51. Ta de biaoyan rang dajia gandong de zhi liu lei.

she GEN performance RANG everyone feel EXT just flow tears

Her performance moved everyone to tears.

The unintentional nature of the causation is also clear
from the comparison of the following two examples: Sentence (52) may
only be interpreted as a speech act causative of request due to the
feature of intentional causation. The director wants the actor to
cry (in this particular scene of the play), while the event in (53)
may only be interpreted as the result of unintentional causation.
The actor bursts into tears on being criticised by the director, not
because the director wants to make him cry.

Speech Act Causative of Request:

52. Daoyan rang yanyuan ku.

director RANG actor cry.

The director had the actor cry.

Unintentional Experiencer Causative

53. Daoyan de piping rang yanyuan ku-qilai.

director GEN criticism RANG actor cry:start.

The director's criticism made the actor burst into tears.

Evidence for the semantic feature of a new emotional
state being caused to arise in the undergoer is found in the
unacceptability of (54).

54. ??Mali rang ta xiang.
(name) RANG he think
Sentence (54) is more likely to be interpreted as a speech act of request "Mary had him think" (if it can be interpreted at all) due to the action verb *xiang* 'think' in its predicate.

Even sentences whose predicates encode states of affairs such as (55) and (56) are not acceptable since the latter do not depict newly arisen emotional states.

55. *Zhang San rang wo shu-le shikuai qian.
(name) RANG I lose:COM 10:CL money

56. *Ta rang Xiao Mei pao-bu-kuai.
she RANG (name) run:NEG:fast

Recall that when expressed in the form of *shi* causatives [(18) and (4c) respectively in the introduction], these counterpart sentences to (55) and (56) were compatible with states of affairs.

Therefore, not any state of affairs may be encoded by *this rang* causative but only those that denote a new feeling.

The semantic features of this construction, informally described, are then:

(i) two personal NPs

(ii) a new state of feeling or emotions as the consequence of the causative event

(iii) the interpretation of this new state of affairs as being unintentionally caused by the subject.

The semantic representation is thus formulated as:
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 EVENT</sub></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Unintentional<br/>Causer</td><td></td><td>Experiencer</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Person A</td><td></td><td>Person B</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

(i) Zhei haizi rang ren bu fangxin.
this child RANG one NEG₁ at:ease
This child makes one feel anxious.

(ii) Mali rang ta ai de fafeng
(name) RANG he love EXT go:mad
Mary made him feel madly in love.

(iii) *Mali rang ta xiang. (*action predicate)
(name) RANG he think

(iv) 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.

Something happened to person B:
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.

(ii) Experiencer Causative of Agentless Causation with Rang
The second and semantically related experiencer causative
has a syntactic subject which denotes an agentless event as the
cause of a person's new state of feeling.
NP<sub>P</sub> RANG NP<sub>P</sub> VP<sub>EXPERIENTIAL EVENT</sub>
Cause Experiencer
Person B

57. Zhei shir zhen rang ren shengqi.
this matter really RANG one angry
This matter really makes you angry.

Note that the experienced feelings may only be of the kind that are understood to be externally caused (ex definitione). This applies to both kinds of experiencer causatives. Hence, inherent states of being, personality traits and so on are not compatible with this construction. Compare (58) with (59):

58. \*Zheige xiaoxi rang renjia kuaile.
this:CL news RANG people cheerful

59. Zheige xiaoxi rang renjia xingfen-qilai.
this:CL news RANG people excited:start
This news had people getting very excited.

This feature is accounted for by the semantic component which states that the experiencer comes to feel something for a certain time (present in the semantic structure of both constructions) and which predicts the incompatibility of such inherent or sustained states as *kuaile* 'cheerful' with this particular *rang* causative.

The predicate of this second experiencer causative behaves identically to that of the first in not permitting the co-occurrence of action verbs.

60. \*Zheige shiqing rang wo zou.
this:CL matter RANG I go.
States of affairs other than feelings are also incompatible with this construction, illustrated by the unacceptability of (61) with the predicate *pao-bu-kuai* 'unable to run fast':

61. *Di-shang de xue rang ta pao-bu-kuai.*
    ground:on REL snow RANG she run:NEG₁:fast

The features of the second experiencer causative are then

(i) a personal NP denoting the single entity involved in the causative event - the pivot nominal

(ii) a new state of feeling as a consequence of this causative event

(iii) the understanding of this new state of affairs as being caused by a prior agentless event.

EXPERIENCER CAUSATIVE OF AGENTLESS CAUSATION WITH RANG

NP<sub>P</sub> RANG NP<sub>P</sub> VP<sub>EXPERIENTIAL EVENT</sub>
Cause Experiencer
Person B

(i) Zheige wenti rang wo danxin.
    this:CL problem RANG I worried.
    This problem had me worried.

(ii) *Zheige xiaoxi rang renjia kuaile. (*sustained state of
    this:CL news RANG people cheerful. affairs)

(iii) *Di-shang de xue rang ta pao-bu-kuai. (*non-
    ground:on REL snow RANG she run:NEG₁:fast. exper-
    iential
    predicate)

(iv) *Zheige wenti rang wo xiang. (*action predicate)
    this:CL problem RANG I think
(v) *Zheige shiqing rang wo da ta. (*action predicate)
this:CL matter RANG I hit him.

(vi) Zheige xiaoxi rang renjia xingfen-qilai.
this:CL news RANG people excited:start
This news had everyone getting excited.

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

Conclusion

In this section on the _rang_ causative construction, the
same basic syntactic form of NP-RANG-NP-VP has been shown to act as
the surface form of six distinct semantic structures. The six _rang_
causatives examined were distinguished by the different kinds of
entities taking part in the causative events depicted, not to
mention the different types of causation involved: intentional,
permissive, non-interference, agentless and unintentional, as well
as the different consequences of these types of causation: action,
event or state of feeling.

In the only construction where intentional causation was
involved, the causative event was brought about by means of a speech
act of request on the part of the subject (and causer).

A second speech act causative of permission was shown not
to be amenable to description as either an intentional,
unintentional, agentless or experiencer causative. The subject of
this construction was likewise shown not to act as the causer of the
event in wanting the 'causee' to carry out an action. Instead, this
person is viewed as the causative agent in the sense of enabling
another to do what he or she wants to do by not refusing them the permission. The power to grant or refuse permission is an assumption in the meaning of this construction.

The non-interference causatives form a pair of constructions expressing the subject's lack of intervention in an ongoing event. The subject is presumed to have the ability to put an end to this event, yet refrains from doing so, effectively causing the event to continue on until its completion. Both causatives are unique in expressing an adverse state of affairs resulting from this event for either the undergoer or the person who owns the entity involved in the event.

The experiencer causatives express that a new state of feeling is caused to arise in the person undergoing the event. In one of these two causatives, the cause of the event is ascribed to some aspect of the subject's behaviour, either explicitly mentioned or implicit in the interpretation of this construction. This is the only *rang* construction which encodes unintentional causation. The second experiencer causative has an agentless event as its cause.

These six types of *rang* causatives display therefore strikingly different semantic structures, even though their syntactic structure is in the main quite similar. Only the speech act causative of request is able to take semantically and syntactically transitive verbs in its predicate, however.

Cases of ambiguity between the different interpretations afforded by each construction do not present counterevidence to this analysis which has set out to show how the causative use of *rang* must be separated into these six distinct semantic structures. Consider the command in causative form:
60. Rang ta zou.
RANG she go

It may be interpreted according to the given context as either the speech act causative of request, the speech act causative of permission or the causative of non-interference. In other words, I claim that examples such as (60) are only "ambiguous" out of context. Appropriate contexts for the three different interpretations are created below:

## Speech Act Causative of Request

61. Bie rang ta zai zher dai-zhe, rang ta zou.
don't RANG she at here stay: DUR, RANG she go
Don't let her keep on hanging around here, have her leave.

## Speech Act Causative of Permission

62. Ta xiang zou, jiu rang ta zou ba!
she want go, then RANG she go RP
She wants to go, so just let her go!

## RANG Causative of Non-Interference in an Agentive Event

63. - "Wo qu ba ta jiao-huilai."
I go BA she tell-return
"I'll go and get her to come back."

- "Bu, rang ta zou ba!"
no, RANG she go RP
"No, let her go."

However, these three different interpretations are not due merely to the context in which this *rang* sentence is used, but
are a consequence of the different semantic structures I have
postulated above.

Implicit in the type of semantic analysis carried out
here is the claim that none of these six semantic formulae may be
conflated with any other but must be kept separate in order to
adequately account for all the data examined in the preceding pages.
Furthermore, the semantic conditions holding for each construction
are interrelated within each semantic formula in different ways so
that if any two of these formulae were to be collapsed together,
many of the subtle distinctions of meaning that I have claimed to
exist and supported with evidence in the preceding discussion would
have to be sacrificed as well.
## 2. JIAO CAUSATIVE CONSTRUCTIONS

### 2.1 JIAO AS AN INDEPENDENT VERB

Jiao like rang also functions grammatically as an independent verb and is equally extensive in its uses. One of its basic uses is that of 'name' or 'be called'.

1. Ta jiao shenmo mingr? - Ta jiao Cao Xilei.
   she be:called what name she be:called (name)

   What is her name? - Her name is Cao Xilei.

   Related to this use is that of 'call out' or 'greet':

2. Xianzai ni mama jiao ni jinlai.
   now your mother call you in:come

   Your mother is calling you to come in now.

A third use of jiao is its intransitive use that carries the meaning of 'call' in relation to animal or bird cries and even to the noises made by manufactured objects such as whistles:

3. Qidi zai jiao.
   whistle DUR call

   The steam whistle is blowing

4. Tian yi liang, gongji jiao-qilai.
   day once light, rooster call:INC

   As soon as it's daylight, the rooster begins to crow.

The verbal characteristics of jiao are evident from the aspectual modification of the durative zai in (3) and the inchoative qilai in (4).
Of most relevance to the use of *jiao* in forming its speech act causative construction is its fourth verbal use of 'order':

5. <u>Wo jiao - le yige chuzu qiche.</u>
I order:COM one:CL hire car
I ordered a taxi.

6. <u>jiao cai</u>
order dish (of food)
order a meal

This meaning of *jiao* would presumably be related to its three preceding uses in the sense of "call for a taxi" or "call (the waiter) to bring one a meal" from which the extension in meaning to that of 'order' has most likely evolved.

Let us now turn to the examination of the *jiao* causative constructions.

## 2.2 CAUSATIVE CONSTRUCTIONS FORMED BY JIAO

Given these several related meanings of *jiao* when used as an independent verb, particularly the meaning of 'order'; it comes as no semantic surprise then, that *jiao* is used in causative constructions which find close parallels in both the 'coercive' and unintentional *make* causatives of English.

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

7. <u>Ta jiao wo renzhen kaolü yixia.</u>
he JIAO I seriously consider one:CL
He made me give it serious consideration.
In the following discussion of causatives formed by *jiao*, three
constructions are examined:

a. The Speech Act Causative of Command with *jiao*.

b. Experiencer Causative of Unintentional Causation with *jiao*.

c. Experiencer Causative of Agentless Causation with *jiao*.

Nikitina (1958: 214), as pointed out before, claims that no formal differentiation can be made of the two basic meanings of the causative construction (i) 'make', 'force' or 'order' and (ii) 'give opportunity', 'make possible' or 'permit', 'allow'. This leads to her conclusion that the *jiao* causative construction can thus express both these meanings while *rang* usually only expresses that of 'allow' (1958: 212).

The analysis of the *rang* causatives in the preceding
section showed that the meaning grammaticalized by each of the six
constructions was more subtle and complex in character than any
definition in terms of 'allow' could adequately account for. In
fact, informal description in terms of 'allow' would only be
applicable to the *rang* causative of permission and not to any of the
other five constructions.

I argue in this analysis of the *jiao* causatives that none
of the three semantic structures proposed can be collapsed with any
of the *rang* causatives. Each is unique. As part of the
argumentation it follows that neither does *jiao* bear the meaning of
'allow' in any of its constructions.
### 2.2.1 Jiao Speech Act Causative

#### (i) Speech Act Causative of Command with Jiao

Describing this causative as 'coercive' or as expressing 'force' is at best superficial in its omission of several other equally important features, which are unique to this causative and not encoded by any of the <u>rang</u> causatives.

Although this <u>jiao</u> causative also contains a speech act in its semantic structure, it is not at all identical to the one encoded by <u>rang</u>. Jiao encodes a speech act in the nature of a command, suitably used as the reflection of the relationship between two persons, causer and causee, where the causee has to do what the causer wants, regardless of the former's desires.

This differs from the corresponding <u>rang</u> causative with a speech act of the request kind, where the relationship is rather one where the causee is unwilling not to do what the causer requires. Example (8) below is awkward, as pointed out before, given that our preconception of the typical host of a dinner party as one who looks after every need of his guests is challenged by the reporting of this event in the form of a <u>jiao</u> causative which implies to the contrary that the guests ate more of the food because they were forced to do so by the host. The corresponding <u>rang</u> causative would be the one used for the typical situation of polite social relations between host and guests:

8. ??Ta jiao kerenmen duo chi dianr cai.
he JIAO guests more eat some dish
He made the guests eat some more of the dishes.

As a consequence of this semantic feature, it is a causative construction particularly suited to any kind of unequal
relationship holding between causer and causee - such as that
between superiors and inferiors due to any of the parameters of
professional rank, social status, age and so on, as viewed by the
speaker.

Consequently, the implication for the *jiao* analogue of
the *rang* causative in (9) is that it could only be used in the
situation where the speaker considered the children to be extremely
rude and cheeky.

9. Haizimen rang (??jiao) mama chi tang.
children RANG (??JIAO) mother eat lolly

The children had (??made) their mother eat some lollies.

Similarly, the essential difference between the *rang* and
*jiao* causatives exemplified in (10) is that, for *jiao*, an
appropriate context would be one where the causee has been summoned
to the party secretary's place for a criticism session. This is not
at all an appropriate context for *rang* due to the different
relationship between causer and causee implied by the speech act.

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

The party secretary had (made) me go to his place.

One consequence of this distinction between *rang* and *jiao*
causatives concerning the lack of regard for the causee's desires
encoded by the latter is that *jiao* does not form causatives of
permission, comparable to the English *let* causative, as does *rang*.
In *let* causatives, intention to cause an event is attributed to the
erstwhile 'causee' of the speech act causative and not to the
causer. (q.v. 1.2.1 (ii)). It will be seen that neither do the two
experiencer causatives formed by **jiao** encode this element of
meaning. Hence, the **jiao** causative never expresses the meaning of
'allow' as claimed by Nikitina in any of its constructions.

A second consequence of the nature of the speech act
encoded by **jiao** is that non-human animate entities are strictly
excluded from the role of causer. As the reader may recall, this
was in fact acceptable under certain conditions for the analogous
**rang** causative: where an animal's action such as barking could be
understood by metaphorical extension as asking a person to do
something for them. Such an interpretation of personification
cannot be made in the case of **jiao**.

11. Gou zai menwai bu ting de jiao,
dog at door:outside continuous ADV call,
**rang** (*jiao*) ren gei ta kai men.
RANG (*JIAO*) people for it open door

The dog was barking all the time outside the door, to
have someone open the door for it.

Where the **rang** causative with an animate subject is
unacceptable, so too is the **jiao** causative:

12. \*Gou rang (jiao) ta de zhuren wei ta.
dog RANG (JIAO). it GEN master feed it

Conversely, the causee may designate a non-human animate
entity as this is suited to the kind of 'superior-inferior' relation-
ship assumed in the use of the **jiao** causative. In this set of
circumstances, the **rang** causative is not at all appropriate:

13. Pao-le yizhen, ta you jiao (*rang) shengkou man-xialai.
run:COM one:CL, he again JIAO (*RANG) livestock slow:down
After a gallop, he made the draughthorses slow down again.
14. Zhang san jiao (??rang) ta de xiao gou guolai.
(name) JIAO (??RANG) he GEN little dog over:come
Zhang San made his little dog come over to him.

In addition, the speech act is understood to take place
face-to-face between the causer and causee, a third way in which the
**rang** and **jiao** causatives differ. The semantic constraint of a
direct speech act explains why **jiao** is unacceptable in (15).

15. Tamen xie xin rang (*jiao) wo huiqu
they write letter RANG (*JIAO) I return
They wrote a letter to have me come back.

In (16), the use of **jiao** implies only a face-to-face
instruction whereas **rang** may also be used in the situation of the
subject leaving a note for the causee:

16. Ta rang (jiao) wo liudian zhong guolai.
she RANG (JIAO) I six o'clock over:come
She had (made) me go over at six o'clock.

A feature which **jiao** shares with the two **rang** speech act
causatives is that the person denoted by the pivot nominal be
agentive. Thus neither spontaneously arising events nor states of
affairs over which a person has no control may occur in the **jiao**
speech act causative of command, exemplified by unacceptability of
the predicate **xiang-qilai** 'bring to mind' in (17) and **gaoxing**
'happy' in (18) respectively:

17. *Laoshi jiao Xiao Mei xiang-qilai.
teacher JIAO (name) bring:to:mind

18. *Li Si jiao ta gaoxing.
(name) JIAO she happy
Again, events such as *ku* 'cry' and *xiao* 'laugh' which have a controlled action reading can be used in this *jiao* construction.

19. **Daoyan jiao ta ku (xiao).**
director JIAO he cry (laugh)
The director made him cry (laugh).

To take up the point once more that there are no *jiao* analogues of the *rang* speech act causative of permission nor of the two *rang* causatives of non-interference, let us examine each causative type separately.

The *rang* causative of permission can apparently be converted into a *jiao* construction, it is true, but not one that means 'let someone do what they want'. The *jiao* counterpart may only be interpreted in terms of the speech act causative of command. Serving as proof of this are examples (19) and (20) below, where the (a) sentences are *rang* causatives of permission and the (b) sentences are *jiao* causatives of command.

19. a. **Bamende rang ta jinqu.**
doorkeeper RANG he enter
The doorkeeper let him go in.

b. **Bamende jiao ta jinqu.**
doorkeeper JIAO he enter
The doorkeeper made him go in.

20. a. **Ta yao shuo, ni jiu rang ta shuo.**
she want speak, you then RANG she speak
If she wants to speak, you'd better let her speak.
b. ?Ta yao shuo, ni jiu jiao ta shuo.
she want speak, you then JIAO she speak
?If she wants to speak, you'd better make her speak.

The non-occurrence of a **jiao** causative construction with the meaning of 'allow' devolves upon the fact that in the relevant **rang** construction, the desire to do something is conferred upon the causee. **Jiao** causatives have no such semantic feature.

Secondly the more striking evidence is presented by the two **rang** causatives of non-interference with either a person or an inanimate entity denoted by the pivot nominal. These may not be converted into any of the **jiao** causatives at all.

### RANG Causative of Non-Interference in an Agentive Event

21. Muqin rang (*jiao) xiao hair ku ge gou.
mother RANG (*JIAO) little child cry CL enough
The mother let (*made) the small child cry its heart out.

### RANG Causative of Non-Interference in an Agentless Event

22. Ta jiu zheiyang rang (*jiao) chuan chen-diao-le.
he then this:way RANG (*JIAO) boat sink:away:COM
This is the way he just let (*made) the boat sink.

Thus contrary to the statement made by Nikitina, **jiao** does not express the meaning of 'allow' or 'let' through the causative construction of command it forms. The remaining **jiao** experiencer causatives in being either unintentional or agentless in nature preclude this meaning as well, as will be demonstrated below.

The features of the **jiao** speech act causative of command that have been postulated are then:

(i) a personal NP denoting the causer and an animate NP, the causee
(ii) a face-to-face speech act which is based upon the assumption that the causee has to do what the causer wants

(iii) consequent upon (ii), an agentive causee

(iv) intention to bring about the event is ascribed to the causer.

The meaning grammaticalized by this causative is
formulated in the following way:

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)

(i) Xiao Mei jiao tamen ziger taolun,
(name) JIAO they self discuss,
ta xian tuichu yihuir.
she first withdrew one:CL

Xiao Mei made them discuss it on their own, and withdrew
for a while.

(ii) \*Xiao Mei jiao tamen gaoxing (\*Stative predicate)
(name) JIAO they happy

(iii) \*Tamen xie xin jiao wo huiqu (\*Indirect speech act)
they write letter JIAO I return

(iv) \*Xiao gou jiao ta de zhuren wei ta. (\*Non-human
little dog JIAO it GEN master feed it animate NP as
subject)

(v) Xiao Duizhang jiao dahuo jiancha qiang-li de zidan.
(name) Captain JIAO everyone inspect gun:in REL bullet
Captain Xiao made everyone inspect the ammunition in
their guns.

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
Next the two experiencer causatives formed by *jiao* are
examined.

2.2.2 **Jiao** Experiencer Causatives

(i) Experiencer Causative of Unintentional Causation with *Jiao*
This causative construction requires two personal NPs as
does its *rang* counterpart, the subject denoting the unintentional
causer of the event and the pivot nominal the experiencer of a new
state of affairs, specifically a feeling or perception. The
unintentional nature of the causation is evident from comparing (23)
with (24), both of which form acceptable experiencer causatives of
this kind.

23. Ta jiao wo xiang yige lao pengyou.
she JIAO I think:of one:CL old friend
She made me think of an old friend.

24. Ta de yangzi jiao wo xiangqi yige
she GEN appearance JIAO I recall one:CL
**congqian de tongxue.**
former REL classmate
Her appearance made me recall a former classmate.

