*) Mali chi fan/(he jiu)/(xie zi).
(name) WEI (*GEI*) (name) eat/ (drink)/ (write)
Zhang San ate/(drank)/(wrote) for Mary's sake.

In all these examples, Zhang San carries out an action or activity that he might not normally have undertaken, but does so to show how he feels towards Mary. - His action in each case is symbolic of the benevolent feelings he holds in regard to Mary. In (65), for example, we could think of a context where Zhang San who usually does not like taking part in competitive sports is motivated by his feelings of love and devotion towards Mary to enter in a race and run "for her sake". Mary, of course, could be totally oblivious of these feelings, yet the subject, Zhang San, carries out this activity with the thought that it somehow could benefit her as well.
- He imagines this to be the case.

This brings us to the question that if "benefit" is involved in the meaning of the *wei* construction, then why is it that the benefactive *gei* construction ($S_3$) cannot co-occur with these intransitive activity verbs? The reason for the exclusion of these verbs from $S_3$ is clearly that it is difficult to interpret what effect the subject's action could have on the indirect object, beneficial or otherwise. The *gei* benefactive, $S_3$, is causative insofar as it encodes the successful causation of a beneficial state of affairs for the indirect object whereas the *wei* construction
encodes rather the subject imagining that they could cause a
beneficial state of affairs for the indirect object by means of an
action symbolic of their feelings of good will. This is apparent in
another context for example (65) where Mary is in fact no longer
alive but Zhang San knowing that Mary had always wanted him to be an
athletics star, runs in races out of his enduring love for her. This
context would be risible if not ridiculous for the closest
benefactive gei example we can find of Zhang San gei Mali pao-dao
tushuguan qu "Zhang San ran to the library for Mary". For any
beneficial effect on Mary to be interpreted, "Mary" must of course
be understood to be a living person. Not so for the symbolic wei
construction, where neither causative intention nor causation of a
beneficial state of affairs per se is encoded.

Similarly, in example (66), we could imagine a context
where Zhang San is growing thinner and thinner day-by-day until it
is only the thought of Mary worrying about his state of ill-health
and his feelings of devotion towards her or wanting to please her
that cause him to start eating properly again, not because he wants
to do himself a "good turn". Again, the fact that it is difficult
to interpret what kind of beneficial effect this could have on Mary
means that no benefactive gei counterpart can be found.

The ti construction freely occurs with these intransitive
activity verbs too, encoding that the subject carries out the action
on behalf of the indirect object:

67. Zhang San ti Mali qu/(chi fan)/(he jiu)/(xie zi).
(name) TI (name) go/ (eat) /(drink) / (write)
Zhang San went (ate)/(drank)/(wrote) on Mary's behalf.
The context appropriate for the use of the *ti* construction is one where Mary is obliged to do something but is unable to or does not want to, which causes the subject to undertake the task of fulfilling this obligation. For example, Mary is socially obliged to drink wine for a toast at a dinner party but as she is a teetotaller, Zhang San fulfills this obligation by drinking her glass of wine on her behalf so that she toasts "by proxy".

Further proof that the verb class permissible in benefactive *gei S<sub>3</sub>* is not syntactically definable is that if we merely exclude intransitive activity verbs, we cannot account for the unacceptability of the following example:

68. Zhang San (*gei*) wei/(ti) Mali chi-le dianxin.
(name) (*GEI*) WEI/(TI) (name) eat:COM dessert

Zhang San ate dessert for Mary's sake/(on Mary's behalf).

The English *for*-dative "Zhang San ate dessert for Mary" may only be translated into Chinese by *wei* (with the implication that it was for Mary's sake) or by *ti* (on Mary's behalf) but not by *gei*, even though the activity verb *chi* 'eat' is furnished with a direct object *dianxin* 'dessert' in this case.

Here, *ti* could be used in a context where Mary is on a slimming diet but does not wish to offend her hosts by not eating dessert so she asks Zhang San to eat it for her despite the fact that Zhang San has already eaten one portion of dessert and may not particularly feel like eating a second one. *Gei* is excluded as the eating of Mary's dessert by Zhang San cannot be understood to directly affect Mary in terms of creating tangible benefit for her. On the other hand the use of *wei* conjures up a context where Zhang San breaks his longstanding rule of never eating sugary food because
of his feelings towards Mary, apparently stronger than this prior
resolve. In this context, we assume that Mary made the dessert and
thus Zhang San would like to please her by eating and appreciating
her cooking.

We find that there is no simple classification of verbs
occurring in or prohibited from S<sub>3</sub>, identical to the situation
outlined for S<sub>1</sub> and S<sub>2</sub>. It should be noted, however, that verbs
of transferral (or giving) are highly restricted in their occurrence
in S<sub>3</sub>. When they occur in S<sub>3</sub>, they must be interpreted as
meaning the transferring of an object to <u>someone other than the</u>
<u>indirect object</u>, if they can be interpreted at all.

69. ?Ta gei wo maì fangzi.
he GEI me sell house
He sold a house for me.

70. *Ta gei wo song ben shu.
he GEI me present CL book
(He gave a book as a present [to someone else] for me.)

In some analyses, in particular Zhu (1979), only verbs of
giving which can be interpreted as transferral of the direct object
to the person designated by the indirect object in S<sub>3</sub> (rather than
to someone else not explicitly encoded in the construction) are
considered acceptable.<sup>20</sup> This small set of verbs co-incides to a
large extent with those listed in Li and Thompson (1981) as being

20. Zhu De-xi, (1979), pp.83-5: Zhu claims further that gei in these three constructions (S<sub>1</sub>, S<sub>2</sub> and S<sub>3</sub>) is a verb (p.81) without substantiating this claim with any evidence. In his analysis of S<sub>3</sub>, he also claims that verbs of giving V<sub>a</sub> mainly do not occur in it or that when they do, gei changes from being a verb to a preposition with the sense of the
[cont'd]
verbs for which a preverbal _GEI + Noun Phrase_ is now commonly
interpreted as "to + indirect object" rather than as _gei_ marking a
benefactive noun phrase (see quote above). These are verbs such as
*liú* 'keep', *xiě* 'write', *dài* 'carry' and *dǎ diànhuà* 'telephone'.
Although Zhu does not put forward the kind of diachronic explanation
that Li and Thompson use to explain this confusing set of data on
verbs of giving, he certainly does claim that the verbs of giving
are excluded from S₃ as they can only be interpreted in this
construction, as "serving" as he phrases it, (the subject doing
something instead of the indirect object doing it) and no longer as
"giving". These are the verbs such as *sòng* 'give as a present', *mài*
'sell', *péi* 'compensate' and *cì* 'bestow':

71. *Gei ta shang-le yiliang yinzi.
GEI him reward:COM one:ounce silver
(?Reward [someone else] with an ounce of silver for him.)

72. *Gei ta jiao-le yidian benshi.
GEI him teach:COM one:bit skill
(?Teach [someone else] some skills for him.)

20. [cont'd]
construction changing from one encoding "giving" to one
encoding "serving". Here he means that S₃ with verbs of
giving is similar to the _ti_ construction in encoding that the
subject does something instead of the indirect object doing
it. Zhu stars examples (69) and (70) above in his analysis and
states that only the verb of giving _jì_ 'send' and other verbs
such as _jiān_ 'select (with chopsticks), _liú_ 'keep', _xiě_
'write' _dǎ_ (diànhuà), 'telephone', _huì_ 'transmit' and _dài_
'carry' are permissible in S₃ with the verb _gei_ as opposed
to preposition _gei_.
73. *Gei ta jie-le wukuai qian.

GEI him lend:COM five:dollar money

(?Lend $5 [to someone else] for him.) (N.B. This does have a possible interpretation as "Borrow $5 for him." when *jie*, which has two meanings - either "lend" or "borrow" in English - is interpreted as a verb of getting and not of giving.)<fnref n="21" />

I believe that the reason for such verbs of giving being excluded apart from the small set of exceptions listed above is again not due to their interpretation in the construction as events of the subject "serving" the indirect object (doing something instead of the indirect object doing it) as Zhu suggests but rather due to the impossibility of interpreting how a beneficial state of affairs comes about for the subject. In the situation of money being lent to someone else for me, presumably my own money, I do not stand to benefit from such a philanthropic action, at least in a tangible as opposed to spiritual way.

The second reason why Zhu's interpretation of the subject "serving" the indirect object for verbs of giving in S₃ does not account for their exclusion is the possibility of making this specific contextual inference for other acceptable S₃ examples with verb classes such as verbs of getting like *maǐ* "buy":

74. Wo gei ta mǎ yiliang che.

I GEI him buy one:CL car

I bought a car for him.

Zhu points out that this example could have the following two interpretations:

<footnote n="21">21. Examples from Zhu, (1979), p.85, my translation and numbering.</footnote>
a. I bought a car to give him.

b. I bought a car in his place (instead of him buying it).<fnref n="22" />

Zhu continues his analysis of benefactive *gei* $S_3$ with the following remark about the category of verbs of getting (1979: 84):

> Genuine $S_3$ expresses giving. However, this category seems to contain the meaning of serving. Nevertheless, this isn't sufficient to prove that the *gei* in it is a preposition ... The meaning of serving seems to be derived from the meaning of giving (giving itself can be considered as a kind of serving) and is certainly not bestowed upon it by the preposition *gei*.

If it is possible to interpret other verb classes in $S_3$ separate from verbs of giving or transferral such as the verbs of getting as designating events where the subject does something instead of the indirect object doing it, (that is, where the subject "serves" the indirect object) then this reason definitely can't be used as the explanation for verbs of giving being excluded from $S_3$, Zhu's viewpoint.