The complex NP acting as the subject of (24) *ta de yangzi* 'her appearance' allows the clear interpretation of unintentional causation, since it precludes any action on the part of the subject as causing the event. As the meaning of (24) is very similar to that of (23), it lends support to regarding 'she' as likewise being the unintentional causer of the event depicted in (23). Note that only experiential predicates - either mental or emotional events and
states of affairs - are permissible in this construction. If the predicate denotes an action or any other kind of non-experiential state of affairs then the *jiao* causative cannot be used. Compare (25) with (26), the latter being unacceptable due to the presence of the action verb *likai* 'leave':

25. Ta de biaoyan jiao dajia gandong de he GEN performance JIAO everyone feel EXT zhi liu lei. just flow tears His performance moved everyone to tears.

26. *Ta de biaoyan jiao dajia likai. he GEN performance JIAO everyone leave

Similarly, states of affairs other than those of emotional and mental experience are proscribed, exemplified by *pang-qilai* 'get fat' in (27):

27. *Ta jiao haizi pang-qilai-le. he JIAO child fat-INC:COM

This causative construction is also widely used in exclamations of the form:

NP<sub>P</sub> ZHEN JIAO REN VP<sub>P</sub> EXPERIENTIAL EVENT

28. Ta zhen jiao ren xihuan (taoyan). he really JIAO one like (dislike) He really pleases (disgusts) people!

In this type of exclamation, the intensifier *zhen* 'really' is used in conjunction with the noun *ren* used in its generic sense and variously translated as 'you', 'one' or 'people'.
An agentless event or state of affairs is encoded as the
subject of a second related exclamation form:

NP<sub>CAUSE</sub> ZHEN JIAO REN VP<sub>EXPERIENTIAL EVENT</sub>

29. Zhei shi zhen jiao ren ku-xiao-bu-de.
this matter really JIAO one not:know:whether:to:laugh:or:
cry

This matter really makes you not know whether to laugh or
cry!

Furthermore, the <u>rang</u> experiencer causatives may also be
used in both these exclamation forms: The intensifier <u>zhen</u> 'really'
is not a required constituent with <u>rang</u> however:

NP<sub>P</sub> (ZHEN) RANG REN VP<sub>EXP</sub>

30. Zhei haizi rang ren bu fangxin.
this child RANG one NEG<sub>1</sub> at:ease

This child has one feeling ill at ease.

NP<sub>CAUSE</sub> (ZHEN) RANG REN VP<sub>EXP</sub>

31. Zhei shi zhen rang ren shengqi
this matter really RANG one angry

This matter really has one feeling angry.

When the intensifer <u>zhen</u> 'really' is omitted from either
of the <u>jiao</u> experiencer causatives used as exclamations, the result
may be a sentence which is not fully acceptable, as the exclamatory
force is lost:

32. ? Ta jiao ren xihuan.
he JIAO one like
33. Ta zhen jiao ren xihuan!
he really JIAO one like
He really makes people like him!

This observation devolves upon a crucial semantic
distinction between the _rang_ and _jiao_ experiencer causatives.
Informants remark that the two experiencer causatives formed by _jiao_
are much stronger and intense in expressive force than their _rang_
counterparts. This intuition seems to mirror the comparison between
the _jiao_ and _rang_ speech act causatives as well, one of the semantic
contrasts for these two constructions being a speech act of command
versus a speech act of request as we have seen. What precisely then
is the distinction between the _jiao_ and _rang_ experiencer causatives?
Given that further research is needed to analyse this distinction
fully, I would like to provisionally explicate it as the _jiao_
causative encoding the unexpected or surprise nature of the event as
viewed from the speaker's perspective, a feature absent in the
corresponding _rang_ causative. In (34), the use of _jiao_ as opposed
to _rang_ implies the speaker's view that the actor had only intended
to make the audience sad with his performance but ended up by
causing them to cry, to his surprise. This element of meaning is
not encoded by the use of _rang_ in (35):

34. Ta de biaoyan jiao guanzhong ku-qilai.
he GEN performance JIAO audience cry:INC
His performance unexpectedly made the audience start
crying.

35. Ta de biaoyan rang guanzhong ku-qilai.
he GEN performance RANG audience cry:INC
His performance had the audience crying.
The use of *jiao* in exclamations with the intensifier *zhen* 'really' and secondly the presence of the identical feature of the unexpected nature of the event in the *jiao* passive as opposed to the *rang* passive for which I am able to provide a well-documented argument (q.v. Chapter 6 below) serve as two further pieces of evidence in favour of postulating this feature in the semantic structure of the experiencer causatives formed by *jiao*.

The summary of semantic features and the semantic representation for the unintentional experiencer causative with *jiao* therefore both incorporate this provisional semantic component of "unexpectedness" as I believe that some attempt should be made to formalize the intuitions of informants which have been so consistently expressed.

## EXPERIENCER CAUSATIVE OF UNINTENTIONAL CAUSATION WITH JIAO

### Summary of features:

(i) two personal NPs, the subject denoting the unintentional causer and the pivot nominal, the experiencer

(ii) the experiencer undergoes a new state of feeling or perception

(iii) this state of affairs is the result of unintentional causation on the part of the subject

(iv) the intensity of this new state of feelings is viewed as unexpected by the speaker

NP<sub>P</sub>      JIAO          NP<sub>P</sub>      VP<sub>EXP</sub>
Unintentional Causer          Experiencer
(Person A)          (Person B)

(i) Ta jiao Xiao Mei xiao-qilai.
He JIAO (name) laugh:INC
He made Xiao Mei start laughing
(ii) *Laoshi jiao wo xiang-qilai.* (*No predicate of emotion)
teacher JIAO I think-INC.

(iii) ??Ta jiao ren xihuan.* (*No intensifier)
he JIAO one like

(iv) Ta zhen jiao ren xihuan.
he really JIAO one like

He really pleases people!

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

Recall that I am only provisionally postulating the last
component of the semantic representation to account for the
unexpected or surprise nature of the event as viewed by the speaker
- a feature of meaning lacking in the corresponding *rang* causative.
The provisional nature of this component is indicated by a question
mark preceding it.

(ii) Experiencer Causative of Agentless Causation with *Jiao*

The second experiencer causative has a semantic structure
closely related to the former, the main difference being that there
is no person involved in the causing event, but only in the caused
state of affairs, making it a "one entity" causative. The subject
of this causative may thus designate the causing event by means of a
simple or complex NP, clausal subjects being also permitted.
NP (VP) JIAO NP<sub>P</sub> VP<sub>EXP</sub>

CAUSE: Experiencer
(An agentless event) (Person B)

36. Zheige shiqing jiao wo fan-si le.
this:CL matter JIAO I annoyed:INT INC.

This matter made me extremely annoyed.

37. Songlai de dongxi jiao ta shifen manyi
send:come REL thing JIAO she very satisfied

The things which were sent over made her feel very
satisfied.

The fact that there is a different kind of causing event encoded by this construction combined with the feature of only one entity being involved rather than two means that this causative cannot be conflated with the first *jiao* experiencer causative since the components of meaning are consequently interrelated in a different way.

States of being which are not externally caused or if
they are, are long-lasting in nature, such as those considered to be
personality traits, cannot occur in this causative nor in the first
unintentional experiencer causative. Contrast the acceptability of
the predicate *xingfen-qilai* 'get excited' with *kuaile* 'cheerful' in
(38):

38. Zheige xiaoxi jiao renjia xingfen-qilai (*kuaile) le.
this:CL news JIAO everyone excited:INC (*cheerful) INC.

This news made everyone get excited (*cheerful).

This constraint also applies to the *make* causative analogue in
English of these experiencer causatives:

39. The news made George excited (*joyous*) (*clever*).
Action verbs such as xiang 'think' may occur as part of the predicate when they combine with other constituents to give the overall meaning of a new state of feeling, as required by this causative, but not when they retain their action reading:

40. Ye bu lai feng xin, dou jiao ren also NEG₁ come CL letter, all JIAO one xiang-si (*xiang) le. think:INT (*think) INC

When not even a letter comes, it makes you worried to death with thinking. (NOT: *it makes you think.)

The semantic formula of this second experiencer causative takes this form:

(ii) EXPERIENCER CAUSATIVE OF AGENTLESS CAUSATION WITH JIAO

NP (VP) JIAO NP<sub>P</sub> VP<sub>EXP</sub>
CAUSE

Agentless Event

Experiencer
(Person B)

(i) Zhei chang shengli jiao tamen deyi-ji le. this:CL victory JIAO they proud:INT INC

This victory made them extremely proud.

(ii) \*Zheige xiaoxi jiao Li Si zou. (*action predicate)

this:CL news JIAO (name) go

(iii) Zheige xiaoxi jiao Li Si jingqi de hen. this:CL news JIAO (name) surprised EXT very

This news made Li Si very surprised.

(iv) \*Di-shang de xue jiao ta pao-bu-kuai. (*non-experiential predicate)

ground:on REL snow JIAO he run:NEG₁:fast
(v) Zheifen liwu guanbao jiao ta manyi.
this:CL present surely JIAO she satisfied

This present will surely make her pleased (contrary to expectations).

Person B came to feel something for a certain time

because of something else that happened then (event Y)

not because anyone wanted it to happen.

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

Again, note that a question mark is placed before the final component of the semantic representation to indicate its provisional nature as the component of 'unexpectedness'.

Conclusion

In this section, three causative constructions formed by *jiao* have been analysed, comprising one intentional causative containing a speech act of command and two experiencer causatives.

It has been demonstrated that none of these causatives express the notion of allowing or letting someone do what they want, since the desire of the causee to do something (or of an experiencer to feel something) is not encoded as a feature of meaning by any of these *jiao* causatives, contrary to Nikitina's claim to that effect.

Contrasting to this, in the *rang* causative of permission, the intention to carry out an action is predicated of the causee and not the causer. Such a feature is unique to this particular *rang* causative, not being found present in any other of the five *rang* causatives examined nor in any of the three *jiao* causatives.

Secondly, evidence was given to serve as proof of there being no *jiao* causatives with a semantic structure akin to the *rang* causatives of non-interference.
The notion of force entailed by the use of *jiao* that has
also been commented upon by Nikitina (1958: 212) was investigated
and described as well, resulting in a semantic representation which
made possible a more subtle explication in terms of a speech act
requiring that the causee has to do what the causer says he or she
wants done.

This speech act and the relation between the causer and
the causee which can be inferred from it, was next compared to the
speech act encoded by the analogous *rang* causative. Here, the exact
elements combining to give the overall impression of the coercive
nature of the *jiao* causative were again able to be effectively
compared with those of the more polite *rang* speech act causative due
to the systematic application of terms of natural language in the
semantic analysis. Moreover, only the *jiao* speech act causative was
shown to entail the notion of force or coercion.

Finally the semantic structures of the *jiao* experiencer
causatives were proposed with an alleged component of "unexpected-
ness" differentiating them from the corresponding *rang* experiencer
causatives. It was pointed out that more research to verify this
feature is needed. Nevertheless, this tentatively proposed
component of meaning is intended to account for speakers' intuitions
that the two *jiao* experiencer causatives are 'stronger' and 'more
intense' in expressiveness than the corresponding *rang* causatives.

The proposed formulae account also for the impression
that the *rang* causatives are "more polite" than the corresponding
*jiao* causatives. As is often the case, the greater "politeness" of
a form is the function of subtle differences in the semantic
structure.
3 SYNTACTIC DIFFERENTIATION OF PASSIVE FROM CAUSATIVE
CONSTRUCTIONS FORMED BY **RANG** AND **JIAO**

Although passive and causative constructions in Chinese are
identical in their basic syntactic form of NP- RANG (JIAO)-NP-VP,
they may nevertheless be differentiated according to their syntactic
behaviour which reflects the underlying distinctness of their
semantic structures.

It is true that examples of <u>rang</u> and <u>jiao</u> constructions can
be found which when cited in isolation are ambiguous between passive
and causative readings:

1. Ta rang (jiao) wo shuo - le.
he RANG (JIAO) I speak:COM

a. He had (made) me explain.

b. He was criticised by me.

In fact, this example may even have the third
interpretation of a <u>rang</u> causative of permission: "He let me speak".

Nikitina believes that the passive use of <u>rang</u> and <u>jiao</u> is
historically derived from their causative use (1958: 219). She
states further that although the passive constructions are sometimes
difficult to distinguish formally from the causative constructions,
for example, when there is no third NP present as in (1), they can
always be differentiated according to their meaning:

The passive construction differs from the
causative in that the subject of the passive ...
is the undergoer of the action and the passive
object ... is the actor. (1958: 218)
Having already commenced the task of distinguishing the passive and causative constructions by semantic methods in the preceding sections, through the explication of their semantic structures, I will now show how they can be formally differentiated before proceeding to the semantic analysis of the *rang* and *jiao* passives.

First of all, can the passive be differentiated from the causative in terms of the number of NPs allowed as Nikitina has implied? The passive typically exhibits a two-argument structure, the two entities involved being the undergoer and the agent. The same description may be applied to the causative constructions which also have two basic arguments representing, for example, the causer and causee.

However, there is no strict correspondence between the number of noun phrases and the type of construction. In Chapter 3 of Part I, it was shown that the *bei* passive of bodily effect makes use of three NPs designating the undergoer, the agent and the part of the body which is directly affected by the passive event. So too may speech act causative constructions when the main verb is semantically transitive, yet only two NPs if it is intransitive. This kind of superficial syntactic analysis does not lead, I believe, to any substantial or useful results, however.

Contrasting to this, the grammatical categories of aspect, negation and modal verbs reveal differences in syntactic behaviour which are attributable to the distinct semantic structures of passives and causatives. Each category is examined below in turn.
## 3.1 ASPECTUAL MARKING AND SERIAL VERB CONSTRUCTIONS

### 3.1.1 Verbal Aspect Constructions with Completive -le, Experiential -guo and Durative -zhe.

In the introduction to Part II, while arguing against the classification of Chinese causative constructions as serial verb constructions, I pointed out that the independent verbs **jiao** and **rang** lost their verbal characteristics on becoming used as causative verbs. In causative constructions, neither **jiao** nor **rang** can be aspectually modified. Thus the completive aspect marker -le modifying the causative verbs **rang** and **jiao** in (2) produces an unacceptable sentence:

2. *Shuji rang (jiao)-le wo chuli zheijian shi. party sec. RANG (JIAO):COM I handle this:Cl matter

If the speaker wants to express that the party secretary's causative act of requesting has taken place already, then (3) can be used instead:

3. Shuji shuo rang wo chuli zheijian shi. party:sec. say RANG I handle this:CL matter

The party secretary said to have me deal with this matter.

Similarly, the experiential aspect marker -guo may not be used to modify a causative verb, as demonstrated by (4). If the speaker wishes to stress that the causative act has taken place at least once in the past, then the adverb **cengjing** 'at some time in the past' may be used as in (5):
4. *Shuji rang (jiao)-guo wo chuli zheijian shi.
party:sec. RANG (JIAO):EXP I handle this:CL matter

5. Shuji cengjing rang wo chuli zheijian shi.
party:sec at:some:time RANG I handle this:CL matter
in:the:past

The party secretary has already had me deal with this
matter in the past.

Neither can the durative aspect marker -zhe modify the
causative verb. Compare (6) with (7) where adverbial means are used
to render the overall meaning that the causative act of the subject
is under way at the moment of speaking.

6. *Shuji rang (jiao) -zhe wo chuli zheijian shi.
party:sec RANG (JIAO) :DUR I handle this:CL matter.

7. Shuji zhengzai rang wo chuli zheijian shi.
party:sec in:the:course/of RANG I handle this:CL matter

The party secretary is in the process of asking me to deal
with this matter.

However (7) does not have a causative meaning, as the
translation shows, since the use of zhengzai 'in the process of' in
indicating that the causative subject's action is not yet completed
means that neither can the causee's action be understood to be
completed. "I" have only been asked to do something, but have not
yet done it.

None of the syntactic exponents *bei*, *rang* or *jiao* of the
three passive constructions may be aspectually modified either.
Compare (8) with (9). When the passive markers *bei*, *rang* and *jiao*
are aspectually modified as in (8), ungrammatical sentences are
produced. Only (9) is acceptable where it is rather the main verb
in the predicate which is so modified:
8. *Moshuping* { bei jiao { rang } - { le guo zhe } didi da-fan.

ink:bottle PASSIVE ASPECT brother knock:over

9. Moshuiping { bei jiao { rang } didi da-fan le.

ink:bottle PASSIVE brother knock:over:COM

The ink bottle was knocked over by my younger brother.

If the passive and causative constructions were to be considered serial verb constructions then the first verb in the series (*bei*, *rang* or *jiao*) should be able to take aspectual modification which extends over all the VPs in the sentence, whether or not explicitly marked. Clearly this is not the case. At best, we may only conjecture that used as either passive exponents or causative verbs, *rang*, *jiao* and *bei* are moving towards auxiliary or prepositional status [q.v. Nikitina (1958); Li and Thompson (1973); Lord (1973)] and are no longer verbal in these uses. This is particularly clear in the case of *bei* which has no independent usage as a verb.

Secondly, neither the syntactic subject of the passive nor of the causative acts as the subject or agent of the second verb in the main predicate. In (10), the subject of the causative verb *shuji* 'party secretary' does not refer to both the person who issues the request as well as the one who carries it out:

10. Shuji rang wo chuli - le zheijian shi.

party:sec RANG I handle:COM this:CL matter.

The party secretary had me deal with this matter.
Neither is the subject of the passive in (11) understood to be the person who carries out the criticism, but rather the undergoer of the event:

11. Ta rang wo piping - le yixia.

he RANG I criticise:COM one:CL

He was given criticism by me.

Both these features of uniform aspectual marking and same subject are requirements of serial verb constructions as defined in Lord (1973) and Schachter (1974). [q.v. Section 0.1.]

In contrast to the causative verb itself, the verb in the main predicate of the *rang* and *jiao* causative constructions does take aspectual modification, but only modification which is appropriate for the causative meaning grammaticalized. Thus only the completive aspect marker *-le* and the experiential aspect marker *guo* co-occur with causative constructions. Modification by the completive aspect marker is exemplified by (10) above and the experiential aspect marker by (12) which follows:

12. Shuji rang wo chuli-guo (*-zhe) zheijian shi.

party:sec RANG I handle:EXP (*DUR) this:CL matter

The party secretary had me deal with this matter in the past.

The case for the compatibility of the durative aspect marker *-zhe* with causative constructions is identical to that for passives. Neither of the two durative constructions [outlined in Part I, 1.3.2] expressing ongoing action or a sustained state of affairs caused by the subject's action is compatible with the semantics of a causative construction.
It has already been demonstrated that the *bei* passive is restricted to encoding a completed event (q.v. Part I 1.3) Likewise causative constructions need to encode that the causative event is completed (ex definitione) or else they cannot be considered to be causative in nature.

Ongoing action in not being part of the meaning grammaticalized by causative constructions is thus immediately excluded when syntactically indicated by the durative aspect marker -zhe, as (12) reveals. So too is a sustained state of affairs, since even though it has been caused by an action, the action is not that of an external agent as required by all the *rang* and *jiao* causative constructions but that of the subject of the new state of affairs himself (or herself).

Recall examples of the second durative construction of a sustained state of affairs such as (84) [from Part I, 1.3.2], altered slightly and presented as (13) below:

13.
---
Ta shu-zhe shuang bian, chuan-zhe
she comb-DUR two plaits, wear:DUR

baise changpao ...
white long:gown

She was wearing her hair in two plaits, and had on a long white chongsam ...

With only one entity involved and thus the interpretation of external causation pre-empted, neither is this particular durative construction able to be combined into any of the causative constructions.
### 3.1.2 No Aspectual Marking

If there is no aspectual marking on the verb of the main predicate, without a supplied context or unless there is modification by time adverbials as in (5), the sentence does not have any causative interpretation as exemplified by (14) below:

14. Shuji rang (jiao) wo chuli zheijian shi. party sec. RANG (JIAO) I handle this:CL matter

In (14), the appropriate interpretation is that of a request or command: the party secretary has asked or told me (or is asking or telling me) to deal with the matter, but I still haven't done so.

### 3.1.3 Inchoative Sentential *le*

The use of the inchoative aspect marker *le* to modify a *rang* or *jiao* sentence has identical consequences to the absence of any aspectual marking. - Causation is not encoded. In (15), the combination of *rang* and the inchoative aspect marker *le* encodes again a request whereas *jiao* and *le* encodes a command:

15. Shuji rang (jiao) wo chuli zheijian shi le. party:sec RANG (JIAO) I handle this:CL matter INC Now the party secretary has asked (told) me to deal with this matter.

Although the inchoative sentential marker *le* expresses that a new state of affairs has arisen - "It's the situation now (as opposed to before) that I've been asked to do this" - again, there is no implication that the request (or order) has been carried out, and thus a causative interpretation is not possible.
### 3.1.4 Perfect Constructions -le ... le and -guo ... le

A third construction comprising both verbal -le and sentential le which plays a similar role to the use of the present perfect tense in English has been discussed during the analysis of the bei passive [Part I, 1.3.1]. This construction proves to be semantically compatible with causative constructions through its encoding of the effect on the present of a past event<fnref n="7" />

#### 16. Shuji rang wo chuli -le zheijian shi le.

party:sec RANG I handle:COM this:CL matter INC

The party secretary has had me deal with this matter.