It was pointed out in the beginning of this section that one of the specific interpretations of $S_3$ could be that of "proxy action". Here it was also argued that the various interpretations of $S_3$ should be considered as contextual inferences of the meaning of "benefit" encoded in $S_3$ and not as proof of the polysemy of preverbal GEI. In the example "Zhang San bought a car for Mary", whether or not Zhang San buys the car on Mary's behalf because she

<footnote n="22">22 Zhu, (1979: 84). Note that Zhu divides $S_3$ into two categories: those with verbal and those with prepositional *gei*. The (b) interpretation is only available for prepositional *gei* which means "serving" or "instead of" as pointed out above and not for verbal *gei*. (Zhu claims that otherwise *gei* acts a verb in all these constructions.)</footnote>
is too busy or 'for Mary' simply because he wants to give her a car
as a present, both such contextual inferences of S₃ share the
feature of the causation of a beneficial state of affairs for Mary
by means of the subject's action.

The acceptability of S₃ examples is thus determined by
the presence or absence of this component stating the effect of the
subject's action on the indirect object. It has already been shown
that English examples "He went for her" or "He ate dessert for her"
cannot be translated by the benefactive gei construction but only by
wei or ti precisely for this reason. Similarly, with the verb jiè
which can mean either 'borrow' or 'lend' depending on the context,
only the 'borrow' interpretation is possible in S₃:

75. Ta gei wo jie yiqian kuai qian.
he GEI me borrow one:thousand CL money
He borrowed $1,000 for me. (*"He lent $1,000 [to someone else] for me.")

When jiè is understood as 'borrow' it can be simultaneously
interpreted that the money was borrowed from someone else to give to
me, that is, the money was intended for me to have and benefit from.
In the case of lending, however, it is not possible to make the same
interpretation (that the money was intended for me to have) and in
this situation only the S₁ gei construction can be used to encode
lending, this being an event of transferral of money to the person
denoted by the indirect object:

76. S₁: Ta jie gei wo yiqian kuai qian.
he lend GEI me one:thousand CL money
He lent me $1,000.
It is also clear that for events where the subject's action can be understood to cause benefit for the indirect object, the $S_3$ construction may only be used when the event directly affects the "indirect object", that is, where the "beneficiary" of the event is involved in the event itself and not one of the beneficiary's possessions. The following example does not satisfy these semantic requirements and may only be encoded by a **ti** or **wei** construction:

77. **Ta** (*gei*)/wei/(ti) wo mai sizai wo jia qianmian de xiao niao.
    he (*GEI*)/WEI/(TI) me bury die:at my house front REL little bird
    He buried the little bird which died in front of my house (*for me*) for my sake/(on my behalf).

In (77), even though the event involves one of my "possessions", the "territory" surrounding the place where I live and the subject's action may be thought of as benefitting me, only the **wei** and **ti** constructions may be used to encode it as the event does not directly involve me.

Indirect or "vicarious" benefit is also excluded from the benefactive. If the event involves a friend or relative of the person designated by the indirect object, again only **ti** or **wei** may be used when the event encodes the relative or friend benefitting rather than the indirect object:

78. **Zhang San** (*gei*) **wei**/(ti) **Mali** ding cai gei ta de haizi
(name) (*GEI*) **WEI**/(TI) (name) order meal GEI she GEN child
Zhang San ordered a meal for Mary's child (*for Mary*) for Mary's sake/(on Mary's behalf).

Of course if the meal is intended for Mary to eat, then the benefactive is completely acceptable:
79. Zhang San gei Mali ding cai.

(name) GEI (name) order meal

Zhang San ordered a meal for Mary.

Li and Thompson (1981: 385) note that _gei_ is restricted to co-occurrence with action verbs in the benefactive whereas _wei_ is not. Once again, the component of direct effect on the indirect object accounts for the exclusion of events involving the emotions, perception or bodily effect from the benefactive whereas they may freely co-occur with the _ti_ and _wei_ constructions:

**EMOTIONS:**
Zhang San (*gei) wei/(ti) Mali {gaoxing.}
(name) (*GEI) WEI/(TI) (name) {happy
worried}

Zhang San is {happy worried} (*for Mary) for Mary's sake/(on Mary's behalf).

**PERCEPTION:**
Zhang San (*gei) wei/(ti) Mali {tan-qin.}
(name) (*GEI) WEI/(TI) (name) {play piano}
{sing song}

Zhang San {played the piano} (*for Mary) for Mary's sake/
{sang songs} (on Mary's behalf).

**BODILY EFFECT:**
Zhang San (*gei) wei/ti Li Si {gua-lian.
bu chong ya.}

Zhang San {shaved filled a tooth} (*for Li Si) for Li Si's sake/
(on behalf of Li Si).

Finally, the benefactive construction always encodes that the state of affairs that comes about for the indirect object is a

<footnote n="23">23 Shou-hsin Teng (1975: 152) presents data which conflicts with
mine, giving two examples of verbs of bodily effect xīzaǒ
'wash' and chuǎn yīfu 'dress' with benefactive gei. This
point needs further research. Bennett (1981: 70) claims that
in these examples, gei is verbal and xīzaǒ acts as a noun.</footnote>
beneficial one, specifically one that the speaker is thinking of as
a good state of affairs for the indirect object and one that the
subject wants to cause for the indirect object.

80. ?Zhang San gei Mali chao-hu-le cai.

(name) GEI (name) fry:burn:COM meal

Zhang San burnt the meal he was cooking for Mary.

This sentence is not acceptable unless Zhang San's burning of the
food is interpreted as accidental and that despite this, he had
really intended to do Mary a "good turn" by cooking for her. We can
regard this as a misfire of the subject's good intentions, and as
such it does not violate any constraints in the semantic
representation.

The beneficial or desirable nature of the state of
affairs which comes about for the indirect object is encoded in the
semantic structure as the speaker's viewpoint. Consequently, even
in the case of a sadistic Zhang San who believes that his
masochistic friend Mary likes being punched or verbally abused and
thus to carry out these actions would cause a beneficial state of
affairs to arise for her, such events cannot be encoded in the
benefactive _gei_ construction. It is a striking semantic phenomenon
which results in sentences with the same syntactic form as the
benefactive _gei_ construction being interpreted as adversative
passives formed by _gei_:<sup>24</sup>

13. <u>Zhangsan gei Lisi da le.</u>

'name' GEI 'name' hit 'aspect': Zhangsan hit Lisi OR
Zhangsan was hit by Lisi.

(cont.)

<footnote n="24">24 Similarly, Bennett (1981: 70) makes the following remark with
respect to Chao's claim (1948: 193) that _gei_ can mark both the
object and the agent (his example and translation):</footnote>
81. Zhang San gei Mali da -le yiquan.
(name) GEI (name) hit:COM one:fist

a. Zhang San was punched by Mary.

b. * Zhang San punched Mary (for Mary's benefit).

82. Ta gei Mali ma -le yidun.
he GEI (name) abuse:COM one:CL

a. He was (verbally) abused by Mary.

b. * He (verbally) abused Mary (for Mary's benefit).

Thus events considered undesirable in nature by the speaker are unconditionally excluded from occurring in the benefactive *gei* construction. The semantic representation for the benefactive *gei* construction, S<sub>3</sub>, is restated below so that it may be conveniently compared with those for *ti* and *wei* on the following pages:

SUBJECT - GEI - INDIRECT - VERB PHRASE
OBJECT

Zhang San gei Mali da-le yijian maoyi.
(name) GEI Mary knit:COM one:CL jumper

Zhang San knitted a jumper for Mary.

Person A

Person B

Something happened to person B that person A wanted because person A did something
I'm thinking of it as of something good for person B.

<footnote n="24">24 (contd.)</footnote>

<footnote>"However, informants I asked about this sentence only get the 'Zhangsan was hit by Lisi' reading: for them, *gei* can only mark the agent, not the object."</footnote>
### 3.1.1 The *Ti* Construction of Social Obligation

In the construction with *ti*, we find in contrast to the benefactive *gei* construction, that intention on the part of the subject to cause a beneficial state of affairs for the indirect object is once more not a semantic feature. *Ti* encodes rather that the subject carries out some action in place of person B due to (i) the fact that person B couldn't carry out this action at that particular time which they were obliged to undertake and (ii) person A's (the subject's) desire to fulfill this obligation, for example, out of a sense of duty: The assumption behind the use of the *ti* construction is that the subject is normally able to carry out the action required of him or her but at that particular time cannot do so for some (unmentioned) reason. This explains why (iv) below is unacceptable. Restricting the *ti* construction to examples encoding actions (and not ones encoding events such as emotions) in order that it may be compared with the benefactive *gei* construction, I propose the following semantic representation:

SUBJECT - *Ti* - INDIRECT - VERB PHRASE
OBJECT

Person A

Person B

(i) Zhang San ti Mali qu. (S₃:*GEI)
(name) TI (name) go

Zhang San went on Mary's behalf.

(ii) Zhang San ti Li Si gua lian. (S₃:*GEI)
(name) TI (name) shave

Zhang San did the shaving (of the customer) on Lisi's behalf (instead of Li Si having to do it). (e.g. where Zhang San and Li Si are both barbers)
(iii) **Zhang San ti Mali song-le yiben shu.** (S₃:*GEI)

(name) TI (name) present:COM one:CL book

Zhang San gave a present of a book (to someone else) on Mary's behalf.