Thus to be interpreted as a causative construction, apart from the possibility of the context or adverbial modification encoding this, the major syntactic method is the use of the verbal aspect marker -le to indicate the completion of the causative event. Secondly, the experiential aspect marker -guo may also be used to modify the main verb in this way, or thirdly the perfect construction formed by -le ... le.

Note that a second kind of perfect construction formed by the experiential aspect marker -guo in conjunction with inchoative sentential marker le may be used as well in causative constructions:

#### 17. Shuji rang (jiao) wo chuli-guo zheijian shi le.

party sec. RANG (JIAO) I handle:EXP this:CL matter INC

The party secretary has had (made) me deal with this matter in the past.

<footnote n="7">7 The perfect aspect construction is so named as it is usually translated by the English present perfect tense. Completive verbal -le is often translated by the English preterite.</footnote>
With respect to the semantics of _verbal_ aspectual marking
then, the causative constructions behave identically to the passive
constructions formed by _bei_, _jiao_ and _rang_. The semantic
requirement of encoding a completed event found in both types of
syntactic constructions is thus typically realized through the use
of the verbal aspect marker _-le_ and to a lesser extent by the verbal
aspect marker _-guo_.

On the other hand, passive and causative constructions
behave differently with respect to the perfect constructions formed
by _-le_ ... _le_ or _-guo_ ... _le_, the passive not occurring with either
[discussed in Part I, 1.3.1]. Consider the passive in (18) modified
only by _-guo_ as opposed to that of (19) which co-occurs with _guo_ ...
_le_. Only (18) is acceptable:

18. Ta rang feitu qiang-guo.
he RANG bandit rob:EXP

He has been robbed by bandits in the past.

19. ?* Ta rang feitu qiang-guo le.
he RANG bandit rob:EXP INC.<fnref n="8" />

Thus, apart from their different semantic structures,
passive and causative constructions may be distinguished by their
behaviour with respect to aspectual marking.

<footnote n="8">8 The passive with the perfect construction -guo... le proved to be semantically anomalous with or without context. Informants could only understand (19) as "He's already been robbed (several times) in the past by bandits (so now it's your turn)". Similarly with the passive ?*Ta bei wo da-guo le" "He's already been beaten up by me", the implication was also one of "now it's your turn" or "you didn't need to beat him up as I've already done it".</footnote>
The syntactic behaviour of negative markers presents an even clearer case in reflecting the different semantic structures of the passive and causative.

## 3.2 NEGATION

In the analysis of the passive [Part I, 1.3.4], it was shown that the passive may only be negated by the negative marker *mei (you)* and not by *bu*. This point is exemplified by (20) and (21) respectively:

20. *Wo mei you bei shuji piping.*
I NEG₂ BEI party:sec criticise
I was not criticised by the party secretary.

21. *Wo bu bei shuji piping.*
I NEG₁ BEI party:sec criticise

Furthermore, it was shown that the negative marker must always precede the passive exponent *bei* (or *rang* or *jiao*), never occurring in the predicate before the main verb.

22. *Wo bei shuji bu (mei you) piping*
I BEI party sec. NEG₁ (NEG₂) criticise

Causative constructions, however, may be negated by using both the syntactic positions of

(i) placement of the negative marker before the causative verb

(ii) placement of the negative marker before the main verb.

From this it follows that the causative and passive constructions can also be differentiated syntactically by the possibility of negative markers occurring in the predicate of the causative but not in that of the passive.
What is of more interest is the semantic repercussions of the two syntactic methods of negation used by causative constructions. The semantic effect of causative verb negation differs strikingly to that of main verb negation. Moreover, negated causative constructions prove to be semantically asymmetrical to affirmative causative constructions and not the mere converse.

### 3.2.1 Causative Verb Negation

NP<sub>p</sub> BU JIAO NP<sub>p</sub> VP
MEI (YOU) RANG

Causer NEG Causee

First of all, let us consider negation by <u>bu</u>.

23. Ta bu rang wo piping Xiao Mei.
he NEG<sub>1</sub> RANG I criticize (name)

The negated causative in (23) has the semantic effect of the English translation "He wouldn't (didn't) let me criticise Xiao Mei". The causative verb <u>rang</u> negated by <u>bu</u> cannot mean "He didn't have me criticise Xiao Mei" or "He didn't ask me to criticise Xiao Mei". Neither can the negated <u>jiao</u> causative mean "He didn't make (tell) me to criticise Xiao Mei".

When <u>bu</u> is used to negate the causative verb of a causative construction with <u>rang</u> or <u>jiao</u>, the overall interpretation is one of not letting or not allowing another person to do what they want, the additional implication being that it is the pivot nominal, "I" in (23), who wants to carry out the action, here, a political criticism session.
This leads us to assert that negation by _bu_ does not form
the contradicted counterpart of the two intentional causatives with
_rang_ and _jiao_ (the speech act causative). It may be viewed as the
negated counterpart of the _rang_ causative of permission, however:

24. Ta rang wo zou.
he RANG I go.
He let me go.

25. Ta bu rang wo zou.
he NEG₁ RANG I go.
He wouldn't let me go.

It is most productive however to view the causative verb
negated by _bu_ as forming a construction in its own right, separate
and unique in its semantics from affirmative causative constructions.
The fact that _bu_ cannot be used to negate the passive construction,
as exemplified by (21), is due to the subject being non-agentive
[q.v. Part I.1.3.4] as opposed to agentive in intentional causative
constructions.

Secondly, the use of _mei (you)_ to negate the causative verb
gives rise to an interpretation distinct from that of (23):

26. Ta mei rang (jiao) wo piping Xiao Mei.
he NEG₂ RANG (JIAO) I criticise (name)

Sentence (26) is interpreted as "He hasn't asked me to
criticize Xiao Mei" or "He hasn't told me to criticize Xiao Mei" in
the case of the _jiao_ causative. The appropriate context for (26)
would be one where the speaker contradicts a previous assumption
that the desire to conduct a criticism session emanates from the
causative subject, "he". This context is created by (27):
27. Ta mei (*bu) rang wo piping Xiao Mei,
he NEG₂ (*NEG₁) RANG I criticize (name)

shi wo ziji jueding qu piping de.

be I self decide go criticize NOM.

He didn't ask me to criticize Xiao Mei, it was me who decided to go and do it.<fnref n="9" />

Hence, this form of negation is appropriately used as the contradiction of the speech act causatives with **jiao** and **rang**.

Consider two further examples, cited in context, that clarify the use of **bu** and **mei** (you) in negating the causative verb.

28. - Ta de zhuozi, ni zenmo bu zhengli?
she GEN desk, you how NEG₁ tidy

- Why is it you're not tidying up her desk?

- Ta bu jiao wo zuo.
she NEG¹ JIAO I do.
She wouldn't let me do it.

29. -Liudian ban le, zenmo hai mei zuo fan?
six o'clock half INC, how still NEG₂ make food

It's already 6.30, how come you still haven't made dinner?

-Ta mei jiao wo zuo.
she NEG₂ JIAO I do
She hasn't told me to do it.

Therefore, only the use of **mei** (you) as the mode of negation may be properly considered the contradiction of the speech

<footnote n="9">9 This kind of negation in Chinese does not allow the possible implication as does the English that "someone else asked me to do it".</footnote>
act causatives. The use of *bu* does not serve to contradict an assumption that the causative event took place but rather expresses that the causer would not let the causee do what the latter desired and thus may only be used to contradict the *rang* speech act causative of permission.

### 3.2.2 Main Verb Negation

Unlike the passive construction, the main verb in the predicate of the causative may also be negated by *bu* or by the negative imperative markers *bie* or *bu yao* [q.v. Part I.1.3.5] but not by *mei* (you). Consider (30), (31) and (32) in turn, exemplifying these points respectively:

30. *Ta rang (jiao) wo bu zuo.*
he RANG (JIAO) I NEG₁ do
He asked (told) me not to do it.

31. *Ta rang (jiao) wo bu yao zuo.*
he RANG (JIAO) I NEG IMP do
He asked (told) me not to do it.

32. \* *Ta rang (jiao) wo mei zuo.*
he RANG (JIAO) I NEG₂ do

The exclusion of *mei (you)* from negating the main verb in (32) is due to its meaning of contradicting an assumption that the event has already taken place which contrasts to the meaning of *bu* of negating the assumption of an agent wanting to carry out an action. Only the latter kind of negation is appropriate in the predicate of an intentional causative construction. Sentence (32) has the same problems of interpretation as does the English "He asked (told) me not to have done it".
To the contrary, the meaning of (30) and (31) is based on
an assumption that the causee wants to carry out a certain action
which the causer doesn't want the causee to do (anymore) and
explicitly says so.

Li and Thompson (1981: 610) claim that in the case of
pivotal constructions formed by the verbs they classify as Group 1,
"for the ones that have meanings closely related to giving commands
or making suggestions, the clauses that follow are actually
imperatives". As a consequence, they make the second claim that "if
the clause is negative, then the imperative negatives bie and bu yao
must be used". (Note that jiao 'tell' is included in this group,
although elsewhere (1981: 602) it is classified as belonging to
another subtype of the serial verb construction.) This claim is
supported by the following data (their numbering and translation):

73. a. ta quan women bie zou.
3sg advise we don't go
S/He advised us not to leave.

b. *ta quan women bu zou.
3sg advise we not leave

This is not a generalization that can be made for all the
verbs in their Group I, however, which includes quan 'advise', pai
'send', qiu 'beg', weituo 'entrust', qing 'invite' and jiao 'tell'.
The data I have presented such as (30) and further data from
Nikitina (1958) show that in the case of jiao and rang, the negative
marker bu may negate the main verb. On this point, I agree with
Nikitina (1958: 220) who states that "In constructions with jiao and
rang, the negative is most frequently placed before jiao and rang,
but can also be placed before the main verb". She illustrates this
with the following example (my numbering) from the writings of Zhou
Libo:

33. Tou liang tian ta you shuo-chu le sange dijiao,
first two day he again explain:out CON three:CL cellar

xiang yao jiao ren bu kou ta de qiang.
think want JIAO people NEG₁ dig he GEN gun.

During the first two days, he revealed another three hiding
places (cellars), thinking to make them not try and dig out
his guns.

Therefore, the intentional causatives where negation occurs
within the predicate encode a speech act where the causative subject
explicitly asks (or tells) the causee not to do something. They are
understood to be causative in the sense of one person causing
another not to do something the latter had intended to do.

The experiencer causatives formed by **rang** and **jiao** also
freely co-occur with predicates negated by **bu** but not by **mei**
(you).<fnref n="10" /> The semantic effect differs from that of the intentional
causatives as the overall meaning remains one of causing the
experiencer to come into a new state of feeling.

34. Ta rang (jiao) wo bu (*mei) fangxin.

she RANG (JIAO) I NEG₁ (*NEG₂) at:ease

She had me feeling ill at ease.
(She made me feel ill at ease.)

Thus, negation of the predicate verb by *bu* does not amount
to a contradiction of the causative event having taken place for

<footnote n="10">10 The non-occurrence of *mei (you)* as a negative marker in the experiencer causatives belongs to the more general restriction that stative verbs may only be negated by *bu*.</footnote>
either intentional or unintentional causatives formed by _rang_ and _jiao_. This function is fulfilled instead by the use of _mei (you)_ when it negates the causative verb and secondly by the use of _bu_ in this position which gives the overall meaning of 'not let'.

The fact that the subject of intentional causative constructions is agentive explains why both negative markers may be used to negate the causative verb, and not merely _mei (you)_ alone as in the case of passive constructions where the subject is semantically the undergoer. The reason why the passive subject cannot co-occur with _bu_ is that the latter acts as a negative in the sense of "not wanting to _do something_" (q.v. Part I.1.3.4) and thus implies and requires an agentive subject.

Negation of the predicate verb entails a speech act of the form "Don't do this" on the part of the causer. Only _bu_ and negative imperatives formed by _bu_ such as _bu ya'o_ and _bie_ may be used in this syntactic position.<fnref n="11" />

To summarize, the causative construction is used with three modes of negation, applied to either the causative verb or to the main verb, whereas the passive is used only in conjunction with one mode of negation _mei (you)_, syntactically positioned before the passive exponent _bei_, _jiao_ or _rang_. Main verb negation is excluded from the passive due to the semantic requirement of a completed event being encoded, syntactically realized by an affirmative predicate.

<footnote n="11">11 _Bie_ is phonetically a contraction of _bu yao_ 'don't', favoured over the latter in northern Mandarin.</footnote>
### 3.3 MODAL VERBS

In both passive and causative constructions, modal verbs are excluded from modifying the main verb in the predicate.

35. *Ta rang (jiao) wo neng (keyi) piping.
he RANG (JIAO) I can (may) criticize

This can be simply explained in terms of the semantic requirement that the passive or causative event be understood as completive. "Being able to do something" encoded by modal verbs such as *neng* is not compatible with the meaning grammaticalized by both passive and causative constructions of "having done that something".

36. *Ta bei wo neng (keyi) da.
he BEI I can (may) hit

However, in causative constructions, unlike passive constructions, modal verbs of ability may precede and thus modify the causative verb.

37. Ta neng (keyi) jiao wo zuo.
he can (may) JIAO I do
He can (may) make me to do it.

Compare (37) with the unacceptable passive in (38):

38. *Ta neng (keyi) bei jingcha zhua-dao.
he can (may) BEI police arrest

A different situation is found for modal verbs which indicate future probability or possibility of an event. These may both precede the causative verb and passive exponent but not the main verb in the predicate, as pointed out initially:
(i) <u>Causatives</u>

a. Preceding Main Verb:

39. *Ta jiao wo xiang (hui) (yao) zuo.
he JIAO I think:of (will) (want) do

b. Preceding causative verb

40. Ta xiang (hui) (yao) jiao wo zuo.
he think:of (will) (want) JIAO I do.

He's thinking of making me do it.
(He will make me do it.)
(He wants to make me do it.)

In the case of the passive construction, only *hui* is compatible with its meaning however [explained in 1.1.3.4]:

(ii) <u>Passives</u>

a. Preceding Main Verb

41. *Ta bei jingcha hui zhua-dao.
he BEI police will arrest

b. Preceding Passive Marker

42. Ta hui bei jingcha zhua-dao.
he be:likely BEI police arrest

It's probable that he's been arrested by the police.

Modal verbs placed before the causative verb modify the causative subject's agentive role and thus neither modify nor contradict assumptions about the causee's action or the causative event. This is why they are acceptable in the causative constructions, but on the whole not in passive constructions apart from *hui* when it carries the meaning of 'be likely to'.
In conclusion, the syntactic behaviour of three grammatical
categories - aspectual marking, negative markers and modal verbs -
has been shown to be different in each case for the passive as
opposed to the causative construction. This was claimed not only to
serve as three means of syntactic differentiation but also to be
explicable in terms of their distinct semantic structures.
4. INTRODUCTION TO THE COLLOQUIAL PASSIVES IN CHINESE FORMED BY RANG AND JIAO

As in the case of *rang* and *jiao* causatives, little specific research has been undertaken on the passives formed by *rang* and *jiao*. This is not surprising since they are generally considered to be merely the colloquial variants of the *bei* passive and thus to have the same meaning. [cf. Ding Shengshu (1979: 100); Guo Derun (1981: 30); Liang Donghan (1960: 75); Lü (1941: 62); Lü 1980 (268, 405); Wang Huan (1957: 33); Wang Liaoyi (1957: 112) and Zhang Zhigong (1957: 93)]. Once again, this treatment can be attributed to the fact that the three passive constructions have identical syntax: NP-BEI(RANG)(JIAO)-NP-VP.

Apart from their colloquial nature, there are two further points upon which there is a general consensus, these also being upheld in my analysis. The first is that the colloquial passives exceptionlessly express adversity as part of their grammaticalized meaning. This feature is attributed to the confinement of *rang* and *jiao* to the colloquial register. The following statement by Wang Li concerns this first point (1957: 15-16):

> Their [*rang*, *jiao* and *gei*] extent of application is as of old, which is to say, they express that something unfortunate has happened to the thing represented by the subject .... Therefore, the influence of foreign languages is limited, it has only influenced literary language to some extent, but in ordinary language, the historical element is most crucial.<fnref n="12" />

<footnote n="12">12 This viewpoint is also propounded by A.A. Dragunov in his annotations of Wang Liaoyi's *Hanyu Yufa Gangyao* (Outline of Chinese Grammar) (1957: 111, Footnote 10), and by Guo Derun (1981: 31).</footnote>

<footnote>> The verb *gei* 'give' is used as a passive exponent in non-standard Chinese (that is, not in *putonghua*) e.g. (contd.)</footnote>
Secondly, the even more commonly made observation is that
the agent of the passive event must be obligatorily expressed [cf.
Hong Xinheng (1956: 28); Li and Thompson (1981: 507); Liang Donghan
(1960: 75); Tang T'ing-chi (1972: 159) and Wang Huan (1957: 33)].
For example, Liang Donghan (1960: 75) states:

Bei and gei may both be linked up with the verb
to give the verb a passive quality. Jiao and
rang, however, can only be placed in front of the
agent (without exception) and may not be linked
up with the verb.

Liang exemplifies this point with the unacceptability of
(1) which has the syntactic form of RANG-VP

1. *ràng chui-xi -le
RANG blow:extinguish:COM

as opposed to (2) with the form RANG-NP-VP:

2. rang fengxue chui-xi - le
RANG snowstorm blow:extinguish : COM

to get blown out by the snowstorm

These two features shared by the *rang* and *jiao* passives of
being unconditionally agentful and adversative and thirdly their

12 (contd.)

Ta gei didi da le "He was beaten up by his younger brother".
As it represents a dialectal phenomenon, it has not been
analysed [c.f. Wang Huan's statement "Gei does not replace bei
in the Beijing dialect" (1957: 31) - and recall that the
Beijing dialect of northern Mandarin constitutes the basis of
standard Chinese - putonghua.]

Since the argument in favour of considering bei as an

Since the argument in favour of considering <u>bei</u> as an
adversity passive (presented in Part I, Ch.1.1) applies to the
two colloquial passives as well, I will not restate the case
here.
colloquial use, partially account for the fact that neither has a
Europeanized counterpart. The fact that the agent is obligatorily
expressed leads to immediate exclusion from the agentless type of
Europeanized passive in Chinese exemplified by the _bei_ construction
in (3):

3. <u>Hu Yaobang bei xuanwei fu-zongli.</u>
(name) BEI elect:as vice-premier

Hu Yaobang was elected as vice-premier.

4. \*<u>Hu Yaobang rang (jiao) xuanwei fu-zongli.</u>
(name) RANG (JIAO) elect:as vice-premier

Secondly, the adversity feature leads to exclusion from the
construction type represented by the Europeanized _bei_ passive with a
collective agent:

5. <u>Ta bei (*rang) (*jiao) danwei jiangli-le.</u>
 she BEI (*RANG) (*JIAO) unit award :COM

She was given an award by her work unit.

A possible linguistic motivation behind the _rang_ and _jiao_
passives retaining their 'traditional' meaning and not developing a
Europeanized form as did the _bei_ passive, is their use elsewhere as
both causative verbs and independent lexical verbs. _Bei_ does not
have any other grammatical uses apart from that of passive exponent,
nor can it be used as an independently occurring verb, so that the
problem of ambiguity does not arise.

In previous sections, we have seen that apart from the two
<u>rang</u> causatives of non-interference which are adversative in nature,
the causative constructions are all neutral in their overall meaning
with respect to the effect of the causative event on the causee or
experiencer.

Since the _rang_ and _jiao_ passives are restricted to an
adversative interpretation, this aids in the maintenance of distinct
semantic structures for _rang_ and _jiao_ passive and causative
constructions. Moreover, the adversative _rang_ causatives of non-
interference can never be interpreted as passives since only
semantically and syntactically intransitive verbs occur in the
predicate. The only potential for ambiguity with the passive lies
with the intentional speech act causatives. This arises when the
latter contain semantically transitive verbs in their predicate but
the direct object denoting the undergoer of the action has been
ellipsed:

6. Ta rang wo piping -le yixia.

he RANG I criticize:COM one:CL

<u>Causative:</u> (i) He had me criticise (somebody).

<u>Passive:</u> (ii) He was criticised by me.

Secondly, ambiguity between passive and intentional
causative readings arises with the passive of bodily effect which
due to the presence of its 'retained object' possesses a
three-argument structure resembling a causative construction where
the overt direct object of the transitive verb occurs:

7. Ta rang renjia kun-zhu -le shou he jiao.

he RANG people tie:fast:COM hand and foot

(i) He had them tie up his hands and feet.

(ii) He had his hands and feet tied up by them.

These two sources of potential ambiguity between a passive
(ii) and an intentional causative reading (i) are resolved upon
being returned to their given context. They are merely a product of
citation in isolation.

Nevertheless, neutralization or loss of the adversity
feature in the *rang* and *jiao* passives would have created greater
potential for ambiguity with their causative constructions.
Therefore, it was only possible for the *bei* passive to produce an
offshoot construction under the influence of translations from
European languages as there was no other syntactic construction
formed by *bei* with which to confuse the neutral Europeanized *bei*
passive such as a causative construction.

In the previous section, the syntactic behaviour of passive
and causative constructions was discussed and compared, and
likewise, in earlier sections, the semantic structures of the *bei*
passive and the *rang* and *jiao* causatives were treated.

In this final section, in order to complete the analysis,
the semantic structures of the colloquial *rang* and *jiao* passives are
explicated and compared with the *bei* passive.