(iv) **Laoshi gei (*ti) xuesheng jieshi.**

teacher GEI (*TI) student explain

The teacher explained (something) for the students' benefit (*instead of the students). (We assume the students were not capable of explaining this and thus the use of *ti* is precluded.)

Assuming that person B has to do something (Z) at a certain time

and that Z is something which B is capable of doing

I say:

Person A did something (Z) that person B should've done
because person A knew that person B couldn't do Z at
this time

Z was something that A felt should be done.

### 3.1.2 The Symbolic *Wei* Construction

Comparing the *wei* construction to the benefactive *gei* construction, it is apparent that the indirect object, person B, is not affected in any way as a result of A's action: This feature may be clearly detected by comparing the following pair of examples:

83.

Wo *wei* ni qu.

I WEI you go

c.f. *Wo gei ni qu.*

I GEI you go

I'll go for your sake.

Green defines the indirect object in the English benefactive construction (her *for*-class 5) as "the intended recipient of a symbolic action" (1974: 96). Indeed, as the discussion above showed, the *wei* construction in Chinese is perfectly suited in its semantic structure to encoding "symbolic action", that is, acts which are symbolic of the subject's feelings
of good will towards the indirect object. Several of Green's
English examples are translated by the _wei_ construction below (1974:
95-6, my numbering):<fnref n="25" />

84. Tamen yao wei Ligen sha yige xipi.
they want WEI Reagan kill one:CL hippy
They're going to kill a hippy for Reagan's sake.

85. Sam _wei ta de duixiang pa-le yizuo shan_.
(name) WEI his girlfriend climb:COM one:CL mountain
Sam climbed a mountain for his girlfriend's sake.

86. Wei wo sha yitiao long.
WEI me kill one:CL dragon
Kill a dragon for my sake.

Green remarks that the term "benefactive" is really a misnomer for
the English construction in question and that (1974: 96)

These constructions may refer to acts which
certainly don't benefit the person they are
intended to impress, although they are of
course, performed 'for his benefit' in the
sense that he is the intended audience.

Green claims further (1974: 95) that for internal
indirect objects to be acceptable in the benefactive construction,
"the act denoted by the symbolic construction must be one in which a
change of state regarding the direct object noun phrase is effected"
and uses examples such as (80b) and (80d) to justify this claim:

80b. Sam promised to crush his lover a mountain.

80d. *Sam promised to taste his lover her wine.*

<footnote n="25">25 Green defines the benefactive here as those "expressions which
can be used to denote acts intended to be symbolic of the
subject's devotion to the indirect object..." N.B. The
English examples from Green have been slightly adjusted to fit
the meaning of the _wei_ construction better.</footnote>
[Note that Green does not distinguish between prepositionless and prepositional forms of the benefactive construction here (that is, between [80b] and "Sam promised to crush a mountain for his lover") but rather discusses them together.<fnref n="26" />]

The latter observation regarding a change of state which affects the (internal) indirect object of the English 'benefactive' construction bears some relevance to the discussion of the Chinese benefactive *gei* construction as opposed to the symbolic *wei* construction. Both encode "benefit" in different ways: *gei* encodes it in the sense of the subject wanting to cause a beneficial state of affairs to come about for the indirect object whereas *wei* encodes the subject imagining that their action might cause this.

Only the *gei* construction however, encodes the causation of this state of affairs in addition to the intention to cause it.

[These points have already been illustrated with examples above.]

This causation of a beneficial state of affairs is moreover interpreted by means of the direct effect of the given event on the indirect object, the NP introduced by *gei*. Thus, I claim this to be the major semantic distinction holding between the benefactive *gei* construction and the "symbolic" *wei* construction: This contrast in grammaticalised meaning is clear in minimal pairs such as that in (87):

87. a. Ta *wei* zuguo er si. he WEI fatherland so die
b. *Ta gei* zuguo er si he GEI fatherland so die
He died for the sake of his country.

<footnote n="26">26 Here I would like to note that Green's examples of the "internal" benefactive given here are unacceptable sentences for me. I can only say "Sam promised to crush a mountain for his lover" with the external prepositional phrase.</footnote>
The reason why benefactive *gei* cannot be used in the case of (87) as opposed to symbolic *wei* is that there is no direct effect on the indirect object as a result of the subject's action. In other words, a beneficial state of affairs for the indirect object of the *gei* construction can only be interpreted following on from the interpretation of the latter being affected in some way by the subject's action.

The event of a soldier dying in battle "for the sake of his country" cannot be considered beneficial (considered as an isolated event) for the "fatherland". It does after all represent the loss of another able-bodied soldier. Only the fact of fighting for one's country can at best be viewed as doing something creditable, or meritorious, depending upon the speaker's viewpoint, but nonetheless never as causing a good state of affairs to come about. Thus, the *wei* construction does not encode the causing of a beneficial state of affairs as part of its meaning but instead encodes that the subject through his action wants to show what he feels towards the indirect object. Moreover these feelings are desirable in nature. Consider the following examples which illustrate this point:

88. a. **Wei renmin fuwu!**
WEI people serve
Serve the people! (i.e. "for the sake of the people")

b. **Wei renminbi fuwu!**
WEI people:currency serve
Serve for the sake of the people's currency!

The first sentence is a political slogan that used to be commonly seen in China painted on large red billboards.
The second example in (88) could be used as a cynical comment on the higher pricing of, for example, goods in foreigners' hotels and shops in China, expressing that it is one's good feelings towards money that causes one to serve others rather than one's good feelings towards "the people" as in (a).

However, as also pointed out before, although the *wei* construction does not encode causation of a beneficial state of affairs for the indirect object, it does contain the component of imagined benefit to the effect "Person A imagines that this could cause something good to happen to B". This is evident in the acceptability of 89(a) as opposed to 89(b), unless again it is interpreted ironically:

89. a. Zhengfu *wei* renmin fuwu.<sup>27</sup>

government WEI people serve

The government serves for the sake of the people.

b. *Zhengfu *wei* renmin xinghui.*

government WEI people bribe

(The government carries out bribery for the sake of the people.)

Hence, the *wei* construction not only encodes an action symbolic of the 'benevolent' feelings the subject holds towards the indirect object but also the subject's imagining that their action could cause a beneficial state of affairs to arise for the indirect object. It is not part of the meaning however that this state of affairs does come about. As we have seen, in examples such as *Ta*

<footnote n="27">27 There seems to be a corresponding *gei* sentence (of a less grandiose nature): *Ta gei wo fuwu*: "He's serving me" used for example in a shop. However, here *fúwu* acts as a noun meaning "service" and *gei* as the verb 'give'.</footnote>
wei zuguo er si "He died for his country's sake", the imagined
benefit does not ever extend beyond the subject's conception of his
act, as the indirect object "country" cannot be understood to be
affected in any direct way by the event of the soldier's death.

Due to the symbolic nature of the subject's action, the
<u>wei</u> construction tends to have events of a more grandiose nature
occurring in it, such as someone travelling all the way to the
Antarctic to symbolize his feelings for another person, Mary:

90. Ta <u>wei Mali</u> qu-le nanji (*S<sub>3</sub>:GEI)

he WEI (name) go:COM Antarctic

He went to the Antarctic for Mary's sake.

Bearing all these features in mind, the semantic
representation for the symbolic _wei_ construction is proposed as
follows:

SUBJECT - WEI - INDIRECT - VERB PHRASE
OBJECT

Ta <u>wei</u> Li Si pa-le yizuo shan.

she WEI (name) climb:COM one:CL mountain

She climbed a mountain for Li Si's sake.

Person A

Person B

Person A did something (Z)

because A wanted to show person B

that she felt good feelings towards B

A imagined that something good could happen to B

because of this (Z)
## 3.2 COMPARISON OF THE THREE GEI CONSTRUCTIONS

We end this discussion of the benefactive construction in Chinese by comparing it with the two dative constructions formed by *gei*, $S_1$ and $S_2$. An example of each construction is first presented for the reader's convenience:<fnref n="28" />

S₁: Dative of Transferral with Enclitic GEI:

Wo ji-gei ta yifeng xin.
I sent him one:CL letter
I sent him a letter.

S₂: Dative of Intended Benefit with Postverbal GEI:

Wo ji-le yifeng xin gei ta.
I send:COM one:CL letter GEI him
I sent a letter to him.

S₃: Benefactive Construction with Preverbal GEI:

We gei ta ji-le yifeng xin.
I GEI him send:COM one:CL letter
I sent (posted) a letter for him.

### 3.2.1 The Components for Presupposition of a Direct Object Compared

As we have seen, the benefactive construction ($S_3$) does not encode transferral of an object and this is reflected syntactically by the fact that a direct object is not required. (cf. *Zhang San gei Mali pao dao tushuguan qu*: "Zhang San ran to the library for Mary"). The semantic consequence of this is that neither is a concrete object required by $S_3$ whereas it is for both

<footnote n="28">28. A summary of constructions may be found at the end of this chapter with the semantic formula for each construction restated.</footnote>
the dative constructions, S₁ and S₂. Nor is any direct object presupposed as in the dative S₁ construction.