In explaining these two passive constructions as colloquial
versions of *bei*, one is in fact explaining very little. By defining
the semantic conditions under which each is used, however, delicate
and subtle distinctions in the overall meaning can be found.
Moreover, these semantic features remain constant and thus
constitute the essence of the meaning grammaticalized by each
construction.

First of all, let us examine the *rang* passive:
## 5. THE COLLOQUIAL RANG PASSIVES

### 5.1 THE RANG PASSIVES OF "AVOIDABLE EVENTS"

Despite the lack of research on the colloquial passives, one isolated comment on the semantic nature of the *rang* passive stands out from the others discussed above:

> Bei expresses the phenomenon of suffering. Sometimes, jiao, rang (and gei) can also express this, as their use is almost the same as that for bei, but there is a slight difference of meaning, e.g.

> Bie rang feng chui le.

> [Don't get blown on by the wind.]

Here we can think of a way to stop the wind from blowing on us. Bei doesn't have this meaning.

Yuyansuo (1953: 28)

Although this viewpoint states the case for the semantic structure of the *rang* passive in a very rudimentary form and it is not clear whether the *jiao* passive (or *gei* passive) is meant to be included by this remark, it does make a revealing semantic contrast between *rang* and *bei*. However, there is no formalization of this remark nor attempt to ascertain whether or not it is a consistent feature of any of the passive constructions examined in the rest of the article.

Given that the investigation of the semantic properties of the *rang* passive and formalization thereof is the aim of the present analysis, how then, does the semantic structure of the *rang* passive differ from that of the *bei* passive.?

It is not purely arbitrary that *rang* is used in both passive and causative constructions. Interrelationships of meaning are to be found between the various *rang* constructions, resulting
from certain components of meaning being present in two or more
constructions. One component of meaning that occurs in both the
**rang** causativess of non-interference and the **rang** passive is the
component which states in the former type of construction that the
subject could prevent an ongoing event from continuing to happen but
does not do so [q.v. Part II. 1.2.2]. In this section, I argue in
favour of a similar, though not identical feature being considered a
semantic component of the **rang** passive to the effect that the
undergoer could have done something to prevent the event from
happening in its entirety but does not take any action at all with
this purpose in mind.

Secondly, I argue that a semantic parallel can be made
between the juxtaposition of the **be** passive and the **get** passive in
English on the one hand and the **bei** and **rang** passives in Chinese on
the other. The proviso needs to be added here that the **be** passive
in English does not express adversity as does the **bei** passive in
Chinese. This viewpoint stands in contradistinction to that adopted
by Chu (1974: 468):

[I]n many ways the _get_ passive is closer in
meaning to the Chinese [bei] passive than the _be_
passive is. Both for example, indicate the
speaker's attitude to some extent and the
unfortunate nature of the occurrence.

Contrary to Chu, I claim that the non-reflexive adversative
*get* passive has many more components of meaning in common with the
*rang* passive than it does with the *bei* passive. The *get* passive
also parallels the *rang* passive in its exclusion from the more
formal registers of speech such as news broadcasting (q.v. Part I.4).

Consequently, if the occupation of parts of Kampuchea by
Vietnamese forces is regarded by the speaker as unprovoked by
Kampuchea then the English speaker would not use the *get* passive and neither would the Chinese speaker use the *rang* passive:

8. Jianbuzhai de da pian lingtu bei Yuenan qinzhan-le.
Kampuchea REL large part territory BEI Vietnam occupy:COM
A large part of Kampuchean territory was occupied by
Vietnam.

9. ??Jianbuzhai de da pian lingtu rang Yuenan
Kampuchea REL large part territory RANG Vietnam
qinzhan-le.
occupy:COM
??A large part of Kampuchean territory got occupied by
Vietnam.

The use of *rang* or *get* in this context implies that the Kampuchean government did not actively resist the invasion of its own territory. In other words, the government could have foreseen the possibility of an invasion and thus tried to prevent it but did not do so.

Recent re-evaluation of political events in China also gives a clear indication of how speakers would use *rang* as opposed to *bei* in deference to the official party line: *Bei* may be appropriately used to describe the vilification of Liu Shaoqi which occurred during the Cultural Revolution (1966-76) but is now considered to be a grave political error:

10. Liu Shaoqi bei (*rang) renjia kou-shang le
(name) BEI (*RANG) people put:on COM
pantu de maozi.
traitor REL cap.
Liu Shaoqi was labelled a traitor by everyone.
In contrast to this, for Zhang Chunqiao, a member of the so-called Gang of Four who was arrested in 1976, put on trial in 1980 and convicted of having committed many crimes during the Cultural Revolution, these events would not generally be expressed in terms of the *bei* passive, unless it is his sympathizers or supporters who do so:

11. Zhang Chunqiao rang (?bei) renjia kou-shang-le
(name) RANG (?BEI) everyone put:on:COM
fandang de maozi.
antiparty REL cap

Zhang Chunqiao got (was) labelled an antiparty element.<fnref n="13" />

A person who is considered to be the innocent and helpless victim of circumstance (in the eyes of the speaker) cannot be encoded as the subject of the *rang* passive. Thus, the case of an event involving a person who is considered to be a national hero would be encoded by means of the *bei* passive, for example, the death of one of China's child heroes Wang Xiao'er during the Anti-Japanese War (1937-1945):

12. Wang Xiao'er bei (*rang) guizi da-si - le.
(name) BEI (*rang) devil strike:die : COM
Wang Xiao'er was (*got) killed by the Japanese.

An additional reason why the *rang* passive in (12) is totally unacceptable is the further implication of the passive event being avoidable on the part of the subject. As a consequence, the

<footnote n="13">13 The English *be* passive used to translate (11) with auxiliary *was* in parentheses, is left unmarked by any question mark *symbol* or asterisk since there is no general consensus of opinion in the English-speaking world about the culpability or innocence of Zhang Chunqiao as there is in China.</footnote>
inference can be made that the subject was somehow to blame as well
through not preventing or trying to avoid the event. Thus, the use
of the *rang* passive and the inference it makes possible is
tantamount to expressing that the subject deserved what happened to
him (or her). It may be recalled that the adversative *get* passive
also allows such an inference to be made (q.v. Part I.4).

This is not to say that all adversative passive events
affecting social undesirables such as hoodlums, louts and the like
will always be encoded by a *rang* passive to allow the speaker or
addressee to make the inference of the subject getting their just
desserts. It may be that the speaker can only conceive of, for
example, a gang member, as always fully resisting any form of
physical aggression, so that in the event of such a person being
defeated in a fight, the *bei* passive may be appropriately used. If
a gang member was ambushed by another gang and being outnumbered was
beaten up, (13) could be appropriately used:

13. Neige liumang bei tamen zou - le yidun.
   that:CL hooligan BEI they beat : COM one:CL.
   That hooligan was beaten up by them.

However, it would be equally natural to use a *rang* passive
here, in a context where it was clear that the hooligan had not been
sufficiently vigilant or cautious for if he had been, he would have
prevented the incident from taking place:

14. Neige liumang rang tamen zou - le yidun.
   that:CL hooligan RANG they beat :COM one:CL
   That hooligan got beaten up by them.
As a consequence of this semantic feature of the _rang_ passive, the event is viewed as less serious in nature than when encoded by _bei_.

Nonetheless, it may not be concluded that because both _rang_ and _bei_ passive constructions may be used to report an identical event, their meaning is the same. The two constructions remain mutually exclusive in their interpretations due to their distinct semantic structures: The same 'real world' event is viewed in two entirely different manners by the speaker when described by means of the _rang_ passive as opposed to the _bei_ passive.

The semantic property of the speaker viewing the undergoer as being able to avoid the event accounts for the less serious tone of the _rang_ passive which is remarked upon by native speakers. The _bei_ passive, on the other hand, is highly suited to expressing events regarded as serious in nature by the speaker.

The most convincing argument for the semantic feature of "avoidability" is found in the case of events of destruction which are particularly inappropriate when occurring in the _rang_ passive with a person as the subject, yet not in the corresponding _bei_ passive:

15. Nainai rang tamen huo-zang-le.

grandmother RANG they cremate:COM

The _rang_ sentence in (15) is not likely to be interpreted as a passive construction meaning "Grandmother got cremated by them" since the use of the _rang_ passive implies not only that the subject was cremated alive but also that she did not put up any resistance
to it.¹⁴ - Sentence (15) is more likely to be interpreted as a
<u>rang</u> speech act causative, suited to the following context:

16. Qunian women jia yige lao yongren si le.
last:year our home one:CL old servant die INC
Nainai rang tamen huo-zang-le.
grandmother RANG they cremate:COM

Last year an old servant in our household died. Grandmother
had them cremate (him).

Sentence (16) is understood as a causative with the direct
object of <u>huo-zang</u> 'cremate' ellipsed. As Nikitina (1958: 217)
remarks with respect to causative constructions: "If the predicate
is a transitive verb, its object can be omitted when it is obvious
from the context".

Yet, the <u>bei</u> passive can be used for an event resulting in
death, since in it, the subject-undergoer is viewed as a pure victim
of circumstance, helpless to avoid the fate that befalls her:
Sentence (17) with the <u>bei</u> passive would be appropriately used to
express events that happen, for example, in the time of war:

17. Nainai bei tamen sha-si le.
grandmother BEI they stab:die COM.
Grandmother was killed by them.

Therefore, ability to prevent a misfortune is the component
of meaning responsible for the inappropriateness of events leading
to death in the <u>rang</u> passive. It is exceedingly difficult to conceive
of the person denoted by the syntactic subject as taking no action

14 The use of a <u>rang</u> passive to express this kind of event is thus completely distasteful as far as native speakers are concerned, and should, they say, be avoided.
to prevent their own death, as if they would willingly allow themselves to be killed.

This finding with respect to the *rang* passive applies equally clearly to the *get* passive in English for which (18) and (19) are also semantically inappropriate:

18. ?? My grandmother got cremated by them.

19. ?? John got killed in a car accident.

The following semantic representation for the *rang* passive with a person as the subject and undergoer is proposed:

(i) **THE RANG PASSIVE OF AVOIDABILITY WITH A PERSON AS THE UNDERGOER**

<table><tr><td>NP<sub>P</sub></td><td>RANG</td><td>NP<sub>P</sub></td><td>Agent</td></tr><tr><td>Undergoer</td><td></td><td>Person A</td><td>Person B</td></tr></table>

(i) Tang Shan hao ji wan ren BEI (*RANG) dizhen
(place name) good many 10,000 person BEI (*RANG) earthquake
duo-qu - le shengming. (*predicate denoting death)
take:away:COM life

Many hundreds of thousands of people were (*got) killed in
the Tang Shan earthquake.

(ii) *Zhang San rang Mali zhen-xi-le. (*not adversative)
(name) RANG (name) cherish:COM

*Zhang San got cherished by Mary.

(iii) Zhang San rang Mali fang-qi-le.
(name) RANG (name) abandon:COM

Zhang San got dropped (for somebody else) by Mary
(iv) Ta rang Mali (*chui-peng) piping -le. (*not adversative)
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) THE RANG PASSIVE OF AVOIDABILITY ON THE PART OF AN
ADVERSELY AFFECTED OWNER

In both the *rang* passive and the *get* passive, inanimate nouns may be found in the position of syntactic subject. However, this construction is subject to severe restrictions in English as opposed to Chinese.

For the beneficial *get* passive, inanimate subjects are excluded in English unless the 'owner' of these is explicitly expressed by means of a possessive pronoun or phrase.

20. *Three telephone boxes got repaired outside that post office.

The *get* passive in (20) is unacceptable for semantic reasons, as the 'owner', that is, the person who wanted to and would benefit from the repair of the telephone boxes is not overtly expressed. When the person who stands in such a relation to an inanimate entity is explicitly given in the beneficial *get* passive, an acceptable sentence is obtained. Compare (21) with (22) and (23):

21. * A bike got fixed yesterday.

22. ??The bike got fixed yesterday.

23. My bike got fixed yesterday.
In (21) and (22), it is not at all apparent who wanted the bike to be repaired and thus no interpretation is possible as to who would benefit from the event. (The justification for this component of meaning being an invariant of the beneficial *get* passive is given in Part I Chapter 4.)

On the other hand, the adversative *get* passive with an inanimate subject behaves similarly to the *rang* passive in that as long as an 'owner' is interpretable from the context, an acceptable sentence is formed. The 'owner' need not be explicit. Sentence (43) from Part II Chapter IV is repeated below as (24) for the reader's convenience:

24. Three telephone boxes got smashed up outside that post office.

The argument has already been presented in the chapter on the *get* passive to support the interpretation of the person deemed responsible for the upkeep of public telephones as being the one viewed as adversely affected by the event (v.p.201).

When the 'owner' or person considered responsible for the inanimate subject of the adversative *get* passive is overtly expressed, examples cited in isolation become even more semantically well-formed. Compare (25) with (26) and (27):

25. ? A window got smashed.

26. The window got smashed.

27. All the windows in our house got smashed.

In sentence (27), it is clear that the persons affected by the smashing of the windows include the speaker and the other occupants of the house. Even though in (25) and (26) there is no
overt expression of the affected person, with adversative events,
provided that the entity denoted by the syntactic subject is
"definite" (v. Part I 1.2 for definition thereof); as it is in
(26), the sentence will be acceptable.

In Chinese, although the _rang_ passive with inanimate
subjects contains the identical component linking the inanimate
entity to a person, there is no strict syntactic requirement for the
latter to be overtly expressed. Examples of _rang_ passives without
the 'owner' expressed prove to be interpretable out of context in
the same way as the adversative _get_ passives with an inanimate
subject but no overtly expressed 'owner', exemplified above by (24)
and (26). Consider the _rang_ passive in (28):

28. Moshuiping rang didi da-fan-le.
ink:bottle RANG brother knock:topple:COM
The ink bottle got knocked over by my younger brother.

Indeed a _rang_ construction is more likely to be interpreted
as a passive when the subject is inanimate. There is no possibility
of confusing passive with causative interpretations in these cases
since an inanimate entity is not normally viewed as a potential
agent and causer, contrasting to the situation where both the main
NPs of a _rang_ or _jiao_ construction denote persons and thus the
subject may be either agentive or passive in its role.

Wang Huan (1957: 33) also points out that it is simpler to
distinguish passive from causative constructions when the subject is
inanimate, since then it cannot be interpreted as "making someone do
something".

Thus, the unacceptable or at best substandard _get_ passive
of (29) does have a counterpart in the Chinese _rang_ passive, given
in (30).
29. ?? The bodies got buried by the rescue team.

30. Shiti rang jiuhuodui mai-le.

body RANG rescue:team bury:COM

The reason why (30) is acceptable in Chinese is that the use of **rang** has the implication that the event was a misfortune for the persons linked by the context (which is not supplied here) to the subject entity: for example, the relatives of the dead who wished to hold a memorial service to pay their last respects or the police doctors who wanted to perform an autopsy but failed to postpone a burial that was earlier than usual. (Given the same context, for the **get** passive in (29), it may become acceptable upon an adversative reading rather than a beneficial one.)

Therefore, in the **rang** passive with an inanimate entity as the subject, verbs of destruction may be used since the person adversely affected is not the actual undergoer of the event, but rather someone who is linked explicitly or through the context to the inanimate entity acting as subject. Thus, the event depicted by example (31) would be a misfortune for those who wished to hold a proper burial:

31. Shiti rang ren huo-zang -le.

body RANG people cremate :COM

The body was cremated by them.

The semantic representation for the **rang** passive of possessions which has an inanimate entity as its subject is formulated in the following way.
(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.

## 5.2 RANG VERSUS BEI: A SYNTACTIC AND SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIATION

The *rang* passive is more restricted in usage than the *bei* passive in that it does not co-occur with events involving emotional states or processes, even where these may have an active interpretation open to them (q.v. Part I.1.4). *Rang* constructions with such predicates tend to be interpreted as either causatives of non-interference or as experiencer causatives, the particular interpretation depending upon whether or not the causee has an agentive role. Let us consider (32) with the predicate *ai-shang* 'fall in love' which is a *rang* causative of non-interference:

32. Xiao Mei rang Zhang San ai-shang - le.
(name) RANG (name) fall:in:love : COM

Xiao Mei let Zhang San fall in love with her.

In (32), the causative subject is viewed as not preventing
Zhang San from falling in love with her. As (32) does not have a
passive interpretation, there is no implication of adversity, but
rather one of Mary not caring about what has happened.

If the experiential predicate is open to the interpretation
of intentional causation on the part of the subject when it occurs
in a <u>rang</u> construction, then it does not form an acceptable <u>rang</u>
causative. Compare (32) with (33):

33. *Xiao Mei rang Zhang San ai de budeliao.
(name) RANG (name) love:EXT: extremely

(?Xiao Mei had Zhang San being in love with her to the point of desperation.)

The <u>rang</u> passive excludes events involving the emotions
since they cannot be thought of as avoidable or able to be prevented
on the part of the subject-undergoer - the person who would be
adversely affected by another's love or hate - but only by the
experiencer themself.

In Part I, Chapter 1.4, the <u>bei</u> passive however, was shown
to be compatible with experiential predicates, provided that an
agentive interpretation was possible. Compare the <u>bei</u> passive of
(34) with the <u>rang</u> causative of (35). Both contain identical
predicates, yet the <u>rang</u> construction does not have a passive
interpretation, despite the potentially active reading of <u>hen-si</u>
'hate intensely'.

34. Ta bei Mali hen-si -le.
he BEI (name) hate:INT:COM
He was hated so intensely by Mary.

35. Ta rang Mali hen-si-le.
he RANG (name) hate:INT COM
He let Mary hate (him) intensely.
Moreover, the unacceptable *rang* construction in (33) has an acceptable counterpart in the *bei* passive of (38), formed by the same predicate.

36. Xiao Mei bei Zhang San ai de budeliao.
(name) BEI (name) love:EXT:extremely

Xiao Mei was loved by Zhang San to the point of desperation.

In (36), the role of the syntactic subject, Xiao Mei, is completely passive. Zhang San's falling in love with her is not understood to be an event which she could have either prevented or unintentionally caused and thus Xiao Mei does not play any causal role in the events leading to what is expressed as an adverse situation for her.

An additional reason why experiential predicates are excluded from the *rang* passive is that there is a general constraint allowing events which are "once-off" or punctual to be encoded while excluding sustained states of affairs and repeated action. Hence, experiential stative events such as *zhenxi* 'cherish' in (37) are not allowed to co-occur with the *rang* passive (or causative).

37. *Ta rang Mali zhenxi-le.
he RANG (name) cherish:COM

Similarly, sentence (38) with an action verb *qin* 'kiss', only has the causative non-interference reading as even though 'kiss' is a punctual event, without a verbal classifier it is interpreted as the repeated action of kissing:
38. Xiao Mei rang ta qin-le.
(name) RANG he kiss COM
Xiao Mei let him kiss (her many times).

Furthermore, if the action is understood to be repeated
many times, it is difficult to make an adversative interpretation of
the *rang* construction. Nor is a passive interpretation open to it
as a result. The notion of the subject not taking any action
whatsoever to avoid undergoing what is supposedly an adversative
event in the speaker's view, while plausible for a "once-off" event,
becomes increasingly less so when the adversative event befalls her
several times as in (38). Thus (38) may only have the causative
'let' reading, since if the situation was truly adversative for Xiao
Mei, she would have taken preventive action after the first kiss was
forced upon her, or so the "logic" of the *rang* passive goes.
Compare (38) with the *rang* passive of (39) where the predicate
contains a verbal classifier *yikou* 'one mouth' which clearly defines
the event as "once-off" rather than repeated:

39. Xiao Mei rang ta qin-le yikou.
(name) RANG he kiss:COM one:CL
Xiao Mei got kissed by him (once).

Sentence (39) can be understood as referring to a context
where Xiao Mei was not sufficiently vigilant with respect to the
agent, enabling him to steal a kiss from her.

For experiential predicates that denote pure states of
affairs (ones which do not have a possible active reading), we find
that on combination with *rang*, they result in the interpretation of
an experiencer causative.
40. Ta rang Xiao Mei taoyan le.
he RANG (name) dislike INC
He had Xiao Mei disliking (him).

Since an agentive reading is precluded for personal nouns
combined with purely stative experiential predicates, neither is
there a <u>bei</u> passive counterpart. Recall sentence (124) from Part 1,
Section 4, cited here once more for convenience:

124. *Mali bei Zhang San xihuan (taoyan) de budeliao.
(name) BEI (name) like (dislike):EXT:extremely

Note that the <u>rang</u> causative co-occurs with the predicate <u>xihuan</u>
'like' only in the exclamation form [q.v. Part II, Section 2.2.2].

41. Ta zhen rang ren xihuan!
he INT RANG one like
He really has one liking him!

Similarly, the stative predicate <u>ai de fafeng</u> 'be madly in
love with' is interpreted as an experiencer causative with <u>rang</u> but
cannot be interpreted as a passive construction with either <u>rang</u> or
<u>bei</u>:

RANG Experiencer Causative

42. Xiao Mei rang Zhang San ai de fafeng
(name) RANG (name) love EXT go:mad
Xiao Mei had Zhang San falling madly in love with her.

Passive constructions:

43. *Xiao Mei rang (bei) Zhang San ai de fafeng.

Passive constructions in Chinese encode completive events,
a semantic property which does not accord with any kind of predicate
denoting a state of affairs that may be sustained indefinitely.
(q.v. Pt.I 1.3).

Although the _rang_ passive has a passive of bodily effect
subsumed under it, as does the _bei_ passive, the former construction
may be open to a causative interpretation out of context, unlike the
BEI passive of bodily effect which is unambiguously passive in
meaning. The possibility of a causative interpretation is due to
the presence of a third NP in the predicate of the _rang_ passive of
bodily effect. The syntactic form

NP<sub>p</sub> RANG NP<sub>p</sub> VP N<sub>BP</sub>

could be the surface realization of three distinct semantic
structures:

(i) The RANG Passive of Bodily Effect

(ii) The RANG Speech Act Causative of Request

(iii) The RANG Speech Act Causative of Permission

The translations for sentence (44) exemplify these three
possibilities of interpretation due to its being cited out of
context:

44. You yitian ta guoran rang ren jianqu bianzi.
there:be one:day he sure:enough RANG person cut:off plait

## Passive

(i) Sure enough, one day he had his pigtail cut off by someone (to his detriment).

## Speech Act Causative of Request:

(ii) Sure enough, one day he had somebody cut off his pigtail.
(He asked somebody to cut it off.)
Speech Act Causative of Permission:

(iii) Sure enough, one day he let somebody cut off his pigtail.

The passive and causative uses of such _rang_ constructions
are however disambiguated by the fact that only a _rang_ causative can
have the body part term modified by a possessive noun phrase.
Compare the acceptability of passive and causative readings for (45)
and (46).

45. Wo dao lifayuan qu, rang lifayuan jianqu
I to hairdresser's go, RANG hairdresser cut:off

wo de liangge bianzi.
I GEN two:CL plait

I'm going to the hairdresser's to have the hairdresser cut off my two plaits. (NB - but not the passive reading *"to have my two plaits cut off by the hairdresser".)

46. Ah Q rang ren jianqu-le ta de bianzi.
(name) RANG person cut:off:COM he GEN plait

Similarly (46) may have the causative reading of "Ah Q had
somebody cut off his pigtail" but not a passive reading "Ah Q had
his queue cut off by somebody" (q.v. Part 1.3).

The analysis of _rang_ presented here has set out to
demonstrate that the _rang_ passive has a unique semantic structure
and must therefore be treated separately from both the _bei_ and _jiao_
passives.

To summarize, the _bei_ passive has a semantic structure
encoding the speaker's view that a given passive event is one which
adversely affects an undergoer who is viewed as the innocent and
helpless victim of circumstance. In contradistinction to this, the
_rang_ passive possesses a semantic structure whereby the undergoer is
given a causal role in the passive event. Through the use of the *rang* passive, the speaker expresses that the undergoer could have taken preventive action to avoid the passive event. Consequently, the adversative event befalling the undergoer is not viewed in as serious a light by the speaker as for *bei*. It may be further inferred from the use of the *rang* passive (but not from the use of *bei*) that the undergoer deserved what befell him or her or was partly to blame in not taking any preventive action. The latter is, however, a contextual inference, and not a component of the semantic structure.

Secondly, it was shown that in contradistinction to Chu's analysis (1974), the semantic structure of the *rang* passive shares many more components of meaning with the English adversative *get* passive than does the latter with the *bei* passive. The *bei* passive is more appropriately "equated with" and translated by the *be* passive in English, since as a consequence of their respective semantic structures, both are appropriate for expressing events viewed as serious by the speaker and both are found in non-colloquial domains where the *rang* and *get* passives are excluded as well as in colloquial use. The *rang* and the adversative *get* passive, on the other hand, share the semantic property of attribution of a causal role to the undergoer of the passive event.

A semantic analysis of the passive construction formed by *jiao* is presented in the section which follows.
## 6. THE COLLOQUIAL JIAO PASSIVES

### 6.1 THE JIAO PASSIVE OF "HOT NEWS"

Nikitina (1958: 218) claims that the *jiao* and *rang* passives both have the interpretation of the syntactic subject making the passive event possible:

> On formal grounds, the passives with *jiao* and *rang* can be considered as a separate case of the causative constructions when the action is directed at the subject. It then has the following semantic representation: A made it possible for B to perform the action over himself.

> From the analysis of the *rang* passive in the preceding section, it could be agreed that an informal description of the passive subject as "making the passive event possible" would not be inappropriate for *rang*, given the subject's causal role. However, it would be completely erroneous to apply such a description to the *jiao* passive and even more so to state this as its semantic representation as Nikitina does.

> Even though the basic syntactic pattern of the *jiao* passive is identical to that of the *rang* and *bei* passives, I claim, to the contrary, that there are no grounds - either syntactic or semantic - for giving a unified treatment of the *rang* and *jiao* passives.

> A crucial distinction between these two constructions is that in the *jiao* passive, the undergoer plays no causal role in the sequence of events. Therefore, with the use of the *jiao* passive, the speaker cannot express the view that the undergoer "makes the passive event possible" or even "allows it to happen" through not taking any preventive action. I argue in the following analysis,
contrary to this, that the *jiao* passive can be considered a "hot news" passive.<fnref n="15" />

The discussion of the differences in syntactic behaviour between the three passive constructions precedes the semantic analysis of the *jiao* passive.

## 6.2 THE SYNTACTIC DIFFERENTIATION OF THE *JIAO* PASSIVE FROM THE *RANG* AND *BEI* PASSIVES

The basic syntactic form and behaviour of the *jiao* passive is identical to that of the *rang* and the *bei* passives (treated in depth in Part I.1.3). Thus, the *jiao* passive has the form:

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

47. Gangbi jiao wo shuai-huai - le.
pen JIAO I drop: damage : COM

The pen was broken by my dropping it.

Nonetheless, there are three points of difference in the syntactic behaviour of the *jiao* passive, contrasted with either the *rang* passive or the *bei* passive.

First of all, whereas all *rang* constructions with experiential predicates are interpreted as causatives, the *jiao* passive behaves identically in this respect to the *bei* passive by virtue of its semantic structure being equally sensitive to the distinction between experiential predicates which are open to an

<footnote n="15">15 This term is borrowed from McCawley (1971) who coined it for one of the four senses of the perfect tense he distinguished - that of "reporting hot news" (1971: 104). e.g. "Malcolm X has just been assassinated". The *jiao* passive in Chinese also serves this function, as will be revealed in the ensuing discussion.</footnote>
active interpretation and those which are purely stative. Compare
(48) containing the experiential predicate _ai-shang_ 'fall in love'
having the active sense of 'loving' with (49) that has the purely
stative predicate _ai de fafeng_ 'be madly in love with'.<sup>16</sup>

48. <u>Nuwang jiao ta de nanpu ai-shang - le.</u>
queen JIAO she GEN servant fall:in:love:COM
The queen was loved by her manservant.

49. \*Ta jiao Mali ai de fafeng-le.
he JIAO (name) love:EXT:go mad :COM

(Note that for this particular example, (49), there is no causative interpretation as there would be for its _rang_ counterpart to the effect "He made Mary be madly in love with him" - an unintentional experiencer causative.) In this way, it behaves similarly to the _bei_ passive.

When _jiao_ co-occurs with stative experiential predicates,
which _bei_ is unable to do, only the causative reading is possible.
This case holds for both personal NPs as subjects as in (50) and
non-personal subjects as in (51).

50. <u>Ta zhen jiao ren xihuan (taoyan).</u>
he really JIAO one like (dislike)
He really makes you like (dislike) him.
(NOT "He is really liked by people")

51. <u>Ta de yangzi jiao ren xihuan.</u>
he GEN appearance JIAO one like
His appearance makes you like him.

<footnote n="16">16 Here I mean by the 'active sense of loving' - expressing 'love' in the form of words of adoration etc or deeds of devotion.</footnote>
On the other hand, for *jiao* constructions with experiential predicates that do have a possible active reading, the interpretation tends to be that of the passive with personal subjects (i.e. an active reading of the predicate) but that of the causative for sentences with a non-personal NP as the cause (in other words, a stative reading of the predicate is made). The context is the determining factor in these cases.

**Passive:**

52. Ta jiao ta zui zhixin de pengyou hen-tou - le.
he JIAO he most close GEN friend hate:through:COM
He became thoroughly hated by his most intimate friend.

**Causative:**

53. Zheige huai xingdong jiao ta hen-si - le.
this:CL bad act JIAO he hate:INT:COM
This evildoing made him full of hate.

Despite this shared aspect of behaviour of the *jiao* and *bei* passives, the *jiao* passive, identically to the *rang* passive, has no Europeanized analogue, its semantic structure retaining both features of adversity and 'agentfulness'. Consider (54) and (55) which support these two claims.

**Agentless Europeanized Passive:**

54. Sirenbang de zuixing bei (*jiao*) qianze-le.
(name) GEN crime BEI (*JIAO) condemn:COM
The crimes of the Gang of Four were condemned.

**Europeanized Passive with a Collective Agent:**

55. Deng Xiaoping bei (*jiao*) gongchandang huifu - le zhiwei.
(name) BEI (*JIAO) communist:party restore:COM position
Deng Xiaoping was rehabilitated by the Communist Party.
Sentence (55) with *jiao* could, however, have a causative reading "Deng Xiaoping made the Communist Party restore (him to) his position".<fnref n="17" />

Thirdly, in contrast to both *rang* and *bei*, there is no *jiao* passive of bodily effect. A *jiao* construction with a postverbal noun denoting a part of the body is interpreted as a causative, if any interpretation can be made at all. (The causative interpretation, as we have seen, was also possible for the preceding example, (55), since it likewise contains a postverbal noun.

56. Ta zai meng-li rang (jiao) renjia kun-zhu le shou he jiao he at dream:in RANG (?JIAO) people tie:fast COM hand & foot

(i) **RANG** Passive of Bodily Effect: (*JIAO* Passive of Bodily Effect)

He had his hands and feet tied up by them in a dream.

(ii) **RANG** Causative of Non-Interference: (No JIAO counter-part)

He let them tie up his hands and feet in a dream.

(iii) **RANG/JIAO** Speech Act Causatives:

He had/made them tie up his hands and feet in a dream.

These findings we have discussed show three ways in which *jiao* differs in its syntactic behaviour from both *bei* and *rang*. We end this section by summarizing them:

Although all three constructions share one basic syntactic form and behave identically with respect to negation, aspectual

<footnote n="17">17 Sentence (55) has nevertheless been starred for the use of *jiao*, since informants in China found the causative reading politically implausible. Once the personages named in the example are changed, the causative reading does, of course, become acceptable from all points of consideration.</footnote>
marking and modal verbs, it has been shown first of all, that **jiao**
patterns in the same way as **bei** for experiential predicates, with
only those having an active reading being permitted in the **jiao**
passive, in contrast to **rang** which has only causative readings with
both types of experiential predicate, active and stative.

Secondly, **jiao** and **rang** behave identically to one another
in not possessing a Europeanized form of their passive
constructions, as does **bei**. Thirdly, **jiao** differs from both **bei** and
**rang** in not containing a passive of bodily effect (where a
postverbal or retained object occurs) in its complex of
constructions.<fnref n="18" /> The presence of a postverbal NP in a **jiao**
construction always leads to a causative interpretation.

Therefore, the more complex syntactic behaviour of these
three major passive constructions in standard Chinese has been shown
to differ. I consider this to be the consequence of their distinct
semantic structures, elaborated upon in the final section which
follows.

6.3 THE SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIATION OF THE _JIAO_ PASSIVE FROM THE _RANG_ AND _BEI_ PASSIVES

In the introduction to this section, it was pointed out
that apart from noting features of usage common to both _rang_ and
_jiao_ but not to _bei_, such as their colloquial nature and the

<footnote n="18">18 The complex of **jiao** passive constructions subsumes at least three distinct subconstructions:</footnote>

<footnote>I The JIAO Passive with a Person as Undergoer,</footnote>

<footnote>II The JIAO Passive of Possessions, and</footnote>

<footnote>III The JIAO Passive with a Natural Force.</footnote>

<footnote>Although examples of all three constructions are given
throughout this section, only the first one is dealt with in
detail and provided with a semantic representation.</footnote>
obligatory expression of the agent, little has been remarked upon
the semantic nature of the two colloquial passives. One brief
reference concerning the *jiao* passive has nevertheless been
uncovered while searching through the extant literature on this
topic.

*Jiao* is an auxiliary verb made out of a verb. Its
meaning is lighter than that of *bei*.

- Wang Liaoyi (1957: 111)

Needless to say, this does not afford us much insight into
the precise semantic characteristics of the *jiao* passive. Such a
description is attempted in the following pages in the hope of
filling in this gap to some extent. Here, I argue in favour of
considering the *jiao* passive to be a "hot news" passive.

* * * * *

Through the use of the *jiao* passive, the speaker encodes
the unexpected nature of the passive event, consequently making
possible the inference of surprise over its occurrence. This unique
semantic feature of the *jiao* passive restricts its application to
events which are 'newsworthy' in nature by fact of their having just
taken place, relative to the speaker's act of 'announcement'. This
is seen clearly in the observation that historical events may not be
encoded by *jiao*.

Recalling the unacceptability of using *rang* to encode the
event of Vietnamese occupation of Kampuchea [5.1 Ex.(9)] due to the
implication that Kampuchea did not fully resist its own invasion,
neither is the use of *jiao* acceptable due to the fact that several
years have elapsed since the occurrence of this event.
57. Jianbuzhai de yi dapian lingtu bei (*jiao)
Kampuchea GEN one large territory BEI (*JIAO)

Yuenan qinzhan-le.
Vietnam occupy : COM

A large part of Kampuchean territory was occupied by
Vietnam.

Events in world history are most appropriately expressed by
means of the *bei* passive as (57) shows, provided that the speaker
wishes to convey the adversative nature of the event for the
undergoer, and to make the undergoer the subject.

Similarly, in the case of the 1981 Asian championships in
table tennis, the *bei* passive would be suitable for encoding the
results of the grand final between Japan and China, as both teams
were considered to be strong contenders for the title and the event
was of great regional significance. With such a context, we can
easily conceive of the event as being serious in nature, especially
for the defeated team.

58. Riben dui bei Zhongguo dui da-bai - le.
Japan team BEI China team hit:lose:COM

The Japanese team was defeated by the Chinese team.

The use of *bei* causes one to think of the dejected state of
the Japanese team after their defeat. In contrast to this, the use
of *rang* would be totally inappropriate for such a context as it
would convey not only that the event was insignificant but also that
the Japanese team were overly casual in approach to the game and
hence, easy to defeat. Succintly, they did not try hard enough to
prevent the Chinese team from defeating them.
The *rang* passive could be used in a different context, such as that of a rather unimportant match between two rather unimportant teams, neither of whom are considered outstanding in any way. In this context, the match would more likely be a preliminary one with the purpose of sifting out the weaker teams and not a grand final. The implication with respect to the causal role of the Japanese team would equally apply.

Turning to the use of *jiao*, the emphasis switches to the unexpected nature of the game's result. The *jiao* passive counterpart of (58) fits a context of there having been no certainty that the Chinese team would win, the Japanese team being considered the stronger and more skilful of the two. It could presumably be used by a supporter of the Japanese team, sympathizing with the adverse state of affairs for the latter while simultaneously expressing surprise that they were defeated.

Furthermore, to return to my initial point, the *jiao* passive could only be used straight after the event had happened, before it became general knowledge and then historical fact. Thus, a speaker could not appropriately use the *jiao* passive *now* to express this event as the surprise element so essential to the meaning of this passive would be lost, unless the speaker were narrating the sequence of events leading up to the defeat of the Japanese team.

Therefore, the *jiao* passive may only be used for news and not for historical events, which is why I have labelled it the "hot news" passive. One possible conjecture as to why *jiao* was adapted for use as the exponent of a "hot news" passive could be its verbal meaning of 'tell'. Conjectures aside, the newsworthiness of the
event and the surprise element it encodes provide two reasons for
the restriction of the **jiao** passive to the colloquial register of
speech and also for why it could not have developed a Europeanized
construction for literary and polemic purposes.

The constraint on the **jiao** passive requiring events of an
unexpected nature may be fulfilled in different ways in terms of
actual examples. The unexpectedness of an event may be due to its
accidental nature. Compare the three passive constructions given in
(59):

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

BEI (i) He was executed by the firing squad.

JIAO (ii) He has just been executed by the firing squad!

Once again, the event depicted by (59) is most
appropriately encoded by the **bei** passive, where the speaker is
sympathizing with the adverse state of affairs for the undergoer at
the same time as conveying the serious nature of the event. With
**bei**, there is no implication that the subject was executed according
to orders other than those of the authorities.

If the **jiao** passive is used, the implication is either that
the firing squad decided on the spur of the moment to put the
subject to death, without receiving any instructions to that effect,
or that they accidentally executed the wrong person. Both possible
interpretations are specific surface manifestations of the component
stating the unexpected nature of the event in the deeper semantic
structure.
The use of the _rang_ passive in (59) is particularly
unsuitable. As pointed out (in Section 5.1), the _rang_ passive does
not readily combine with predicates of destruction due to the
component which says that the subject and undergoer did not actively
try to avoid the event leading to his (her) death. The possible
derisive inference of the undergoer as being foolish to let this
event happen and the overall less serious tone of the _rang_ passive,
both of which are features consequent upon the semantic feature of
avoidability, make its use in this context distasteful for most
speakers.

In the context provided for (59), where the subject refers
to a person who is under detention in a gaol, the generally drawn
conclusion would be that his fate was ineluctable and thus not
compatible with the interpretation following upon the use of _rang_.

Therefore, with respect to this feature of avoidability, it
is only the _bei_ passive which stands in contrast to the _rang_ passive
due to the former's encoding of the event as completely _unavoidable_
on the part of the subject.

Since the component which says that the subject could have
avoided or prevented the passive event is not a component in the
semantic structure of the _jiao_ passive, the latter may be used to
encode the event depicted in (59), the appropriate contexts having
been given above. Neither is the serious nature of the event a
semantic feature of the _jiao_ passive as far as the adverse effects
on the undergoer are concerned. It is always the feature of
unexpectedness which takes precedence in the meaning grammaticalized
by the latter. This is evident from comparing the appropriate
contexts for the _bei_ and _jiao_ passive counterparts exemplified in
(60):
60. Ta { bei } xuexiao kaichu-le.
{jiao}

she { BEI } school expel:COM
{JIAO}

She was expelled by the school.

The _bei_ passive of (60) implies that the student was expelled only after careful deliberation by the school board. — They would not normally expel students without good reason. Secondly, the consequences for the student are understood to be serious in nature in terms of her not knowing what to do with herself afterwards or in terms of effect on her career.

The use of the _jiao_ passive however implies that the school board very hastily made this decision and, most significantly, that the student was not at all prepared for it. This is another way in which the unexpected element of the event is manifested.

If follows upon the preceding discussion that the _rang_ counterpart of (60) is used to express, for example, the ease with which the decision to expel this student was made, given her record of not obeying the rules of discipline and moreover her indifference to this decision. The adverse effects are not viewed as serious ones as we understand that she can fend for herself immediately upon her expulsion.

Similarly, in (61), nothing is implied by the use of the _jiao_ passive about the possible fate of the Gang of Four after their fall from power, unlike the dire consequences for them implied by the use of _bei_. The interpretation of the unexpected speed with which the Gang of Four were toppled from power is again the uppermost element conveyed by _jiao_.
61. Sirenbang {bei jiao} renmin tuifan - le.

Gang of Four {BEI JIAO} people overthrow:COM

The Gang of Four were overthrown by the people.

The typical interpretation of the referent of the NP Sirenbang 'Gang of Four' as only one of many political parties when it acts as the subject of the jiao passive in (61) as opposed to a politically powerful force which may have caused longlasting oppression when it acts as the subject of the bei passive also belies the fact that the jiao passive has no place in its semantic structure for a component stating the serious nature of the event.

Finally, the element of unexpectedness encoded by jiao is also realized in the interpretation of an agent managing to successfully accomplish a difficult task. This is exemplified by (62) where the apprehension of the spy is understood to have been extremely difficult and consequently that the Security Bureau must be a very competent and efficient workforce after all.

62. Tewu jiao Gonganju zhua-zhu-le.

spy JIAO P.S.B. arrest:COM

The spy has just been arrested by the Public Security Bureau!

Similarly, through the use of jiao in (63), the speaker expresses that contrary to general expectations, an unusual set of conditions prevailed whereby Li Si usually a placid person managed to give a hooligan a beating.

63. Liumang jiao Li Si zou-le yidun.

hooligan JIAO (name) beat:COM one:CL

The hooligan has just been given a beating by Li Si!
The unexpected element of the event is attributed then to
the lack of certainty concerning Li Si's ability to win a fight with
a hooligan, given the level of difficulty in doing so that may
generally be assumed to be the case.

In consideration of the semantic features claimed to inhere
uniquely in the *jiao* passive, namely, the unexpected nature of the
event and its newsworthiness, in combination with the features of
adversity and the explicit expression of the agent which it shares
with the *bei* and the *rang* passives, I propose that the semantic
representation of the *jiao* passive should take the following form.

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)
Person A       Person B

(i) Ta <u>jiao xuexiao kaichu-le.</u>
    she JIAO school expel :COM
    She has just been expelled by the school!

(ii) Zai 1933 nian, Dongbei bei (*jiao*) Riben.
at 1933 year, Manchuria BEI (*Jiao*) Japan
<u>jundui zhanling - le.</u> (*historical fact*)
army occupy :COM

<u>BEI:</u> In 1933, Manchuria was occupied by the Japanese army.