Given these major semantic distinctions between the three constructions formed by *gei*, no simple grammatical transformation from one construction into the other exists. If we try to transform an example of S₃ containing a verb of creation - *zuofan* 'cook a meal':

91. S₃: Zhang San gei Mali zuo fan.
(name) GEI (name) cook meal
Zhang San cooked a meal for Mary

into the syntactic configuration for S₁, only an ungrammatical sentence results:

92. S₁: *Zhang San zuo -gei Mali fan.
(name) make:GEI (name) meal

On the other hand, in the S₂ construction of intended benefit with postverbal *gei* where there is no presupposition of any object in the semantic structure, this being also the case for S₃, the benefactive *gei* construction, verbs of creation are permissible, provided that the action depicted produces an object which can be then given to the indirect object:

93. S₂: Zhang San zuo-le fan gei Mali.
(name) make:COM meal GEI (name)
Zhang San cooked a meal for Mary.

If the subject's action is not intended to cause the indirect object to come to have something, then both the S₁ and S₂ dative constructions are proscribed, whereas the benefactive
$S_3$ construction is permissible as long as the event results in a
beneficial state of affairs for the indirect object:

94. Gei laodaye zhi-bing *Zhi-bing gei laodaye.
GEI uncle cure:illness cure:illness GEI uncle
Treat uncle's illness for him.

$S_1$ *Zhi-gei laodaye bing

cure:GEI uncle illness

95. Wo gei ni dang fanyi *Wo dang fanyi gei ni
I GEI you act interpreter I act interpreter GEI you
I'll act as interpreter for you.

*Wo dang-gei ni fanyi.
I act:GEI you interpreter

Zhu claims (1979: 84-5) that verbs of getting and verbs
of creation are generally permissible in the benefactive <u>gei</u>
construction ($S_3$) while only a few verbs of giving are. In this
section, one argument has already been presented to account for the
incompatibility of verbs of giving with $S_3$: In brief, verbs of
giving turn out to preclude the required interpretation of causation
of a beneficial state of affairs for the indirect object as this
class of verbs is interpreted in $S_3$ to mean "giving something to
someone other than the intended beneficiary of the action".
3.2.2 The Components for Causativity versus Causative Intention with respect to Causation of Having and Causation of Benefit Compared

The benefactive *gei* construction ($S_3$) is non-causative as is the $S_2$ dative construction with respect to the parameter of causing another person to come to have something as opposed to the causative $S_1$ dative construction. The *gei* benefactive $S_3$ is however a causative of benefit as opposed to the case for dative $S_2$ where only intended benefit is encoded and to the complete lack of either of these features in dative $S_1$, the dative of transferral.

As noted in Chapter I, the dative of transferral with enclitic *gei*, $S_1$, has successful accomplishment of the transferral invariably encoded, due to the perfectivizing nature of *gei* used as a verb complement. Other aspectual marking, such as the completive aspect marker *-le* is thus not required for this semantic function and may not intervene between the verb and *gei*. This was used as one piece of syntactic evidence to argue for $S_1$ as a causative of having.

Contrasting to this, the dative $S_2$ construction and the benefactive $S_3$ construction may freely take aspectual marking on the main verb, exemplified by (96) where co-occurrence of the three constructions with the completive aspect marker *-le* is compared.

96. $S_1$: *The Dative of Transferral*

*Wo dai-le-gei ni yihe tang.*

I bring:COM:GEI you one:CL candy
S₂: <u>The Dative of Intended Benefit</u>

Wo dai-le yihe tang gei ni

I bring:COM one:CL candy GEI you

I've brought a box of candy [to give] to you.

S₃: <u>The Benefactive Construction</u>

Wo gei ni dai-le yihe tang.

I GEI you bring:COM one:CL candy

I've brought a box of candy for you.

The correct version of S₁ is given by (97), where the event of bringing the candy (and giving it to the indirect object) are understood to be completed without the need for any aspect markers:

97. <u>Wo dai-gei ni yihe tang.</u>

I bring:GEI you one:CL candy

I've brought you a box of candy.

In the benefactive construction, commands as well as propositions of future action may be encoded in its structure, as neither causation of having nor any completed event is an essential element of its semantic structure:²⁹

98. <u>Ni gei wo zhao-yi-zhao maozi.</u>

you GEI me look:one:TENT cap

Have a look for my cap for me.

99. <u>Gei wo lai feng xin!</u>

GEI me come CL letter

Write me a letter! (do it for my benefit)

29. In the formalization of the semantic structures for S₂ and S₃, however, only examples in the completive aspect have been considered for the purposes of comparison with S₁.
100. Zhang San yao gei Mali ji mingtian de shir.
(name) want GEI (name) note tomorrow REL matter

Zhang San is going to note down tomorrow's matters for Mary.

## CONCLUSION TO PART III

In this chapter on the benefactive construction ($S_3$), I have set out to demonstrate that the latter can be given a unitary semantic representation and in so doing, argued against analyses which claim that this preverbal *gei* construction is ambiguous or even polysemous to the extent that it can be substituted for the *ti* and *wei* constructions.

The preverbal or benefactive *gei* construction encodes that the subject carries out some action with the intention of causing a good state of affairs to arise for the second person involved, and examples in the completive aspect encode in addition that this state of affairs is achieved. In this way it is a causative of benefit. The dative of transferral with enclitic *gei* encodes both the subject wanting to cause a second person to come to have an object which is with the subject prior to the action and subsequently causing this to happen. $S_1$ is thus a causative of having.

Finally, the dative of intended benefit with postverbal *gei*, encodes an action that is intended to benefit the indirect object by causing this second person to come to have something which the latter can use. In this construction neither causation of having nor of benefit is encoded. Instead, the two components of causative intention, as described above, are encoded.

The semantic structures proposed for each of these three *gei* constructions distinguish their respective grammaticalized
meanings and usage clearly, yet we can also see that some components
are present in two of the three constructions, notably those of
intention to cause someone to have something and intention to cause
benefit to someone. The first is present in both the semantic
structures of S₁ and S₂ and 'intention to cause benefit' in both
S₂ and S₃. Nonetheless, it is not a surprising discovery since
all three constructions make use of the same grammatical exponent
*gei*. - Its presence cannot therefore be explained away as an
arbitrary grammatical fact. However, the components for (intended)
causation of having and (intended) causation of benefit are woven
into the semantic structures of these three constructions in
different ways, resulting in different sets of surface structure
possibilities. These in turn are predicted by each semantic
structure taken as a whole but never by individual grammatical
constituents which cannot be considered responsible for, let alone
directly correspond to, particular components of meaning.
GENERAL CONCLUSION

The task of the semantic analysis presented here and carried out as part of my investigation into passive, causative and dative/benefactive constructions in Chinese has been to show that regardless of whether it be a case of a particular syntactic configuration being polysemous or a case of distinct syntactic configurations using an identical syntactic exponent, both syntactic phenomena share the characteristic that all the syntactic constructions involved will have distinct semantic structures.

In Parts I and II we saw that the syntactic configuration used by the *bei* passive, not to mention by all of the *rang* and *jiao* constructions - passive and causative - of

NP - ( bei ) ( rang ) - NP - VP
( jiao )

was highly polysemous in that each type of construction (whether it
be the *bei* passive, *rang* passive, *jiao* passive, *rang* causative or
*jiao* causative) could be separated out into several discrete
subconstructions distinguished by their semantic structure. The
same case applied for the *get* passive in English with the
configuration of

NP got $V_{Tr}$ ... ed.

The subconstructions of each type of construction were
able to be separated out by first of all searching for structural
differences such as the kind of predicate and the number of entities
found to be encoded in, for example, each *bei* passive and
importantly the semantic type to which each entity belonged such as
animate, inanimate or personal. For the *bei* passive with a natural
force we saw that only one entity was encoded, and this was as the subject NP. It denoted a locale. In this construction, the agent NP represented a natural force rather than a person and consequently, the predicate an agentless event - one lacking in any intentional action. This contrasts with the type of predicate which is found to co-occur with the *bei* passive that has a person as the undergoer and an animate agent since this construction requires a verb of intentional action, not to mention two animate entities. These kinds of structural differences necessitated the separating out of the traditional *bei* passive into four discrete sub-constructions. The fact that the Europeanized form of the *bei* passive does not express adversity and that one of its sub-constructions has no overt expression of the agent while the other encodes only "collective" agents, combined with the fact that they are both restricted to the written language served as evidence to support the division into the two types.

The *bei* passive of bodily effect due to containing a third postverbal NP in its syntactic configuration and hence requiring three entities also proved to be different in its semantic requirements as to the kind of entities encoded and as a result more stringent in its syntactic requirements. Only parts of the body could be encoded as the post verbal noun and a resultative verb compound was an obligatory syntactic constituent.

The six subconstructions of the *get* passive were similarly semantically differentiated according to the kinds of entity involved and type of event.

The *rang* and *jiao* passive constructions although having the same syntactic configuration as the *bei* passive were also both successfully semantically and syntactically differentiated from it
in Part II - claims that they are the mere colloquial variants not
withstanding. That they all occupy different semantic space is
particularly clear: For the *bei*, *rang* and *jiao* passives, for
example, with the syntactic schema of

(bei)
NP      (rang) NP      VP
        P       (jiao)  P

(specifically with a person as the undergoer), it was demonstrated
that the *rang* passive was a passive of an avoidable event on the
part of the undergoer identical to the case of the non-reflexive
adversative *get* passive in English, while the serious nature of the
passive event when encoded as the speaker's viewpoint by *bei* equally
believes the viewing of the undergoer as an innocent victim of
circumstance, that is, as one who could not have avoided the event.
In contradistinction to these two kinds of passives, the *jiao*
passive was claimed to be a "hot news" passive, expressing the
speaker's viewpoint of the unexpected nature of the event.