*<u>JIAO:</u>* *In 1933, Manchuria has just been occupied by the Japanese army!*

(iii) <u>Dongbei jiao guizi zhanling-le!</u>
Manchuria JIAO devil occupy:COM
Manchuria has just been occupied by the Japs!<sup>19</sup>

<footnote n="19">19 Guizi 'devil' was the usual appellation given by the Chinese to their Japanese invaders during the Sino-Japanese War and World War II. It corresponds roughly to 'Japs' or 'Nips' in English.</footnote>
(iv) *Ta jiao Mali ai de faifeng. (*stative)
he JIAO (name) love EXT go mad

(v) Ta jiao Mali ai-shang - le.

he JIAO (name) fall:in:love:COM

He's just had Mary fall madly in love with him!

(vi) *Ta jiao Xiao Mei {xihuan} - le. (*stative)
 taoyan
 ai
 hen

he JIAO (name) { like : COM
   dislike
   love
   hate }

(vii) *Ta jiao danwei jiangli - le. (*not adversative)

he JIAO work:unit award : COM

NP<sub>P</sub> JIAO

NP<sub>P</sub>

VP<sub>COM</sub>

Ta jiao Xiao Mei gan-zou - le.

he JIAO (name) drive:away : COM

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

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.

The unexpected nature of the event encoded by the *jiao*
passive is represented in the semantic formalization by the
component "I think nobody would've thought that this could happen".
It is clear from the use of "I" that the viewing of the passive
event as one that is unexpected is a function of the speaker. The
presence of this feature is supported by the acceptability of
example (iii) as opposed to example (ii) with jiao.

Secondly, the newsworthy nature of the event is encoded as
the speaker's viewpoint in the form of an assumption. Moreover, the
jiao passive would not be selected to encode a passive event by the
speaker unless he or she assumed that it was 'news' for the
addressee as well. This is represented in the formalization by the
preliminary 'assumption' frame: "Assuming you haven't heard about
this, I say:".

The adversative nature of the event encoded by the jiao
passive is a semantic feature whose postulation is justified by the
unacceptability of example (vii). This is explicated in terms of
the component "Something bad happened to person A" in the formula,
where person A represents the subject and undergoer of the event.

Examples (iv), (v) and (vi) are supplied to remind the
reader that only predicates with an active reading are permissible
in the jiao cuasative, formulated as "person B did something" where
"person B" refers to the agent in the semantic representation.
CONCLUSION TO PART II

This analysis of the three passive constructions in standard Chinese - the *bei* passive and the colloquial *rang* and *jiao* passives - has presented the results of an investigation of both their semantic structures and syntactic properties which are determined by these.

It was shown that despite the sharing of a basic syntactic form and set of behaviour with respect to negation, aspectual marking and modal verbs, the *rang* and *jiao* passives behave differently from one another and from the *bei* passive in other features of their syntax. First of all, *rang* and *jiao* are used to form complexes of causative constructions which have certain components of meaning in common with their respective passive constructions. By contrast, the passive exponent *bei* does not have a causative usage.

At this point in the analysis, causative and passive constructions were syntactically and semantically differentiated in order to reveal the identical or unique features of each. It was claimed that the *rang* passive holds the component of the syntactic subject being viewed as able to prevent the given event in common with two of the *rang* causatives, specifically the causatives of non-interference. However, this component was interrelated with the other components of the semantic structures of each of the three *rang* constructions in different ways. Similarly, it was proposed that the *jiao* passive and the experiencer causatives formed by *jiao* both contain the component stating the unexpected nature of the event.
Secondly, the *rang* and *jiao* passives were shown not to have any related Europeanized construction as does the *bei* passive. The semantic significance of this is that all the subconstructions of the *rang* and *jiao* passives remain uncompromisingly adversative in nature and secondly that they all require the obligatory expression of the agent. The lack of a Europeanized version was thus shown to be predictable from their respective semantic structures.

Thirdly, the *rang* passive but not the *jiao* passive subsumes a passive of bodily effect under its general construction sharing the syntax of the *bei* passive of bodily effect, though not its semantics. This same syntactic construction also has the second possible interpretation of a *rang* causative when cited out of context. A causative interpretation is the only one possible, however, in the case of *jiao* sentences of the same syntactic form where a postverbal NP is present: NP-JIAO-NP-V- NP.

The fourth area of difference in syntax is concerned with the predicate types found to co-occur with each passive construction. Only the *bei* and *jiao* passives can co-occur with experiential predicates, provided the latter have an active interpretation, for example *hen-tou* 'to hate thoroughly' as opposed to *hen* 'hate'. Since all the passive constructions bar those where the event is caused by a natural force are agentive passives (regardless of whether the agent is explicitly mentioned or not), none co-occur with stative predicates such as *lei* 'tired'. Thus, stative experiential predicates such as *xihuan* 'like' are also excluded. Contrasting to this, *jiao* and *rang* experiencer causatives may co-occur with the latter kind of predicate, but *bei*, never, since it does not have a causative usage.
Whenever a *rang* construction makes use of an experiential predicate, whether active or stative in nature, the interpretation is unambiguously one of an experiencer causative and never of a passive. These were the four main areas of more complex syntactic behaviour through which the *bei*, *rang* and *jiao* passive constructions could be differentiated.

Following upon this analysis, the semantic structures of the *bei*, *rang* and *jiao* passives were able to be clearly differentiated, despite the fact that they are otherwise united by the feature of all being "agentful" adversity passives in contrast to the Europeanized passive.

It was shown that the *bei* and *rang* passives counterbalanced each other with respect to two particular features. Explicitly encoded in the semantic representation of the *bei* passive is the component which says that the speaker views the event as serious in both its nature and consequences for the undergoer. An implication of this feature is that the event is viewed as unavoidable on the part of the undergoer who is thus considered to be the innocent victim of fate. If the speaker wishes to sympathize with the plight of the undergoer, this is the passive construction to choose.

In contradistinction to this, the *rang* passive encodes the undergoer as being able to avoid or prevent the passive event but, at the same time, as not doing so. The undergoer is thus seen as having a causal role in the sequence of events and hence not purely as the passive victim. The implication of this component is that an event which is viewed as avoidable is not considered by the speaker to be serious in nature. Such a claim is supported by the fact that predicates of destruction and death are not appropriately used in the *rang* passive, due to societal consensus with respect to the
serious nature of this kind of adversity, combined with the
understood lack of any conscientious attempt to avoid it on the part
of the undergoer.

On juxtaposing the semantic structure of the *jiao* passive
with the *bei* and *rang* passives, we find it is neutral with regard to
these two features, neither encoding the passive event as avoidable
nor encoding it as serious in nature. Instead, the *jiao* passive
encodes the unexpectedness of the event and its highly newsworthy
nature. Thus, this construction lends itself readily to the
reporting of events of an adversative nature which have just taken
place, provided they carry this surprise element, while excluding
the speaker from expressing events which have become general
knowledge or historical fact.

Although the *jiao* passive is bereft of any element of
sympathizing with the undergoer on the part of the speaker, it may
nevertheless be used to express events of destruction, since, unlike
the *rang* passive, it does not have the speaker viewing the event as
avoidable, nor does it allow inferences of blame or of a derisive
nature to be made. Through the use of the *jiao* passive, the most
important feature which the speaker expresses is that the event
which has taken place is contrary to general expectations.
# PART III

## DATIVE AND BENEFACTIVE CONSTRUCTIONS

### FORMED BY GEI
## 0 INTRODUCTION TO PART III

The verb *gei* means 'give'.

1. Xiaodong gei-le wo yikuai guojiang juanr
(name) give:COM me one:CL jam:roll
Xiaodong gave me a jam roll.

Apart from its use as a main verb, exemplified by (1),
*gei* has another major role in serving as a grammatical exponent,
being used to form an array of constructions, for example, passive,
dative and benefactive. What is remarkable about its grammatical
use is the polarisation of meaning of most of the constructions it
forms to express either benefit or adversity: Chao (1968: 330-31)
observes that

> As the first verb¹ with omissible object, in
> a V-V series, [gei] is sometimes used like bae
> [ba],² with direction of action outward;
> sometimes like bey [bei] with direction of
> action inward, but it also has the force of
> giving benefit or harm, somewhat like the
> dative of interest in German.

The grammatical constructions formed by *gei* can be
classified into two main types according to their syntax: Those
where *gei*, acting like an auxiliary verb, is followed by a main verb
and those where it acts like a preposition and is followed by a
noun.³ The second type may be further classified into those where

1. Note that Chao considers *gei* to be functioning as a verb in, for example, the passive and benefactive constructions it forms as opposed to a grammatical exponent as I have described it above.

2. Chao uses a tonal transcription system Gwoyeuh Romatzyh to transcribe Chinese - the pinyin equivalents are given in brackets.

3. See also Lü, (1981), pp.196-198 for a comprehensive list of the uses of *gei* as a grammatical exponent.
the *gei + NP* syntagma precedes the verb and those where it follows.
Some of the constructions in this second class are the topic of
analysis in Part III. A brief description of these two classes
leads into the analysis proper of the two dative and one benefactive
construction formed by *gei*.

(i) GEI + VP

There are two constructions with this syntactic form, one
expressing benefit and the other adversity for the person designated
by the subject. In the adversative construction, *gei* acts like an
auxiliary verb which passivizes the main verb.

I. Adversative GEI + VP

SUBJECT - GEI + VP
(N<sub>AN/IN</sub>)

2. Ni gei ting-cuo-le

you GEI hear:wrong:COM
You've misheard.

3. Wu-li de qifen gei po-huai-le.

room:in REL atmosphere GEI break:ruin:COM
The atmosphere in the room was destroyed.

Many examples of this kind of construction would become
ungrammatical if the *gei* were to be deleted, which indicates that
*gei* is not a superfluous element added at will before the main verb,
but rather an integral part of the construction:

4. Ta gei wen-zhu-le.

he GEI ask:stopped:COM he ask:stopped:COM
He became stuck for an answer.

*Ta wen-zhu-le*
5. Mali gei xia-zhu-le. *Mali xia-zhu-le.
(name) GEI frighten:stopped:COM (name) frighten:stopped:COM
Mary was left speechless with fright.

In examples (4) and (5) with animate subjects, the
semantic role of the subject as an undergoer can no longer be
clearly interpreted once gei is deleted.

The second construction with gei + VP is syntactically
identical to the first. It expresses an entirely different meaning,
however - that of the subject carrying out a specific action for a
purpose or beneficiary that is left unmentioned:

II
Beneficial GEI + VP
SUBJECT - GEI + VP
(NAN)

6. Wo gei xie gao, ni gei chao!
I GEI write draft you GEI copy

I'll do the writing of the draft (for it) and you do the
copying!

For this construction, the verb must be one of
intentional action as opposed to the adversative gei + VP where
verbs of happening such as tinguo 'mishear' and xia 'be frightened'
can occur. Thus, the subject of the second construction - beneficial
gei + VP is animate by necessity. It may be aptly translated by the
verb 'do' in English in conjunction with an -ING verbal noun:

7. Shui longtou huai le, women gei xiu.
water tap broken INC we GEI fix
The tap is broken, we'll do the fixing of it.
Both gei + VP constructions are colloquial.⁴
(ii) GEI + NP

The main analysis examines three of the constructions of
the second class, where gei precedes a noun rather than a verb.
There are however, at least five distinct gei constructions in this
class, three of which have the gei + NP occurring preverbally.
These three are the benefactive gei construction, the adversative
gei passive and the gei of exhortation, exemplified respectively
below. All display the same syntactic pattern of

SUBJECT - GEI + NP - VP

a. PREVERBAL GEI + NP

I. The Benefactive GEI Construction

8. Wo gei ni ji-yixia mingtian de shir.
I GEI you record:TENT tomorrow REL matter
I'll just note down tomorrow's business for you.

II. The Adversative GEI Passive

9. Ta de yinmou gei ren shibie - le.
he GEN scheming GEI people discern :COM
His scheming was seen through by people.

III. The GEI Construction of Exhortation

10. Ni gei wo xiaoxin dianr:
you GEI me careful bit
Be a bit more careful!

11. Ni gei wo zou-kai!
you GEI me leave:apart
Get out of my way!
Of the preverbal *gei + NP* constructions, only the benefactive is examined in the main analysis, with, however, passing reference to the adversative *gei* passive.⁵ The benefactive *gei* construction is contrasted in its use to the constructions formed by *WEI + NP* 'for the sake of' and *TI + NP* 'on behalf of' which occur preverbally as well.

### b. POSTVERBAL GEI + NP

In the second type of *gei* construction, the *gei + NP* syntagma may also be found to occur postverbally in two constructions which are syntactically distinct. Both of these come under discussion in Part III:

#### I. Dative of Transferral

SUBJECT - VERB-GEI + NP<sub>I.O.</sub> - NP<sub>D.O.</sub>

12. Wo dai-gei ni yihe tang.

I carry:GEI you one:CL candy

I've brought you a box of candy.

#### II. Dative of Intended Benefit

SUBJECT - VP - NP<sub>D.O.</sub> - GEI + NP<sub>I.O.</sub>

13. Xiao Wang yao-le bei pijiu gei wo.

(name) order:COM CL beer GEI me

Xiao Wang ordered a glass of beer for me (to have).

5. The topic of adversative passives has been covered in some detail in the two preceding parts dealing with *bei*, *rang* and *jiao*. As I want to examine non-polysemous constructions with distinct syntax that express benefit in Part III, the *gei* passive is not dealt with here in any depth.
The analysis to be presented below deals with these two dative constructions containing a postverbal *gei* + *NP* and the benefactive construction with a preverbal *gei* + *NP*.⁶

In Part III, therefore, we turn away from the analysis of polysemy in grammatical constructions to consider instead three grammatical constructions which are distinct in their syntax despite the fact that they share a common syntactic exponent: *gei*. Here I set out to show that their semantic structures are distinct as a consequence of this and that the semantic structures may be clearly separated one from the other in the same way as the polysemous grammatical constructions examined in Part I and Part II were.

The task of analysing the syntactic constructions formed by *gei* in standard Chinese is not a new one. Two recent articles have exclusively treated this topic — one by Karen Hermann "Coping with Complex Polysemy: A Comparison of Dative/Benefactive Constructions in Mandarin and Thai" (1979) and the other by Zhu De-xi "Syntactic Problems Associated with the verb *gei*" (1979).

In the earlier literature on this topic, linguists were primarily concerned with the grammatical classification of the various uses of *gei*, as either an auxiliary, a preposition, part of a compound verb or as a serial verb.⁷

6. The NP following *gei* will be given the syntactic label of 'indirect object' for ease of reference as it plays a different semantic role in each of the three *gei* constructions, thus making it difficult to select a descriptive label.

7. The following two linguists address themselves to the problem of defining the syntactic function of *gei*: Xiang Ruo, "Guanyu *gei* de cixing" and Yang Xin'an, "Shuo *gei*". See also Lü Shuxiang, (1981), pp.196-198.
However, merely working out the syntactic labelling for each kind of construction formed by *gei* is not sufficient to explicate its myriad of usages in modern colloquial Chinese.

In Part III, I propose, therefore, to explicate the semantic features of three major grammatical constructions in standard Chinese that use *gei* with reference to the detailed syntactic and semantic analysis of this topic presented by Zhu De-xi in his 1979 article. These constructions are the Dative of Transferral with Enclitic *gei*; the Dative of Intended Benefit with Postverbal *gei* and the Benefactive Construction with Preverbal *gei*.

Reference will also be made to the analyses given in Teng (1975), Hermann (1979), Chao (1968) and Li and Thompson (1981) with issue being taken on several major points. Furthermore, in the discussion of the two dative *gei* constructions, I will make comparisons with Green's (1974) analysis of English dative constructions.

The notation used by Zhu (1979) for these three *gei* constructions - $S_1$, $S_2$ and $S_3$ - is retained in my article for the purposes of easy reference and comparison in conjunction with the descriptive labels I have chosen:

### $S_1$ DATIVE OF TRANSFERRAL WITH ENCLITIC GEI:

<table><thead><tr><th>SUBJECT</th><th>VERB</th><th>GEI</th><th>INDIRECT OBJECT</th><th>DIRECT OBJECT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Wo</td><td>ji</td><td>gei</td><td>ta</td><td>yifeng xin</td></tr></tbody></table>

I sent him a letter.

### $S_2$ DATIVE OF INTENDED BENEFIT WITH POSTVERBAL GEI:

<table><thead><tr><th>SUBJECT</th><th>VERB</th><th>DIRECT OBJECT</th><th>GEI</th><th>INDIRECT OBJECT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Wo</td><td>ji-le</td><td>yifeng xin</td><td>gei</td><td>ta</td></tr></tbody></table>

I sent a letter to him.
S₃

**BENEFACTIVE CONSTRUCTION WITH PREVERBAL GEI:**

SUBJECT - GEI - INDIRECT OBJECT - VERB - DIRECT OBJECT

Wo gei ta ji-le yifeng xin

I posted a letter for him.

In alignment with Hermann's analyses of *gei*, only the non-verbal use of *gei* is to be investigated, that is, constructions where *gei* is *not* employed as the main verb but in the ways I have described above.

Hermann (1979: 106-7) also observes that *gei* may be used both preverbally and postverbally.<fnref n="8" /> The use of *gei* that she semantically labels as "Goal *gei*" is pertinent to the present discussion. "Goal *gei*" typically occurs postverbally, corresponding to the two dative constructions S₁ and S₂ in the above schema. However, on this point, we can make the refinement that S₂ acts like the prepositional dative constructions in English using 'to' to introduce the indirect object, whereas S₁ resembles the prepositionless ditransitive constructions in English. In the S₁ construction *gei* functions as a verbal enclitic:

S₁

**DATIVE OF TRANSFERRAL WITH ENCLITIC GEI:**

14. Wo jieshao gei ni yige pengyou.

?I'll introduce you a friend. (substandard English)

<footnote n="8">8. Hermann's description of the uses of *gei* and the terminology adopted derives from Shou-hsin Teng, (1975), *A Semantic Study of Transitivity Relations in Chinese*.</footnote>
S₂ DATIVE OF INTENDED BENEFIT WITH POSTVERBAL GEI:

15. Wo jieshao yige pengyou gei ni.
I'll introduce a friend to you.

Contrasting to these two postverbal uses of *gei*, is that of *gei* used preverbally. Hermann calls this its 'benefactive' use.
(This corresponds to construction S₃ above.)

S₃ BENEFACTIVE CONSTRUCTION WITH PREVERBAL GEI:

16. Wo gei ni jieshao yige pengyou.
(i) I'll introduce a friend for you.

She observes that this construction is open to two further interpretations:

(ii) I'll introduce a friend to you.

(iii) I'll introduce a friend instead of you.

Hermann (1979: 106) states that the uses of *gei* exemplified by (i) and (iii) are equivalent to the use of *wei*, 'for the sake of', and *ti*, 'instead of', respectively in Modern Chinese.

According to this analysis, whenever *gei* occurs preverbally, three formally identical *gei* constructions result, each with its own distinct meaning. These are the syntactic facts leading to Hermann's claim of polysemy for *gei*.

In contradistinction to her claim regarding the polysemy of preverbal *gei* (S₃), I will show that it is necessary to postulate one unified and distinct semantic representation for this construction - distinct from those employing *ti* and *wei*. Moreover, the semantic representation for the benefactive *gei* construction differs from those of the two dative *gei* constructions. - Each construction is discrete and unique.
Furthermore, equation of the meaning of the *gei* morpheme found in these constructions with any of 'for, 'to' or 'on behalf of' and 'instead of' reveals a lack of precision in semantic analysis. In sum, I argue against Hermann's conclusion that pre- verbal *gei* is three-ways ambiguous as a grammatical construction.

Secondly, in relation to other analyses of *gei*, it will be pointed out that Chao (1968), Li and Thompson (1981) and Zhu (1979) have one feature in common: All share the belief that lists of verbs can be drawn up and then allocated to each *gei* construction. The implication is that the choice of the particular *gei* construction determines the verb class which can co-occur with it and then by examining these categories of verbs, the meaning and use of each *gei* construction can be ascertained.

Chao classifies verbs into four groups with respect to their behaviour preceding an enclitic *gei* which is here described as the $S_1$ construction. According to his analysis, verbs of giving can be classified into those which take an obligatory or optional enclitic *gei*. Secondly, he points out that verbs of taking are excluded from this construction and that other verbs co-occur with it depending on 'the direction to or from the indirect object' (1968: 317). Sentence (17) exemplifies his second point about verbs of taking:

$S_1$: DATIVE OF TRANSFERRAL (NO PAUSE) WITH ENCLITIC *GEI*

17. *Wo mai gei ni yiben shu*
I buy GEI you one:CL book.

Li and Thompson (1981) provide a similar analysis in their reference grammar of Chinese (1981: 374-9) while Zhu (1979) expands on this type of analysis to investigate the verb classes occurring in these three different *gei* constructions.
The method of analysis adopted here differs from the preceding four analyses in one crucial aspect: I believe that the co-occurrence of *any* lexical item may only be predicted after an explication of the overall meaning encoded by each *gei* construction has been given. Only after this task is complete can any adequate explanation of, for example, the associated verb classes be provided. Moreover, not only can co-occurring verb classes be simply accounted for, but also other related syntactic phenomena.

This approach is based on the belief that syntactic constructions must be explicated first of all in semantic terms, a principle which has been consistently argued for throughout each section of this thesis.