The *rang* and *jiao* passive constructions were also
syntactically and semantically differentiated from their respective
complexes of causative constructions. Again, the causative
constructions formed by *rang* and *jiao* were of the same syntactic
configuration as the passives:

(rang)
NP      (jiao) NP      VP

The marked difference in meaning between passives and
causatives - the passive subject NP denoting the person who
undergoes the event as opposed to the causative subject NP in many
causative constructions denoting the person who causes the event -
led to a completely different set of syntactic behaviour for these
two construction types concerning their mode of negation, aspectual
marking and co-occurrence with modal verbs, despite the identity of
their superficial syntactic configurations.

In addition to this, the complexes of *rang* and *jiao*
causative constructions were likewise differentiated along the two
principal parameters of semantics and syntax. The impression of
many of the *rang* causatives as being "more polite" than their *jiao*
counterparts or "less intense and expressive" in the case of other
examples was accounted for in the semantic analysis in terms of the
different kind of relationship holding between causer and causee
which is assumed by the speaker - the difference of the causee not
being willing not to do what the causer wants done in the case of
the *rang* speech act causative and the causee having to do whatever
the causer wants done in the case of the *jiao* speech act causative.
Furthermore, it was verified that none of the *jiao* causatives
express the meaning of 'let' or 'allow', despite claims to the
contrary. It was contended that the six *rang* causatives and three
*jiao* causatives all expressed different kinds of causation that
varied along parameters such as intentional or unintentional
causation on the part of the causer, or non-interference in an
ongoing event which the subject could put an end to but refrains
from doing so and with respect to the causee (or entity denoted by
the pivot nominal): being caused to undertake an action, being
caused to experience a new feeling or not being hindered from
carrying out an action that one wants to carry out.

Some components of meaning were present in the semantic
structure of several constructions with the same syntactic exponent
such as the *rang* causatives of non-interference and the *rang* passive and the *jiao* experiencer causatives and the *jiao* passive, evidence favouring the view that the choice of these syntactic exponents to form constructions with the particular grammaticalised meaning is not purely arbitrary. Nor can these syntactic exponents be considered to be "empty morphemes" as a result.

In Part III, en revanche, a study of constructions with distinct syntactic configurations and consequently distinct semantic structures was presented, diverging in their meaning despite the presence of an identical syntactic exponent in each construction: *gei*. This was shown first of all to be clearly the case for the two dative *gei* constructions - the dative of transferral with enclitic *gei* and the dative of intended benefit with postverbal *gei*. Secondly contrary to claims of polysemy for the benefactive *gei* construction to the effect that it sometimes means the same as either the *ti* or the *wei* construction, I showed that it can not only be semantically differentiated from the *ti* and *wei* constructions but also from the two dative constructions formed by *gei*. Hence, the benefactive construction with preverbal *gei* may not be regarded as mutually substitutable with either of *ti* or *wei* with which it shares the similar syntactic configuration of

NP ( gei ) ( ti ) + NP VP
( wei )

with a postverbal "prepositional phrase". Nor may it be regarded as
having mutual transformational relations with either of the two <u>gei</u>
dative constructions. In sum, if the preverbal <u>gei</u> construction is
to be considered "polysemous" at all, then it is only so to the
extent that this one syntactic configuration NP GEI + NP VP is
shared by both the adversative *gei* passive and the *gei* benefactive
but not by the *gei* benefactive with the meanings otherwise
grammaticalised by the preverbal *ti* and *wei* constructions. Moreover,
due to the completely polarised meanings of the *gei* benefactive and
the *gei* passive in the overall expression of benefit and adversity
respectively, ambiguity does not present any problem in this case.

Despite the fact that the meanings grammaticalised by
each of the three *gei* constructions is distinct, the use of the
syntactic exponent *gei* is however not an arbitrary choice. The
presence of certain components of meaning in pairs of *gei*
constructions was described such as that of causative intention with
respect to causing another to come to have something being present
in both dative constructions or causative intention with respect to
causing a beneficial state of affairs for another, present in both
the dative of intended benefit and the benefactive construction.
Above and beyond this presence of identical components in pairs of
*gei* constructions, it was shown that only the dative of transferral
encoded 'causation of having' while only the benefactive 'causation
of benefit' with the different ways in which the components of each
semantic structure interrelated accounting for the distinct
grammaticalised meanings when each semantic structure is considered
as a whole.
# SUMMARY OF CONSTRUCTIONS

## 1 SUMMARY OF PASSIVE CONSTRUCTIONS FROM PART I

The six passive constructions formed by *bei* that were discussed and analysed in Part I are set out below for easy reference with the syntactic schema, the semantic formula and one example provided for each construction. Since this is a summary of constructions, no counterexamples are given. For this, the reader is referred back to the designated chapter or section for the justification of each semantic component by means of counterexamples.

The complete semantic formula for each construction is, however, presented which includes the 'illocutionary force' of each passive that distinguishes it from active voice constructions.<fnref n="1" />

This particular feature was earlier discussed in Section 0.1 on the motivation for using the passive. The component stating the speaker's view that the event is one that is serious in nature is also included here.

Finally, it needs to be noted that past tense forms of verbs are used in all the semantic explications to represent the semantic property of completiveness (discussed in Chapter 1.3). This serves only as an abbreviated way of representing this property. A fuller explication of the notion of completiveness would rely heavily upon the use of the primitives 'I', 'world',

<footnote n="1">1 It is not conventional practice of course, to assign any 'illocutionary force' to grammatical constructions such as the passive. - The reader is referred to Wierzbicka (1980a) for the argument in favour of this.</footnote>
'become', 'part' and 'think of'.<fnref n="2" /> For purposes of readability, the less lengthy explications with the past tense of verbs are thus preferred, even though they are more semantically complex than an explication in terms of this set of primitives.

<footnote n="2">2 The reader is referred to Wierzbicka (1980), Chapter 6 for a detailed explanation of how time references made by the speaker with respect to events can be explicated in terms of semantic primitives.</footnote>
A. Passives formed by *bei* used in both literary and colloquial language:

I **ADVERSATIVE BEI PASSIVE WITH A PERSON AS THE UNDERGOER**

**Syntactic Schema:**

<table><tr><td>NP<sub>p</sub></td><td>BEI</td><td>NP<sub>AN</sub></td><td>VP<sub>COM</sub></td></tr><tr><td>(Undergoer)</td><td></td><td>(Agent)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Person A</td><td></td><td>Person B</td><td></td></tr></table>

**Example:**

<table><tr><td>Mali</td><td>bei</td><td>ta</td><td>pian-le.</td></tr><tr><td>(name)</td><td>BEI</td><td>he</td><td>deceive:COM</td></tr></table>

Mary was tricked by him.

**Semantic Formula:**

Thinking of this person (A)

I say:

Something happened to person A (event Y)

because person B did something to A

I'm thinking of Y as something serious<fnref n="2" />
and something that was bad for A

I want to say something about person A
not because I want to say something about
anything else

I say something about person B

because I want to say something about A

<footnote n="2">2 As pointed out in section 0.2, the component stating the serious nature of the event as viewed by the speaker, is justified in Chapters 5 and 6 of Part II where the semantic structures of the *bei*, *rang* and *jiao* passives are compared.</footnote>
## II ADVERSATIVE BEI PASSIVE OF POSSESSIONS

**Syntactic Schema:**

(NP<sub>P</sub> + GEN) NP<sub>POSS</sub> BEI NP<sub>AN</sub> VP<sub>COM</sub>

**Example:**

Wo de liangben shu bei ta na-zou-le.

I GEN two:CL book BEI he take:away:COM

Two of my books were taken away by him.

**Semantic Formula:**

Thinking of this thing (X)
which can be thought of as belonging to
Person A

I say:

Something happened to X (event Y)
because person B did something to X
I'm thinking of Y as something serious and
something that was bad for person A

I want to say something about thing X
because I want to say something about
person A

I say something about person B
because I want to say something about X
### III ADVERSATIVE BEI PASSIVE WITH A NATURAL FORCE

**Syntactic Schema:**

NP<sub>LOC</sub>          BEI          NP<sub>F</sub>          VP<sub>COM</sub>

Place L

**Example:**

Zanmen cunr bei hongshui yan -le.
our village BEI flood submerge:COM

Our village was submerged in a flood.

**Semantic Formula:**

Thinking of this place L

I say:

Something happened in this place (L) (event Y)

not because someone did something to L

I'm thinking of Y as something serious and
something that was bad for the people
associated with place L

I want to say something about place L

because I want to say something about
the people associated with it
IV ADVERSATIVE BEI PASSIVE OF BODILY EFFECT

Syntactic Schema:

NP<sub>P</sub>      BEI      NP<sub>P</sub>      V<sub>R</sub>      LE         N<sub>BP</sub>
(Undergoer)    (Agent)    (Part of the body)
Person A       Person B    Body Part Z

Example:

Ta      bei     diren    da-shang-le     tui.
he      BEI     enemy    hit:wound:COM    leg

He was leg wounded through the enemy's firing.

Semantic Formula:

Thinking of this person (A)

I say:

Something happened to person A (event Y)
because person B did something to A
a body part Z came to be in a certain state
because of this
(Z can be thought of as part of person A's body)

I don't need to say any more about body part Z
Person A became unable to do something because
of this

I'm thinking of Y as something serious and
something that was bad for A

I want to say something about person A
not because I want to say something about
anything else

I say something about person B and body part Z
because I want to say something about A
B. Exclusively Literary Passives formed by *bei*:

V AGENTLESS EUROPEANIZED PASSIVE

**Syntactic Schema:**

NP<sub>p</sub> BEI VP<sub>COM</sub>

(Undergoer)

Person A

**Example:**

Ta bei xuanwei zhuxi.
she BEI elect:as chairperson

She was elected as chairperson.