I believe that by explicating the overall meaning encoded by each *gei* construction in terms of semantic primitives and near primitives rather than by exclusively examining associated verb classes or drawing up verb lists, all exemplifications of *gei* sentences (actual or potential) can be accounted for in a *systematic* way. The necessity for verb lists is thus eliminated. A similar case was argued against the use of the verb classification method in the analysis of the *bei* passive in Section 1.1 of Part I.

The above-mentioned references on the topic of *gei* also explore the possibility of mutual substitutability of verb classes. The facts turned up by using this method are not overlooked in my analysis, as the semantic definitions simultaneously show the underlying relationship between each *gei* construction, by way of shared semantic components. Moreover, this is effected without recourse to any kind of transformational analysis. Finally, it is also implicit in this analysis that the postulated semantic
representations accurately predict the correct usage of each *gei*
construction according to the context.
1. THE DATIVE CONSTRUCTION OF TRANSFERRAL WITH ENCLITIC _GEI_ : S₁

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

I sent him a letter.

The first dative construction formed by _gei_ to be examined expresses the transferral of an object from one person to another. The subject denotes the person who effects this transferral and the indirect object, the person who is to receive the transferred object. The indirect object follows immediately upon the morpheme _gei_ which is itself inseparable from the main verb which precedes it. Chao (1968: 317) considered that the function of _gei_ as an enclitic to the preceding verb was the distinctive syntactic feature of S₁.<fnref n="9" />

The precise syntactic status of _gei_ in this construction is hard to determine and much debated in the extant literature. Countering the description of _gei_ as a morphological constituent of a verb compound or as an enclitic, some analyses have sought to pin down its syntactic function by regarding it as forming a

<footnote n="9">9. Here I adopt Chao's analysis of _gei_ in this construction as functioning syntactically as an enclitic, based on his definition of enclitics (1968: 120): "An enclitic ... is a form which is phonetically attached to the preceding (or following) word, but grammatically attached to a longer preceding (or following) construction."</footnote>
prepositional construction with the following indirect object that
acts as a complement to the verb (e.g. Yang Xin'an, 1960: 66).

Whatever its syntactic status may be, one striking
syntactic observation which can be made about construction S₁ is
that neither gei nor its following indirect object can be deleted
from it, contrasting to the case for S₂ and S₃ where the GEI +
Indirect Object segment appear to be "optional" syntactically:

21. *Wo ji-gei yifeng xin. (No indirect object.)
I send:GEI one:CL letter

22. *Wo ji yifeng xin. (GEI + Indirect Object phrase entirely deleted.)
I send one:CL letter

Only the initial example given for S₁ <u>Wo ji gei ta yifeng xin</u> 'I
sent him a letter' is acceptable as what we could regard as the
minimal form of this construction. Contrasting to this, S₂ and
S₃: <u>Wo ji-le yifeng xin gei ta</u> 'I sent a letter to him' and <u>Wo gei
ta ji-le yifeng xin</u> 'I posted a letter to him' respectively; may
both be reduced to <u>Wo ji-le yifeng xin</u> - 'I sent a letter', one
implication being that the semantic representations will need to
account for this distinguishing syntactic feature of S₁.

The semantic representation for S₁ is stated first of
all in full prior to the justification of each individual semantic
component which is presented in the following discussion.

S₁

**THE DATIVE CONSTRUCTION OF TRANSFERRAL WITH ENCLITIC GEI:**

SUBJECT - VERB - GEI - INDIRECT OBJECT - DIRECT OBJECT

Ta jiao - gei wo yiba yaoshi.

he hand : GEI me one:CL key

He handed me a key.

Person A

Person B

Thing X
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.

## 1.1 SEMANTIC DESCRIPTION OF S₁

### 1.1.1 Presupposition of the Direct Object as being with the Subject

The direct object in construction S₁ designating the object to be transferred ("thing X") is semantically restricted to entities which prior to or on the point of the subject's action are understood to be with or in the same place as the subject who is the person who effects the transferral. The following sentences are used to support this claim, which are semantically unacceptable due to the interpretation of the object only being with the subject on the completion of the subject's action, that is, as a result of the action:

18. *Xiao Wang zuo-gei ta mama yidun fan.
(name) make:GEI his mum one:CL meal
(?Xiao Wang made his mum dinner.)

19. *Mali mai-gei wo yiliang qiche.
(name) buy:GEI me one:CL car
(Mary bought me a car.)

This object is not necessarily a possession of the subject, however, as shown by (20) where the books are more likely to belong to "me", the indirect object, than to the subject, Xiao Wang:

20. Xiao Wang huan-gei wo sanben shu.
(name) return:GEI me three:CL book
Xiao Wang gave me back three books.
Hence, it cannot be claimed that the entity to be
transferred belongs to the subject, person A, but only that 'thing
X' is in the same place as the subject before the subject acts upon
it in order to transfer thing X to the indirect object, person B.
This point is clearly illustrated by the following example, where it
would be entirely inappropriate to make the claim that the direct
object 'soup' is a possession of the subject:

23. Ta yao-gei wo yishao tang.
he ladle:GEI me one:CL soup
He ladled me a spoon of soup.

In Chapter 2, it will be shown that the direct object
referred to in the dative construction of intended benefit, S₂, is
by no means presupposed as being with the subject, person A, prior
to A's action. This is a major semantic distinction between the two
datives and its ramification for S₁ is that only verbs which
express "transferral" <u>or</u> whose meaning in the context of this
construction is compatible with the interpretation of "transferral"
are permitted in S₁.

1.1.2 Verb Classes in S₁

Several linguists such as Zhu De-xi (1979); Chao Yuen Ren
(1968) and Charles Li and Sandra Thompson (1981) have chosen to
analyse the *gei* constructions in terms of the verb classes which
co-occur with them.

Li and Thompson (1981: 384) classify verbs into four
classes according to whether they can co-occur with S₁, S₂ and
the Double Object construction. These are the verbs of
'transaction' which take *gei* either optionally or obligatorily;
verbs of 'deprivation' and verbs of 'linguistic communication',
neither of the latter two classes being able to occur in either of
these two *gei* constructions. This parallels to some extent Chao's
classification of verbs according to whether or not they can
co-occur with an enclitic *gei* where Chao (1968: 317) claims that

In general, verbs of the 'send', 'give' type
take (a) an obligatory or (b) an optional bound
*geei*; (c) verbs like 'take (from)', 'ask (of)',
and 'call' do not take *geei*; and (d) other
verbs take or do not take *geei* according to the
direction to or from the indirect object.

However, Li and Thompson (1981: 374-9) make their
classification of verbs according to occurrence in the three
different syntactic constructions noted above: The two dative
constructions formed by *gei* - S₁ and S₂, and the Double Object
Construction (which requires no *gei* but has the same order otherwise
as S₁: Subject-Verb-Indirect Object-Direct Object):

Double Object Construction:

<table><thead><tr><th>SUBJECT</th><th>VERB</th><th>INDIRECT OBJECT</th><th>DIRECT OBJECT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Ta</td><td>song</td><td>wo</td><td>yihe tang.</td></tr><tr><td>he</td><td>present</td><td>I</td><td>one:CL sweets</td></tr></tbody></table>

He gave me a box of sweets (as a present).

It proves to be the case that a large number of the verbs of
'transaction' as they call them such as *fù* 'pay', *jiè* 'lend', *peí*
'compensate' and *cì* 'bestow' may occur in all three constructions,
dative and Double Object, whereas other verbs of this class such as
*jiāo* 'deliver', *maì* 'sell', *xiě* 'write' and *daì* 'bring' may only be
used in S₁ and S₂ in conjunction with *gei*. Why is it that verbs
like *fù* 'pay' and *cì* 'bestow' can occur in the Double Object
Construction without the morpheme *gei* preceding the indirect object
while *maì* 'sell' and *xiě* 'write' cannot? Although the Double Object Construction is outside the scope of the present discussion, I believe that Li and Thompson have admitted defeat prematurely in concluding that "which verbs require *gei* and which verbs allow it optionally is something that simply has to be learned for each verb (1981: 384)".

It is not a question of 'optional' as opposed to 'obligatory' *gei*: In constructions S₁ and S₂, *gei* is an invariant syntactic feature, whereas in the Double Object Construction it is not one of the required syntactic elements. Each of these three syntactic constructions needs to be analysed separately to determine its semantic structure and then we can ascertain why certain verbs are compatible with the dative *gei* constructions S₁ and S₂ yet not in the third construction they examine the Double Object Construction.

In this section and the next such an analysis will be carried out for the dative *gei* constructions S₁ and S₂, showing that they cannot be defined in terms of the co-occurring verb classes alone. In fact, it is quite inadequate to characterize S₁ in terms of the main verb being restricted to verbs of giving, the implication of both Chao's and Li and Thompson's analysis. Even more clear in its standpoint is Zhu De-xi's explicit statement (1979: 82) that S₁ is restricted to verbs of giving. [He then goes on (1979: 83ff) to make semantic generalizations about the verb classes found to occur in the other two *gei* constructions and the Double Object Construction as well.]

These kinds of analyses only partially account for the facts. One of the reasons why different sets of verb classes are used, for example, in S₁ and S₂ can be explained in terms of the
semantic nature of the direct object: As the direct object ("thing X") is not presupposed in S₂ not only verbs of giving can be used in it but also a wide range of verbs including verbs of getting and taking, a feature which the verb classification approach should account for but which it fails to do. Recalling that S₂ has the syntactic form: Subject-Verb-Direct Object-GEI-Indirect Object, consider the following examples:

S₂
DATIVE OF INTENDED BENEFIT WITH POSTVERBAL GEI:

25.
Ta mai dian shuiguo gei bingren.
He buy some fruit GEI patient
He bought some fruit for the patient.

26.
Ta qiang le yige weizi gei wo.
he snatch COM one:CL seat GEI me
He claimed a seat for me.

These verbs are excluded from S₁ the dative of transferral, since
they do not presuppose a direct object:

27.
*Ta mai-gei bingren shuiguo.
he buy:GEI patient fruit

28.
*Ta qiang-gei wo yige weizi.
he snatch:GEI me one:CL seat

As can be seen, the semantic component stating the pre-
supposition that thing X is in place L with person A partially
accounts for this fact as does a second component: "Person A wanted
person B to come to have thing X". - The combined semantic force of
these two components results in verbs of intentionally taking away,
getting and acquiring all being incompatible with this construction.
A second reason why it is inadequate to characterize S₁
as a construction which is restricted to verbs of giving is that in
fact not only verbs of giving are permissible in it: Zhu points out
(1979: 82) the following 'exceptions': the verbs xiě 'write', liú
'keep', jiān 'pick up (with chopsticks)' and yǎo 'ladle' (his
examples, my translations and numbering):

29. Ta xie-gei xiaozhang yifeng xin.
he write:GEI principal one:CL letter
He wrote the principal a letter.

30. Ta liu-gei Xiao Wang yige weizi.
he keep:GEI (name) one:CL seat
He kept Xiao Wang a seat.

31. Ta jian-gei wo yikuai yu.
he pick up:GEI me one:CL fish
He selected me a piece of fish (with his chopsticks).

32. Ta yao-gei wo yishao jiangyou.
he ladle:GEI me one spoon soy:sauce
He ladled me a spoon of soy sauce.

Such evidence shows that we need a much more precise
semantic explication for S₁ than that of paraphrasing it as a
construction which is restricted to verbs of giving. As foreshadowed
at the outset we can account for the fact that there are a "number
of verbs" that do not contain the basic meaning of 'give', yet are
compatible with the interpretation of transferral by stating the
overall meaning of the S₁ construction by means of the semantic
representation rather than trying to list all the verbs which are
found to occur in it. The semantically complex term 'give' is not
used in the representation as a result of this objective. In fact
only the verb 'do' is used which does not specify the kind of
action. The other components make it clear that person B "comes to
have thing X" as a result of both person A's intention to cause this
and A's subsequent action, (29) "The principal comes to have the
letter that he wrote to him" (30) "Xiao Wang comes to have the seat
that he kept for her" (31) "I come to have a piece of fish that he
selected for me" and (32) "I come to have a spoon of soy sauce on my
food that he ladled out for me" respectively. In sum, this formula
can predict accurately that verbs like xiě 'write' and liú 'keep'
are compatible with S₁ while generally excluding verbs such as
qiang 'snatch' and mai 'buy' and without needing to resort to verb
classification.

1.1.3 The Completiveness and Causativity of S₁ with respect to 'Causing to Have'

It was mentioned above that Chao (1968) analyses gei in
S₁ as an enclitic to the verb rather than viewing it, for example,
as forming a prepositional phrase with the following indirect object
as does Yang Xin'an (1960). The close syntactic relationship
between the verb and the morpheme gei which immediately follows upon
it is indicative of the fact that gei is partially semantically
responsible for encoding that the event designated by the S₁
expression is completed. In signifying that a change of state has
been effected, specifically one where person B (designated by the
indirect object) has received thing X (designated by the direct
object), it is acting in a similar way to resultative verb
complements such as xiě-wán 'finish writing', literally: 'write:
finish' and chāo-hú 'burn (food)', literally: 'fry:burn'. The
resultative verb compounds in Chinese all encode causation of some
sort whether it be change of state or change of location as does the
verb + GEI complex in S₁.<fnref n="10" />

That the verb and the morpheme gei are so closely bound
together that they are inseparable is verifiable from the fact that
no aspectual marking may intervene between these two elements:

33. *Ta ji-le gei wo yifeng xin.
he send:COM GEI me one:CL letter

In (33), the completive aspect marker <u>le</u> is interposed
between the verb 'send' and the morpheme <u>gei</u>, resulting in an
ungrammatical sentence. Note however that S<sub>2</sub> may freely take
aspectual marking on its verb; which means that the combination of
<u>gei</u> and <u>-le</u> is possible while not being tautologous:

34. Ta ji-le yifeng xin gei wo.
he send:COM one:CL letter GEI me
He sent a letter to me.

In fact, without any aspectual marking whatsoever, S₁
is interpreted as completive as (35) shows:

35. Ta ji-gei wo yifeng xin.
he send:GEI me one:CL letter
He sent me a letter.

When S₂ has no aspectual marking, it is interpreted as
present tense in English, that is, as a non-completive expression:

<footnote n="10">10. Li and Thompson (1981: 205) consider the <u>gei</u> of S₁ to be a "perfectivizing expression" which takes the place of the completive aspect marker <u>-le</u>, as distinct from the claim I make above. Note also that they call <u>-le</u> the "perfective aspect marker".</footnote>
36. Ta ji yifeng xin gei wo.

He is sending a letter to me (but it hasn't been sent yet).

This feature of S₁ as opposed to S₂ serves as a syntactic justification of the claim made in Section II that S₁ is causative in a way that S₂ is not. Briefly, S₁ encodes that person B does receive the transferred object ("Person B comes to have thing X because of A's action") whereas S₂ encodes only that person A intends for person B to have a certain object. Thus, in example (34) above of S₂, with the completive aspect marker -le only the action of sending the letter is understood to be a completed (and past) event while there is no corresponding implication of the indirect object "me" having received the letter. This overall meaning of S₂ contrasts to its S₁ counterpart, example (35), where the interpretation is rather that of the letter being both successfully sent and received.
2 THE DATIVE CONSTRUCTION OF INTENDED BENEFIT WITH
POSTVERBAL GEI : S₂

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

Wo ji-le yifeng xin gei ta.

I send:COM one:CL letter GEI him

I sent a letter to him.

The two main standpoints regarding the syntactic status
of gei in the S₂ dative construction are that

(i) _gei_ is the second verb of a serial verb construction

(ii) _gei_ forms a prepositional phrase with the following
NP.<fnref n="11" />

Contrasting to the syntactic configuration for S₁, the
second dative construction formed by _gei_ has the direct object
(_yifeng xin_ 'a letter') placed directly after the verb and the
indirect object denoting the person who is to receive the
transferred object positioned in the final syntactic slot after
GEI. The order of the direct object and the indirect object for
S₁ are thus inverted in S₂ in a way that closely parallels the
difference in syntax for dative constructions with and without _to_ in
English. ("I sent him a letter" vs "I sent a letter to him").
However, in Chinese, the particle _gei_ is present in both
constructions whereas the preposition _to_ is only found in the
English construction with an external dative.<fnref n="12" />

<footnote n="11">11. For example, Chao (1968) espouses the first point of view and Xiang Ruo, "Guanyu gei de cixing", Zhongguo Yuwen, 1960:2, p.64, the second.</footnote>

<footnote n="12">12. The terms "external dative", "internal dative" (or "pre-
positionless dative") are taken from G. Green, Semantics and
Syntactic Regularity, 1974.</footnote>
The full semantic representation for construction S₂ is
once again presented at the outset:

S₂: THE DATIVE CONSTRUCTION OF INTENDED BENEFIT WITH POSTVERBAL GEI:

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

Ta jiao-le yiba yaoshi gei wo.

he hand:COM one:CL key GEI me

He handed a key to me.

Person A Thing X Person B

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 person B
because of this

## 2.1 SEMANTIC DESCRIPTION OF S₂

### 2.1.1 The Components of "Usefulness" and "Benefit"

The first semantic distinction between the two dative
constructions formed by *gei* which is of interest for our discussion
is that it is encoded in S₂ as opposed to S₁ that the motivation
for the subject's action is one of intending to cause the indirect
object (person B) to come to have something which B can use, and
thereby benefitting B. This component is not present in the
semantic representation for S₁.

At the same time, let us examine the following closely
related question with respect to S₂: Would the intentional action
of the subject (Person A) always result in a beneficial state of
affairs for the person designated by the indirect object (person B)?
If this proves to be the case and we can show that 'benefit' is a
semantic invariable of the construction, then it must also be
included in the semantic representation as another feature which
distinguishes S₂ from S₁.
Compare the two following sentences which are used to
expand upon this point. Only (38) can be considered as an example
of S₂:

37. *Zhang San chao-hu-le cai gei Mali.
Zhang San fry:burn:COM food GEI Mary
(Zhang San burnt the food for Mary.)

38. Zhang San chao-hao-le cai gei Mali.
Zhang San fry:finish:COM food GEI Mary
Zhang San fried a meal for Mary.

Examples (37) and (38) are isomorphic in syntax: They
contain the same kind of verb phrase composed of a resultative verb
compound ('fry:burn'; 'fry:finish'), a completive aspect marker and
a related object ('food'). Only (38) however, fulfills all the
semantic conditions for S₂. The question is then, is sentence
(37) unacceptable due to the encoding of Zhang San causing an
undesirable state of affairs for Mary: one where she is unable to
eat the food which has been cooked for her, given its inedible
condition or is it unacceptable for some other reason?

It is not only the undesirability of the resultant
situation which causes sentence (37) to be unacceptable but also the
kind of situation which results of there being nothing edible left
which can be given to Mary, that is, nothing "she can do anything
with" such as eat.

Two of the factors which determine the semantic well-
formedness of an example are thus the usefulness of the object for
person B (the indirect object) and the beneficial nature of the
state of affairs that would be created for person B through A's
action. Both can be deduced from the difficulty of finding an
appropriate context for (39):

39. ??Zhang San sha-le yige ren gei Mali.
Zhang San kill:COM one:CL person GEI Mary
(Zhang San killed a person for Mary.)

It is difficult to interpret how the murder of some
unknown innocent could cause a beneficial state of affairs for Mary
unless it were in the context of some gangster underworld and yet
even in this context (39) remains "awkward" for according to the
semantics of the S₂ gei dative, it can only be inferred that the
killing was intended to provide Mary with a body that she could put
to some use. This inference is revealed when we compare (39) with
(40) below:

40. Zhang San sha-le yizhi ji gei Mali.
(name) kill:COM one:CL chicken GEI (name)
Zhang San killed a chicken for Mary (to have).

For (40) it is easy to imagine an appropriate context with regard to
the component of "usefulness": one where Mary cooks the chicken for
dinner.

In the macabre context of black magic and devilry,
presumably, sentence (39) would be completely acceptable as a use
for the dead body could be interpreted (as a sacrifice) and thus
also the intended benefit of the subject's action for Mary, the
witch.

The meaning given by the English translation of (39)
would be better encoded by the *wei* construction in Chinese, which
does not contain the component of intended benefit - of the
subject's wanting to cause a beneficial state of affairs - but
expresses only that the subject's action is symbolic of his feelings
towards Mary. Consequently an acceptable example is obtained:

41. Zhang San wei Mali sha-le yige ren.
(name) WEI (name) kill:COM one:CL person
Zhang San killed a person for Mary's sake.

(Further examples of the *wei* construction and the
benefactive *gei* construction [S₃] will be encountered below before
their full discussion in Chapter 3.)

I conclude then, that there is a component of 'intended
benefit' - that the resultant state of affairs would be beneficial
for the indirect object, inhering in the meaning of this
construction and one that is separate from anything which could be
inferred from the component which states: "A wants B to come to
have a thing X that B can do something with".

Both these aforementioned components are responsible for
excluding the following sentences as potential S₂:

42. *Zhang San diu-le yiba yaoshi gei Mali.
(name) lose:COM one:CL key GEI (name)
(*Zhang San lost a key for Mary [to have].)

43. *Zhang San guan-le deng gei Mali.
(name) close:COM light GEI (name)
(*Zhang San turned off the light for Mary [to have].)

The events depicted in these two examples do not result in there
being any object or "thing" that could be given to Mary, and
consequently no beneficial state of affairs for her can be
interpreted either. Hence, there must be a tangible "something"
which is identifiable in each example of this construction and
crucially, one which person A wants person B to have although this
object is not a presupposed one. The latter point implies that the
thing needs to be a 'giveable' object in the first place. These
combined factors explain why (44) is unacceptable, yet (45), the
symbolic *wei* construction is to the contrary, acceptable:

44. *Zhang San pa-le yizuo shan gei Mali.
(name) climb:COM one:CL mountain GEI (name)
(*Zhang San climbed a mountain for Mary [to have].)

SYMBOLIC *WEI* CONSTRUCTION:

45. Zhang San wei Mali pa le yizuo shan.
Zhang San climbed a mountain for Mary's sake.

The event of climbing a mountain does not meet the
semantic requirement of S₂ that allows the interpretation of the
subject Zhang San, wanting Mary to come to have something in her
possession as the result of his action, since there could be nothing
for Zhang San to give Mary as a result of such an activity.

Thus even if we have a "tangible something" ("a
mountain"), the construction as a whole must conspire to express
that person A intends for B to have it as well, that is, thing X is
something which can be given to B otherwise the particular example
will be ill-formed semantically.

In discussing the nature of the "thing" A wants B to
have, we cannot overlook the question of presupposition or what is
commonly termed the 'pre-existence' of the object. Obviously,
person A must have something which can be given to B, but is this
thing understood to be in the same place as A, that is "with" A at
the moment of A's action? This question is examined in the
following section.
2.1.2 No Presupposition of the Direct Object as being with the subject

In fact, the existence of the direct object ("thing X") is not presupposed by the speaker in the case of construction $S_2$ as opposed to $S_1$ where it is explicit in the semantic structure: "Assuming that thing X is in place L with person A". Such a component is entirely lacking in the semantic structure of $S_2$: We have seen in the preceding section that $S_1$ encodes the transferral of an object from one person to another, a grammaticalized meaning which requires a presupposed object. $S_2$ encodes rather than the purpose of the subject's (A's) action is to achieve a situation whereby A will be able to cause person B to have something which will subsequently be of use to B. That this thing is not necessarily with the subject prior to the action is evident from the examples below:

46. Zhang San da-le yijian maoyi gei Mali.
(name) knit:COM one:CL jumper GEI (name)
Zhang San knitted a jumper for Mary (to have).

47. Zhang San qiang-le yige weizi gei Mali.
(name) grab:COM one:CL seat GEI (name)
Zhang San claimed a seat for Mary (to have).

In both cases, the "thing X" which Zhang San wants Mary to have cannot be considered to be with him prior to his action: The jumper does not 'exist' until he finishes the activity of knitting it nor is there a seat to give Mary until the action of claiming one is undertaken. Thus, presupposition of the existence of the object is not part of the meaning of $S_2$. What is central, invariant and thus an integral part of the semantic structure is
that whether or not thing X is owned, acquired or made by person A,
it is intended by A for person B to have.

### 2.1.3 Verb Classes in S₂

Zhu states that whereas S₁ is restricted to verbs of giving, three classes of verbs are permissible in S₂: verbs of giving, verbs of getting and verbs of creation. These are labelled Vₐ, Vᵇ and Vᶜ respectively. Since only the S₂ construction with Vₐ verbs (verbs of giving) may be freely transformed into S₁, Zhu claims (1979: 83) that S₂(Vᵇ) and S₂(Vᶜ) form an opposing and distinct sentence construction to S₂(Vₐ). This claim is based on the following kind of evidence showing that a transformational relationship between S₁ and S₂ holds only for the Vₐ class of verbs:

S₂

SUBJECT-VP-D.O.-GEI-I.O.

S₁

SUBJECT-VERB-GEI-I.O.-D.O.

Vₐ = Verbs of giving

48. Wo song yijian maoyi gei ta.

I present one:CL jumper GEI him

I gave a jumper to him (as a present).

Vᵇ = Verbs of getting

49. Wo mai yijian maoyi gei ta.

I buy one:CL jumper GEI him

I bought a jumper for him.

Vᶜ = Verbs of creation

50. Wo da yijian maoyi gei ta.

I knit one:CL jumper GEI him

I knitted a jumper for him.

Wo song-gei ta yijian maoyi.

I present:GEI him one:CL jumper

I gave him a jumper (as a present).

*Wo mai gei ta yijian maoyi.*

I buy GEI him one:CL jumper

*Wo da gei ta yijian maoyi.*

I knit GEI him one:CL jumper
From this, Zhu concludes (1979: 83) that the inability of
verbs of getting and creation in S₂ to undergo transformation into
S₁ reflects "an opposition between verbs which express giving and
those which do not". This is a 'well-grounded semantic observation
which throws more light, I believe, on the overall meaning of the
S₁ construction as being a construction which exclusively
expresses "transferral".

The consequence of Zhu's dividing S₂ into two separate
syntactic constructions is that we forego a unified treatment of it.
Indeed, the observation that some examples of the *gei* S₂ dative
construction may be transformed into the *gei* S₁ dative
construction is indicative of two facts:

(i) certain components of meaning are shared by these two
constructions such as the intention to cause person B to
come to have thing X

(ii) as a consequence of (i), certain lexical items are
compatible with both constructions such as verbs of
"giving".

The way in which single lexical items are melded into the
overall meaning of each construction is, however, entirely
different. It is the semantic representation for each construction
which can give us the "overview" so to speak, showing how each
element works together to fulfill the semantic requirements.

2.1.4 Causativity versus Causative Intention: Causation of
Having and Causation of Benefit

A further semantic consideration which Zhu uses to
establish the opposition between verbs of giving on the one hand and
verbs of getting and creation on the other is that verbs of giving
seem only to imply one action when used in *gei* constructions whereas the other two classes involve two actions. Zhu explains (1979: 83) that in the S₂ example *Zhang San mài yisuo fangzi gei Li Si* ("Zhang San sold a house to Li Si"), "the process of Zhang San selling a house is one where the house is transferred from Zhang San to Li Si - a process of giving". However, in the second example of S₂ with a verb of getting, *mài* 'buy': *Zhang San mài yisuo fangzi gei Li Si* ("Zhang San bought a house for Li Si"), Zhu goes on to say that "Zhang San's buying a house and Zhang San giving Li Si a house are two mutually separate affairs". Zhu then points out that the same situation applies for verbs of creation occurring in S₂ as well: In the example: *Wo da yijian maoyi gei ta* ("I knitted a jumper for him"), "knitting the jumper and giving it to him are two things".

To counterargue, I would point out that the number of
actions carried out by person A (Zhang San) is not encoded as part
of the meaning of construction S₂. In other words, how many
actions are involved with the purpose of causing object X to come to
be in B's possession is not an essential component of meaning. This
is clear from the many different examples of S₂ which have already
been given such as: "He handed a key to me"; "Zhang San knitted a
jumper for Mary, bought a house for Li Si" and "Zhang San claimed a
seat for Mary": 'Handing a key to someone' may only involve one
simple action but in examples such as 'buying a house for someone',
we can imagine that many distinct actions took place before the
house was finally given to Li Si such as visiting real estate
agents, looking at houses, arranging finance at the bank and signing
the contract.
Some other examples involve activity verbs such as dǎ maóyī 'knitting a jumper' and zuò fàn 'cooking a meal'. How can these be described in terms of one discrete action which precedes an action of giving?

It is necessary that the semantic explication be broad enough to account for all the kinds of events designated by the wide range of verbs which are compatible with S₂. This does not mean however that there are no restrictions on the co-occurring predicates whatsoever.<fnref n="13" />

All verbs of intentional action or activity are acceptable provided that they meet the other semantic requirements explicated in the formalization of S₂. (Thus, pá shān 'climbing a mountain' is excluded as it is not directed towards causing person B to have anything, even though 'climb' is a verb of intentional activity.) Since the number of actions is not part of the meaning of S₂ but rather that _some_ action on A's part is necessary involving an object that A intends B to have, this can be stated simply by the semantic explication in the following way: "Person A does something/because A wants to cause person B to come to have a thing X".

A second reason and the more significant one as to why it is not productive to discuss the _gei_ dative construction S₂ in terms of the number of actions the subject performs, is that S₂ is not a causative construction with respect to successful transferral whereas S₁ is: - In S₁, we have the component "Person B came to have thing X (because of what person A did)". S₂ does not have

<footnote n="13">13. It should also be noted that Zhu Dexi makes the point that Vc - the verbs of creation - are an open class, (1979), p.83.</footnote>
this component, there being no implication that person B finally
'receives' the said object. In S₂, only the intention of person A
to cause person B to have something is encoded. This means that it
is too specific to claim that 'giving' is part of the meaning of
S₂. Syntactic evidence can be found as well to back up this
statement: *gei* does not act as a full verb in this construction
(that is, it does not mean 'give'), but rather signifies
syntactically who the direct object is intended for.<fnref n="14" /> As a
result, it cannot take any aspectual marking, modal auxiliaries nor
be negated (and still be considered part of the one sentence):

Negation of GEI in S₂:

51. *Ta jiao yiba yaoshi bu gei wo.
he hand one:CL key NEG₁ GEI me

Aspectual Marking of GEI:

52. *Ta jiao yiba yaoshi gei-le wo.
he hand one:CL key GEI:COM me

Modal Auxiliary + GEI:

53. *Ta jiao yiba yaoshi neng gei wo.
he hand one:CL key can GEI me

In contradistinction to this, the main verb in the S₂
construction can be modified by these different syntactic devices,
as we would expect. Thus, in examples where the main verb is in the
completive aspect such as in *Zhang San zuo-le fan gei Mali* ("Zhang
San cooked a meal for Mary") only the completion of "cooking a meal"

<footnote n="14">14. Note that Teng Shou-hsin (1975: 41) does not differentiate the Benefactive preposition *gei* nor Goal *gei* from the ordinary verb *gei* 'give', contrasting with my analysis of it.</footnote>
is encoded and whether or not Mary actually 'received' the prepared meal from Zhang San or even ate it, is outside the scope of meaning encoded by S₂. The latter can only be deduced from the wider context. Similarly, with verbs of giving that occur in S₂, we cannot presume that person B "came to have" the object in question. In the example *Wo ji-le yifeng xin gei ta* "I sent a letter to him", only the completion of the action - the sending of the letter - is encoded through the use of the completive aspect marker -le. Even though we have a verb of giving, *ji* 'send', there is no implication that the other person 'he' received the letter as part of the meaning of S₂.

Moreover, I think that this causative: non-causative distinction with respect to successful transferral between S₁ and S₂ respectively, holds for the prepositionless and prepositional dative constructions in English as well.

Georgia Green claims in *Semantics and Syntactic Regularity* (1974: 123, 124, 111) that most of the *for*-class verbs (1,2,3,5) are not causatives whereas the majority of *to*-class verbs are in that their semantic paraphrases include "causing the indirect object to have the direct object". She further states that in the *for*-class verbs, the subject only "intends the indirect object to have the direct object". In brief, Green sees the causative: non-causative dichotomy as pertaining to verbs which form an external dative with *to* as opposed to verbs which form an external dative with *for*, for example: "John gave the flowers to me" vs "John bought the flowers for me". In her long chapter on dative-movement verbs, we find many valuable insights into the semantic nature of the constructions they form, including paraphrases for each verb class.
Contrary to her classification of *for*-class and *to*-class verbs into non-causatives and causatives, I claim that the causative dichotomy holds between prepositionless datives (with both classes of verbs) on the one hand and prepositional datives with both *for* and *to* on the other, for example: "John gave me the flowers" and "John bought me the flowers" vs. "John gave the flowers to me" and "John bought the flowers for me". For the two prepositionless examples, it is part of the meaning that the flowers ended up with me, that is, the action of giving them to me was completed prior to the utterance of these sentences. They can be considered causatives. To the contrary, for the second two examples, the prepositional datives, "I" am merely the intended recipient of the flowers. For the latter, in an everyday context, it would be inferred that I did indeed receive the flowers. However, this is a contextual inference and not an invariant feature of either of the prepositional dative constructions with *to* or *for*. I will illustrate this point by creating the following context: Suppose I am busy when John comes to give me the flowers. - My hands are full and I am unable to graciously accept the flowers, so he has to put them on the table. In this context it would only be acceptable to say that "John gave the flowers to me" or "John brought the flowers for me" but not ?"John gave me the flowers". If ownership of the flowers was later disputed because Mary thought John had left them on the table for her, again, it would only be acceptable to say "John gave the flowers to me" (with "me" emphasised) and not *"John gave me the flowers"*.

Perhaps clearer exemplification of this causative:non-causative dichotomy can be found with the verb 'send': On going out
to the postbox after the postie has been, I could say 54(a) with
regard to a 'long lost' friend but not so easily 54(b):

54. a. May-belle has finally sent me a letter!
b. ?? May-belle has finally sent a letter to me!

The _to_-dative construction does not imply any effect on
the recipient nor does it necessarily contain the meaning that the
direct object 'a letter' was intended principally for me to have
(and read) but more that the place where I was, was the intended
destination of the letter. If the direct object is intended for
someone else to have, then only the _to_-dative is truly acceptable,
particularly so if the indirect object (following _to_) is not
animate. Compare the following examples:

55. a. May-belle sent a letter to our place for Jean.
b. * May-belle sent our place a letter for Jean.

Similarly, it is the causative nature of the preposition-
less form of the _to_-dative which precludes it from encoding the
following meaning where a parcel has been sent but has not yet
arrived as opposed to the case for the prepositional form with the
external _to_-phrase:

56. a. * Viv sent us a parcel yesterday.<fnref n="15" />
b. Viv sent a parcel to us yesterday.

In relation to _bring_-class verbs (*to*-class 1), Green does
indeed point out (1974: 118, footnote 1 - her numbering) that "_pass_

<footnote n="15">15. Sentence (56a) is starred as the corresponding prepositionless form of 56(b). It is also used however as the (substandard) reduced form of "Viv sent a parcel for us".</footnote>
... implies success if the dative NP is prepositionless, but not if it has a preposition ...

1a. * John passed me the peace pipe, but I wouldn't/didn't take it.

1b. John passed the peace pipe to me, but I wouldn't/didn't take it.

She views this particular verb however as an exception to its class.

Similarly, she views the difference between prepositionless and prepositional datives for the radio-class (to-class 4a) as a property of "verbs which do not describe direct and instantaneous transmission of information alone". She provides such examples as the following (1974, p.135, her numbering) which I believe are very revealing of the general causative nature of the prepositionless dative as opposed to the prepositional dative with respect to "coming to have".

215a. John wired the news to his mother yesterday, but she can't have received it yet.

215b. * John wired his mother the news yesterday, but she can't have received it yet.

Returning to the dative gei constructions in Chinese, S₁ and S₂, and our claim that only S₁ is a causative of having, let us consider an example of each construction with a verb of giving in it:

57. S₂ **Zuotian Zhang San ji-le yige baoguo gei ta mama,**
**Yesterday (name) send:COM one:CL parcel GEI his mother,**
**danshi ta hai mei shoudao.**
but she still not receive

Yesterday, Zhang San sent a parcel to his mother, but she still hasn't got it.
58. S₁: ??Zuotian Zhang San jigei ta mama yige baoguo, danshi yesterday (name) send GEI his mother one:CL parcel, but ta hai mei shoudao. she still not receive

As for the prepositionless datives in English, successfully receiving the object is implied by the causative S₁, and this is explicated by the component: "Person B came to have thing X". In (58), part of the meaning is therefore, that Zhang San's mother received the parcel he sent to her. As this is subsequently contradicted by the co-ordinate clause, an unacceptable sentence results. The gei dative construction S₂ in (57) however, does not imply that Zhang San's mother received the parcel rather only that the action of sending the parcel was completed. As a result, it is compatible with the following clause. S₂ encodes "causative intention" on the part of the subject as opposed to successful causation where it is understood that the indirect object comes to have something. This causative intention is explicated by the component "Person A wants person B to come to have a thing X" and constitutes an important semantic parameter along which S₁ and S₂ vary.

Green implicitly uses the concept of unity of space to define some of the classes of dative-movement verbs such as the *bring-class* in the following way (1974:80): "the direct and accompanied physical transfer of an object from an agent to the individual denoted by the indirect object expression". Here I assume that what Green means by "direct and accompanied transfer" is a unity of space for person A and person B when verbs such as *bring*, *take* and *carry* are used to form dative constructions. This construction encodes then that the transferral is effected with the persons denoted by subject and indirect object both being present.
This concept is not applicable to the analysis of these
two dative constructions in Chinese however. Examples (57) and (58)
show that contiguity in space between person A and person B is not
an essential component of meaning whatsoever for either the
causative dative construction of transferral S₁ or the non-
causative dative of intended benefit construction, S₂. (Sending a
parcel implies that the receiver is elsewhere in the case of both
constructions.) Hence, the concept of "unity of space" may be
disregarded in our analysis of these two constructions as it is
neither a necessary element in the argument for the causativity of
S₁ with respect to 'having' nor of use in defining the meaning of
either construction.

In the discussion of the two gei dative constructions,
S₁ and S₂, I have shown that while they share the one semantic
feature of causative intention, of the subject wanting to cause the
indirect object to come to have some object, they contrast and
differ in several other of their semantic features: namely in the
presence or absence of the components of causation of having,
presupposition of the existence of the direct object, intention to
cause a beneficial state of affairs for the indirect object and the
usefulness of the direct object to its intended recipient.

First of all, only the S₁ dative of transferral is a
causative of 'having' construction due to its encoding that the
indirect object does in fact come to receive the object of
transferral, this being the essence of the meaning grammaticalized
by S₁ - the successful transferral of an object from one person to
another. One ramification of such a meaning is that the object of
transferral is necessarily presupposed, to be precise, understood to
be with the subject prior to the subject's action.
The semantic feature of presupposition of the direct object provides the second point of contrast with the S₂ dative construction of intended benefit: In the latter, the subject's action is carried out with the intention of causing the indirect object to come to have something of use and with this as the prime moving force it is irrelevant whether the subject makes or gets an object to give to "person B" as opposed to simply giving away a possession or something that happens to be in the same place as the subject.

A concomitant feature of the usefulness of the direct object to "person B" is that of the subject intending to cause a beneficial state of affairs for the indirect object (person B) through this action. Neither of these semantic features are present in the semantic structure of the S₁ dative of transferral.

In the final chapter, the benefactive construction formed by *gei* is examined. This construction explicitly encodes that a beneficial state of affairs arises for the indirect object as a result of the subject's action, and thus may be regarded as causative in this sense, that is, as a causative of benefit.
3

THE BENEFACTIVE CONSTRUCTION WITH PREVERBAL GEI : S₃

<table><thead><tr><th>SUBJECT</th><th>GEI</th><th>INDIRECT</th><th>VERB</th><th>PHRASE</th></tr><tr><th></th><th></th><th>OBJECT</th><th></th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Wo</td><td>gei</td><td>ta</td><td>ji-le</td><td>yifeng xin.</td></tr><tr><td>I</td><td>GEI</td><td>him</td><td>send:COM</td><td>one:CL letter</td></tr></tbody></table>

I posted a letter for him.

As stated above in the introduction, my aim in this chapter is to demonstrate that the *gei* benefactive construction encodes its own unique meaning and that it is not three-ways ambiguous as advocated by Hermann (1979).

The morpheme *gei* occurs preverbally in the syntactic structure of S₃ in contrast to S₁ and S₂ where as we have seen it follows the verb. To begin the analysis, let us contrast the meaning of benefactive GEI (S₃) with that of the dative of transferral, S₁:

The S₁ counterpart of the above example for S₃ would be:

<table><thead><tr><th>SUBJECT</th><th>VERB</th><th>GEI</th><th>INDIRECT</th><th>DIRECT</th></tr><tr><th></th><th></th><th></th><th>OBJECT</th><th>OBJECT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Wo</td><td>ji</td><td>gei</td><td>ta</td><td>yifeng xin.</td></tr><tr><td>I</td><td>send</td><td>GEI</td><td>him</td><td>one:CL letter</td></tr></tbody></table>

I sent him a letter.

Note that the English equivalent of the first S₃ example: "I posted a letter for him" is ambiguous itself *without a context*: It could be interpreted as either "I posted a letter instead of him posting it" or "I posted him a letter that I intended for him to have". The Chinese example is seemingly ambiguous to the same extent but is only roughly equivalent to either of these
interpretations provided by the English translation as we will see
below.

Hermann (1979) as mentioned in the introduction proposes
that prepositional (as opposed to verbal) *gei* has two uses, one as a
benefactive and the other as the marker of the goal of the action.
Her analysis takes this form: Benefactive *gei* occurs exclusively
preverbally and may be interpreted as either "in place of" or "for
the benefit of". Goal *gei* which typically occurs postverbally is
sometimes found to occur preverbally and thus is able to be confused
with benefactive *gei*. Her example to illustrate this last point is
one using the verb *jieshao 'introduce'* (my numbering):

59. Wo gei ni jieshao yige pengyou.
I GEI you introduce one:Cl friend

She claims that this example is polysemous, having the
following three possible interpretations (1979: 106):

(i) I'll introduce a friend to you.

(ii) I'll introduce a friend for you.

(iii) I'll introduce a friend instead of you.

However, this kind of evidence cannot be used to argue
convincingly for a polysemous preverbal *gei* construction as these
three interpretations are inferential possibilities determined by
the context, not by the semantic structure of S₃. I argue in
favour of this viewpoint below.