**Semantic Formula:**

Thinking of this person (A)

I say:

Something happened to person A

because someone else did something to A

I don't need to say who

I want to say something about A

not because I want to say something about
anything else
VI **EUROPEANIZED PASSIVE WITH A COLLECTIVE AGENT**

**Syntactic Schema:**

NP<sub>P</sub>      BEI      NP<sub>P</sub>      VP<sub>COM</sub>
(Undergoer)   (Agent)
Person A      Group B

**Example:**

Jin Gui bei cunli xuancheng laodong yingxiong.
(name) BEI village select:become labour hero

Jin Gui was chosen as the labour hero by the village.

**Semantic Formula:**

Thinking of this person (A)

I say:

Something happened to person A
that these people B wanted
because B did something to A

I want to say something about person A
not because I want to say something about
anything else

I say something about those people B
because I want to say something about A
C. Passives formed by _get_ in English:

I. THE NON-REFLEXIVE 'ADVERSATIVE' GET PASSIVE:

N<sub>p</sub> got V<sub>Tr</sub>...ed.

Jane got fired.

Something bad happened to this person (X)
because someone else (Y) did something
X could've done something else
because of which this wouldn't have happened

II. THE REFLEXIVE 'ADVERSATIVE' GET PASSIVE:

N<sub>p</sub> got reflexive pronoun V<sub>Tr</sub>...ed.

Jane got herself fired.

Something bad happened to this person (X)
because someone else (Y) did something
because X had done something
X could've not done this
because of which it wouldn't have happened
It can be thought of as if X wanted it to happen
because of this

III. THE NON-REFLEXIVE 'BENEFICIAL' GET PASSIVE:

N<sub>p</sub> got V<sub>Tr</sub>...ed.

Jane got promoted.

Something good happened to this person (X)
because someone else (Y) did something
that X wanted Y to do
X had done something
because X wanted it to happen
Y could've done it because of that
## IV THE REFLEXIVE 'BENEFICIAL' GET PASSIVE:

Np got reflexive pronoun V<sub>Tr...</sub>ed.
Jane got herself promoted.

Something good happened to this person (X)
because someone else (Y) did something
that X wanted Y to do
because X had done something
because X wanted it to happen

## V THE 'ADVERSATIVE' GET PASSIVE WITH AN INANIMATE SUBJECT:

(Np's) N<sub>IN</sub> got V<sub>Tr...</sub>ed.
Jane's bike got stolen.

Something happened to this thing (Y)
which can be thought of as something bad
that happened to this person (X)
because someone else did something
X could've done something else
because of which this wouldn't have happened
(Y can be thought of as X's Y)

## VI THE 'BENEFICIAL' GET PASSIVE WITH AN INANIMATE SUBJECT:

(Np's) N<sub>IN</sub> got V<sub>Tr...</sub>ed.
Jane's bike got fixed.

Something happened to this thing (Y)
which can be thought of as something good
that happened to this person (X)
because someone else (Z) did something
that X wanted Z to do
X had done something
because X wanted it to happen
Z could've done it because of that
(Y can be thought of as X's Y)
2 SUMMARY OF PASSIVE AND CAUSATIVE CONSTRUCTIONS FROM PART II

A. SHI CAUSATIVE CONSTRUCTIONS

I. STATIVE SHI CAUSATIVE OF UNINTENTIONAL CAUSATION

NP<sub>P</sub> (VP) SHI NP<sub>P</sub> VP<sub>STATIVE</sub>
Cause
Person A
Undergoer
Person B

Ta de bing shi wo hen danxin.
he GEN illness SHI I very worried

His illness caused me to be very worried.

Person B came to be in a certain state
because of something that can be said about
person A that B became aware of
not because anyone wanted this to happen.

II. STATIVE SHI CAUSATIVE OF AGENTLESS CAUSATION

NP (VP) SHI NP<sub>P</sub> VP<sub>STATIVE</sub>
Subject
Cause
Pivot
Undergoer
Person B

Jiali mei ren shi ta bu fangxin.
home:in no people SHI he not at:ease

That nobody was at home caused him to feel uneasy.

Person B came to be in a certain state
because of something that can be said
about place L that B became aware of
not because anyone wanted this to happen.
### III. SHI CAUSATIVE OF NATURAL PHENOMENA

NP (VP) SHI NP<sub>IN</sub> VP
Causing Event Caused Event or
State of Affairs

Heibanbing shi (*rang) (*jiao) meiguishu luo ye.
black:spot:disease SHI (*RANG) (*JIAO) rosebush drop:leaves
Black spot is causing the rosebushes to lose their leaves.

Something happened in a place
because of something else that can be said about
that place.

## B. RANG CAUSATIVE CONSTRUCTIONS

### I. THE SPEECH ACT CAUSATIVE OF REQUEST WITH RANG

NP<sub>P</sub> RANG NP<sub>P</sub> VP<sub>ACTION</sub>
Subject Pivot
Causer Causee
Person A Person B

Shuji rang ta chuli - le zheijian shi.
party sec. RANG she deal:with : COM this:CL matter
The party secretary had her deal with this matter.

Assuming person B doesn't want not to do
what person A says he wants him to do
I say:

Person B did something that person A wanted him to
do
because A said he wanted B to do it.
## II. SPEECH ACT CAUSATIVE OF PERMISSION WITH RANG

NP<sub>P</sub> RANG

Causer

Person A

NP<sub>P</sub>

Causee

Person B

VP<sub>ACTION</sub>

Ta yao shuo, ni jiu rang ta shuo!

she want speak, you just RANG she speak

If she wants to speak, you'd better let her!

Assuming that person B has to do what person A says he wants him to do:

I say:

Person B started to do something that B said s/he wanted to do

because person A said s/he could do it

not because A wanted him to do it.

## III. RANG CAUSATIVE OF NON-INTERFERENCE IN AN AGENTIVE EVENT

NP<sub>P</sub> RANG

Subject

"Non-interfering" person

Person A

NP<sub>P</sub>

Pivot

Agent

Person B

VP<sub>ACTION</sub>

Rang ta nao-qu, kan ta neng nao-cheng shenmoyangr.

RANG he stir:go, see he can stir:become what:shape

Let him go on causing trouble, and see how far he can go.

Person B was doing something (Z)

Person A could've done something

because of which person B couldn't have kept on doing Z

A didn't do this

Person B kept on doing Z because of that

I'm thinking of it as bad for person B.
## IV RANG CAUSATIVE OF NON-INTERFERENCE IN AN AGENTLESS EVENT

<table><thead><tr><th>NP<sub>P</sub></th><th>RANG</th><th>NP<sub>IN</sub></th><th>VP<sub>PROCESS EVENT</sub></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Subject<br>"Non-interfering"<br>Person A</td><td></td><td>Pivot<br>Undergoer<br>Thing X</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

Ta jiu zheiyang rang chuan chen-diao-le.

he then this:way RANG boat sink:away:COM

This is the way he just let the boat sink.

Something was happening to thing X
(Thing X can be thought of as belonging to person P)

Person A could've done something
because of which this wouldn't have kept on happening

A didn't do this

Thing X came to be in a certain state because of this

not because A wanted this to happen

I'm thinking of it as bad for person P.

## V. EXPERIENCER CAUSATIVE OF UNINTENTIONAL CAUSATION WITH RANG

<table><thead><tr><th>NP<sub>P</sub></th><th>RANG</th><th>NP<sub>P</sub></th><th>VP<sub>EXPERIENTIAL</sub></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Unintentional Causer<br>Person A</td><td></td><td>Experiencer<br>Person B</td><td>Event</td></tr></tbody></table>

Nei jiahuor rang ren wang-er-sheng-wei

that guy RANG one terrified:at:the:sight:of

That guy makes you feel terrified at the sight of him.

Person B came to feel something for a certain time
(not because he wanted to)

because of something that can be said about person A

not because A wanted this to happen.
## VI EXPERIENCER CAUSATIVE OF AGENTLESS CAUSATION WITH RANG

NP RANG NP<sub>P</sub> VP<sub>EXPERIENTIAL</sub>

Cause Experiencer Event

Zheige xiaoxi rang renjia xingfen-qilai.

this:CL news RANG people excited:start

This news made people get excited.

Person B came to feel something for a certain time because of something else that happened then not because anyone wanted this to happen.

## C. JIAO CAUSATIVE CONSTRUCTIONS

### I. SPEECH ACT CAUSATIVE OF COMMAND WITH JIAO

NP<sub>P</sub> JIAO NP<sub>AN</sub> VP<sub>ACTION</sub>

Causer Causee
(Person A) (Person B)

Shuji jiao wo shang ta nar qu yitang.
party sec. JIAO I up his place go one:CL

The party secretary made me go to his place.

Assuming person B has to do what person A says
he wants B to do
I say:

Person B did something person A wanted him to do
because A said to B that he wanted B to do it.
## II. EXPERIENCER CAUSATIVE OF UNINTENTIONAL CAUSATION WITH RANG

NP<sub>p</sub> JIAO NP<sub>p</sub> VP<sub>EXP</sub>
Unintentional Causer

Zhei haizi zhen jiao ren hen-si - le.

this child really JIAO one hate:death:COM

This child really makes people hate him so much!

Person B came to feel something for a certain time (not because B wanted to)

because of something that can be said about person A (Y)

not because A wanted this to happen

? I think nobody would've thought B could feel like this because of Y

## III. EXPERIENCER CAUSATIVE OF AGENTLESS CAUSATION WITH RANG

NP (VP) JIAO NP<sub>p</sub> VP<sub>EXP</sub>
Cause (Agentless Event) Experiencer

Zheifen liwu guanbao jiao ta manyi.

this:CL present certain JIAO she satisfied

This present is certain to make her pleased (contrary to all expectations).

Person B came to feel something for a certain time because of something else that happened then (event Y)

not because anyone wanted this to happen

? I think nobody would've thought B could feel like this because of Y.
D. RANG PASSIVE CONSTRUCTIONS

I. RANG PASSIVE OF AVOIDABILITY WITH A PERSON AS THE UNDERGOER

NP<sub>P</sub>      RANG      NP<sub>P</sub>      VP<sub>COM</sub>

Person A      Person B

Ta rang Mali (*chui-peng) piping-le.

he RANG (name) (*flatter) criticize:COM

He got criticized (*flattered) by Mary.

Something happened to person A

because person B did something to A

A could've done something

because of which this wouldn't have happened

A didn't do this

I'm thinking of it as something bad that happened
to A.
## II. RANG PASSIVE OF AVOIDABILITY ON THE PART OF AN ADVERSELY AFFECTED OWNER

(NP<sub>P</sub>) NP<sub>IN</sub> RANG NP<sub>P</sub> VP<sub>COM</sub>

(Person A) Thing X Person B
"Owner" "Possession" Agent

Xiangpian rang xiao meimei si-le.

photo RANG little sister tear:COM

The photos got torn up by my little sister.

Thinking of thing X as belonging to person A
I say:

Something happened to thing X (event Y)
because person B did something to X
Person A could've done something
because of which Y wouldn't have happened
Person A didn't do this
I'm thinking of Y as something bad
that happened to person A.

## E. THE JIAO PASSIVE OF "HOT NEWS" WITH A PERSON AS UNDERGOER

NP<sub>P</sub> JIAO NP<sub>P</sub> VP<sub>COM</sub>

Undergoer Agent

Ta jiao Xiao Mei gan-zou-le.

he JIAO (name) drive:away:COM

Person A Person B

He's just been chased out (of the room) by Xiao Mei!

Assuming you haven't heard about this,
I say:

Something bad just happened to Person A (event Y)
because person B did something to A
I think nobody would've thought that Y could
happen
3 SUMMARY OF CONSTRUCTIONS FROM PART III

I. $S_1$: THE DATIVE OF TRANSFERRAL WITH ENCLITIC GEI

Syntactic Schema:

SUBJECT - VERB - GEI - INDIRECT OBJECT - DIRECT OBJECT

Person A

Person B

Thing X

Example:

Ta jiao-gei wo yiba yaoshi,

he hand:GEI me one:CL key

He handed me a key.

Semantic Formula:

Assuming that thing X is in place L with person A

I say:

Person B came to have thing X

because person A did something to X

because A wanted B to have thing X
## II. S₂: THE DATIVE OF INTENDED BENEFIT WITH POSTVERBAL GEI

### Syntactic Schema:

SUBJECT - VERB - DIRECT - GEI - INDIRECT
PHRASE OBJECT OBJECT

Person A

Thing X

Person B

### Example:

Ta jiao-le yiba yaoshi gei wo.

he hand:COM one:CL key GEI me

He handed a key to me.

### Semantic Formula:

Person A does something
because A wants person B to come to have
a thing X that B can do something with
Person A wants something good to happen
to B because of this.
### III. S₃: THE BENEFACTIVE CONSTRUCTION WITH PREVERBAL GEI

**Syntactic Schema:**

SUBJECT - GEI - INDIRECT - VERB PHRASE OBJECT

Person A

Person B

**Example:**

Wo gei ta ji-le yifeng xin.

I

GEI

him

post:COM one:CL letter

I posted a letter for him.

**Semantic Formula:**

Something happened to person B
that person A wanted
because A did something
I'm thinking of it as of something good for B
## IV. THE TI CONSTRUCTION OF SOCIAL OBLIGATION

### Syntactic Schema:

SUBJECT - TI - INDIRECT - VERB PHRASE
OBJECT

Person A

Person B

### Example:

Zhang San ti Mali song-le yiben shu.
(name) TI (name) present:COM one:CL book

Zhang San gave a present of a book (to someone else) on Mary's behalf.

### Semantic Formula:

Assuming that person B has to do something (Z)
at a certain time and that Z is something
which B is capable of doing

I say:

Person A did something (Z) that person B
should've done
because A knew that B couldn't do Z at this time
Z was something that A felt should be done.
## V. THE SYMBOLIC WEI CONSTRUCTION

### Syntactic Schema:

SUBJECT - WEI - INDIRECT - VERB PHRASE
OBJECT

Person A

Person B

### Example:

Ta wei Li Si pa-le yizuo shan.
she WEI (name) climb:COM one:CL mountain

She climbed a mountain for Li Si's sake.

### Semantic Formula:

Person A did something (Z)

because A wanted to show person B

that she felt good feelings towards B

A imagined that something good could happen

to B because of this (Z)
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bally, Charles. (1926). "L'expression des idées de sphère personnelle et de solidarité dans les langues indo-européennes." *Festschrift Gauchat*. Aarau, 68-78.

Bennett, Paul. (1981). "The evolution of passive and disposal sentences." *JCL*, 9, 61-89.

Bolinger, Dwight. (1975). "Meaning and form: Some fallacies of a semantic grammar." In E.F.K. Koerner (ed.) *The Transnational-Generative Paradigm and Modern Linguistic Theory*. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Bolinger, Dwight. (1977). "Transitivity and spatiality: The passive of prepositional verbs." In A. Makkai (ed.) *Linguistics at the Crossroads*. Padova: Liviana Editrice.

Chao, Yuen Ren. (1968). *A Grammar of Spoken Chinese*. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Chappell, Hilary. (1978). "Semantics of some causatives in Chinese and English." Unpublished Honours thesis, Australian National University.

Chappell, Hilary. (1980a). "Is the *get* passive adversative?" *Papers in Linguistics*, 13, 3, 411-452.

Chappell, Hilary. (1980b). "The romanization debate." *Australian Journal of Chinese Affairs*, 4, 106-118.

Chu, Chauncey. (1973). "The passive construction: Chinese and English." *JCL*, 1, 3, 437-469.

Clark, Marybeth. (1974a). "Passive and ergative in Vietnamese." In Nguyen Dang-liem (ed.) *South-East Asian Linguistic Studies*. Series C. Canberra: A.N.U. Press.

Clark, Marybeth. (1974b). "Submissive verbs as adversatives in some Asian languages." In Nguyen Dang-liem (ed.) *South-East Asian Linguistics Studies*. Series C. Canberra: A.N.U. Press.

Curme, George. (1931). *Syntax*. Boston: Heath & Co.

Ding Shengshu. 1961 (1979). *Xiandai Hanyu Yufa Jianghua* [A guide to modern Chinese grammar]. Beijing: Shangwu.

Dixon, R.M.W. (1972). *The Dyirbal Language of North Queensland*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dixon, R.M.W. (1973). "The semantics of giving." In M. Gross, M. Halle & M. Schutzenberger (eds) *The Formal Analysis of Natural Languages*. The Hague: Mouton.
Fillmore, Charles. (1968). "The case for case." In E. Bach & R. Harms (eds) *Universals in Linguistic Theory*. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Gao Mingkai. (1957). *Hanyu Yufa Lun* [On Chinese grammar]. Beijing: Kexue.

Green, Georgia. (1974). *Semantics and Syntactic Regularity*. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Guo Derun. (1981). *Hanyu Changjian Juxing de Yongfa* [Usage of common syntactic patterns in Chinese]. Beijing: Xinhua.

Hatcher, Anna Granville. (1944). "*Il me prend le bras* vs. *Il prend mon bras*." *The Romanic Review*, 35, 156-164.

Hatcher, Anna Granville. (1949). "To be/get invited." *Modern Language Notes*, 64, 7, 433-446.

Hermann, Karen. (1979). "Coping with complex polysemy: A comparison of dative/benefactive constructions in Mandarin and Thai." *BLS* 5, 106-113.

Hong Xinheng. (1956). *Hanyu Yufa Wenti Yanjiu*. [Studies in Chinese grammar]. Shanghai: Xin Zhishi.

Hsu Chian-Li. (1974). "On the relationship between the active and passive in Chinese." *JCL*, 2, 2, 172-179.

Hsu, Joseph. (1972). "To get or not to get." *Fu Jen Studies in Language and Literature*, 8, 65-85.

Hu Zhu'an. (1960). "Dongci hou de 'gei' de cixing he shuang binyu wenti" [The grammatical function of postverbal *gei* and the double object construction]. *Zhongguo Yuwen*, 5, 222-4.

Jespersen, Otto. 1924 (1968). *The Philosophy of Grammar*. London: George Allen & Unwin.

Jespersen, Otto. 1931 (1949). *A Modern English Grammar*, Vol.4. London: George Allen & Unwin.

Jespersen, Otto. 1933 (1979). *Essentials of English Grammar*. London: George Allen & Unwin.

Jiang Tian. (1980). *Xiandai Hanyu Yufa Tongjie* [Exposition of modern Chinese grammar]. Shenyang: Liaoning Renmin Chubanshe.

Jing Shijun. (1980). *Xiandai Hanyu Xuci* [Function words in modern Chinese]. Huhehot: Nei Menggu Renmin Chubanshe.

Keenan, Edward. (1978). "Foregrounding and backgrounding: The case of the passive." (Xerox). University of California, Los Angeles.
Kratochvil, Paul. (1968). *The Chinese Language Today*. London: Hutchinson University Library.

Li, Charles N. and Sandra A. Thompson. (1973). "Serial verb constructions in Mandarin Chinese: Subordination or co-ordination?" In *You Take the High Node and I'll Take the Low Node*. CLS.

Li, Charles N. and Sandra A. Thompson. (1976). "Subject and topic: A new typology of language." In Charles N. Li (ed.) *Subject and Topic*. New York: Academic Press.

Li, Charles N. and Sandra A. Thompson. (1981). *Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar*. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Li, Charles N., Sandra A. Thompson and R. McMillan Thompson. (1982). "The discourse motivation for the perfect aspect: The Mandarin particle le." In P.J. Hopper (ed.) *Tense-Aspect*. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Li Linding. (1980). "Beizi ju" [Sentences containing the preposition-particle bei]. *Zhongguo Yuwen*, 6, 401-412.

Li Ying-che. (1971). *An Investigation of Case in Chinese Grammar*. South Orange: Seton Hall University Press.

Li Ying-che. (1976). "Order of semantic units in Chinese." *JCLTA*, 11, 1, 26-38.

Liang Donghan. (1960). "Xiandai hanyu de beidongshi" [The passive in modern Chinese]. *Nei Menggu Daxue Xuebao*, 2, 63-78.

Liu Shiru. (1956). "Beidongshi de qiyuan" [The origin of the passive]. *Yuwen Xuexi*, 8, 32-33.

Liu Wu-chi. (1966). *An Introduction to Chinese Literature*. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Loh Dian-yang. (1959). *Translation Its Principles and Technique* (2 vols). Beijing: Shidai Chubanshe.

Lord, Carol. (1973). "Serial verbs in transition." *Studies in African Linguistics*, 4, 3, 269-296.

Lu, John H-T. (1975). "The grammatical item 'le' in Mandarin." *JCLTA*, 10, 2, 53-62.

Lu, John H-T. (1977). "Resultative verbs vs. directional verb compounds in Mandarin." *JCL*, 5, 2, 276-313.

Lü Shuxiang. (1941). *Zhongguo Wenfa Yaolue* [Outline of Chinese grammar]. Shanghai: Shangwu Yinshuguan.

Lü Shuxiang. (1965). "Yuwen zhaji" [Notes on language]. *Zhongguo Yuwen*, 4, 137, 287-292.
Lü Shuxiang. (1980). *Xiandai Hanyu Babai Ci* [Eight hundred words of modern Chinese]. Beijing: Shangwu Yinshuguan.

Lü Shuxiang and Zhu De-xi. 1952 (1980). *Yufa Xiuci Jianghua* [Guide to grammar and rhetoric]. Shanghai: Zhongguo Qingnian Chubanshe.

McCawley, J.D. (1971). "Tense and time reference in English." In C.J. Fillmore and T.C. Langendoen (eds) *Studies in Linguistic Semantics*. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Neumann, Dorothea. (1981). "The dative with body parts [in German]: Prepositional phrases indicating direction. Part 1." Unpublished ms, Australian National University.

Nikitina, T.N. (1958). "Kauzativnaia i passivnaia konstruktsii v kitaiskom iazyke" [Causative and passive constructions in Chinese]. Leningradskii Gosudarstvennyi Universitet. Uchenye zapiski: Seriia filologicheskikhnauk, 6, 236, 211-221.

Rajskaja, G.N. (1958). "Stradatel'naja konstrukcija v kitaiskom iazyke" [Passive constructions in Chinese]. Leningradskii Gosudarstvennyi Universitet. Uchenye zapiski. Seriia filologicheskikhnauk, 6, 236, 222-229.

Ren Xueliang. (1981). *Han-Ying Bijiao Yufa* [A comparative grammar of Chinese-English]. Beijing: Zhongguo Shehui Kexue.

Rice, Wallace. (1932). "Get and got". *American Speech*, 7, 280-296.

Sapir, E. (1917-1920). Review of Uhlenbeck, C.C., "Het Passieve Karakter van het Verbum Transitivum van het Verbum Aktionis in Talen van Noord-Amerika." *IJAL*, 1, 82-86.

Sapir, E. (1917-1920). Review of Uhlenbeck, C.C., "Het Indenti-ficeerend Karakter der Possessieve Flexie in Talen van Noord-Amerika." *IJAL*, 1, 86-90.

Schachter, Paul. (1974). "A non-transformational account of serial verbs." *Studies in African Linguistics*, Supplement 5, 253-277.

Tai Tian Chen Fu. (1957). "Shuo gei" [Concerning gei]. *Yufa Lunji* [Collection of essays on grammar], vol.2. In *Yuwen Huibian*, 25, 84. Beijing: Zhonghua.

Tang, Charles T.C., Jeffrey Tung and Anthony Wu. (1972). *Papers in Linguistics in Honor of Professor A.A. Hill*. Taipei: Rainbow Bridge Book Co.

Tang Qiyun. (1980). *Juzi Chengfen Lunxi* [Analysis of syntactic constituents]. Shanghai: Jiaoyu Chubanshe.

Teng Shou-hsin. (1973). "Negation and aspects in Chinese." *JCL*, 1, 1, 14-37.

Teng Shou-hsin. (1974). "Negation in Chinese." *JCL*, 2, 2, 125-140.
Teng Shou-hsin. (1975). *A Semantic Study of Transitivity Relations in Chinese*. Publications in Linguistics, Vol.80. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Thompson, Sandra A. (1973a). "Resultative verb compounds in Mandarin Chinese: A case for lexical rules." *Language*, 49, 2, 361-379.

Thompson, Sandra A. (1973b). "Transitivity and some problems with the *ba* construction." *JCL*, 1, 2, 208-221.

Visser, F. Th. (1969). *An Historical Syntax of the English Language*. Leiden: E.J. Brill.

Waller, D.J. (1970). *The Government and Politics of Communist China*. London: Hutchinson University Library.

Wang Huan. (1957). "Ba zi ju he bei zi ju" [Ba sentences and bei sentences]. Shanghai: Jiaoyu Chubanshe.

Wang Li. 1944 (1955). *Zhongguo Yufa Lilun* [Theory of modern Chinese grammar] (2 vols). Shanghai: Zhonghua Shuju.

Wang Li. 1947 (1956). *Zhongguo Xiandai Yufa* [Modern Chinese grammar] (2 vols). Shanghai: Zhonghua Shuju.

Wang Li. 1957. "Hanyu beidongshi de fazhan" [The development of the passive in Chinese]. In *Yuyanxue Luncong*, 1, 1-16. Shanghai: Xin Zhishi.

Wang Li. 1964 (1980). *Gudai Hanyu* [Classical Chinese] (4 vols). Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju.

Wang Li. 1980. *Hanyu Shigao* [Draft history of the Chinese language] (2 vols). Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju.

Wang Liaoyi. (1957). *Hanyu Yufa Gangyao* [Essentials of Chinese grammar]. Shanghai: Xin Zhishi.

Warburton, Irene. (1975). "The passive in English and Greek." *Foundations of Language*, 13, 563-578.

Wierzbicka, Anna. (1972). *Semantic Primitives*. Frankfurt: Athenäum Verlag.

Wierzbicka, Anna. (1979a). "Ethno-syntax and the philosophy of grammar." *Studies in Language*, 3, 3, 313-383.

Wierzbicka, Anna. (1979b). "Are grammatical categories vague or polysemous? The Japanese 'adversative' passive in a typological context." *Papers in Linguistics*, 12, 1/2, 111-162.

Wierzbicka, Anna. (1980a). *The Case for Surface Case*. Linguistica Extranea, Studia 9. Ann Arbor: Karoma.
Wierzbicka, Anna. (1980b). *Lingua Mentalis: The Semantics of Natural Language*. Sydney: Academic Press.

Xiang Ruo. (1960). "Guanyu gei de cixing" [Concerning the grammatical function of gei]. *Zhongguo Yuwen*, 2, 64-65.

Yang Xin'an. (1960). "Shuo gei" [Concerning gei]. *Zhongguo Yuwen*, 2, 66-68.

Zhang Zhigong. (1957). *Hanyu Yufa Changshi* [General knowledge of Chinese grammar]. Shanghai: Xin Zhishi.

Zhao Enzhu. (1956). "Tan shou, ai, zao he you" [On shou, ai, zao and you]. *Zhongguo Yuwen*, 53, 48-50.

Zhongguo Kexueyuan Yuyan Yanjiusuo Yufa Xiaozu [Grammar group of the Linguistics Institute, Chinese Academy of Sciences.] (1953). "Yufa jianghua (jiu): Zhudongci" [Introduction to grammar (9): Auxiliary verbs]. *Zhongguo Yuwen*, 3, 28-30.

Zhu De-xi. (1979). "Yu dongci gei xiangguan de jufa wenti" [Syntactic problems associated with the verb gei]. *Fangyan*, 2, 81-87.

## Abbreviations used in the bibliography

BLS = Berkeley Linguistics Society

CLS = Chicago Linguistics Society

IJAL = International Journal of American Linguistics

JCL = Journal of Chinese Linguistics

JCLTA = Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers' Association.