HG499 FINAL YEAR PROJECT

Chinese-English Translationof Passive Constructions
Final Year Project

Name : Ko Jia Min Tabitha (U0930614A)
Supervisor: Associate Professor Francis Bond
Date of Submission: 19 November 2012

Nanyang Technological University
2012

NANYANG TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITYSCHOOL OF HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

Chinese-English Translation of Passive
Constructions

Name:

Ko Jia Min Tabitha (U0940614A)

Supervisor: Francis Bond_______________A Final Year Project submitted to the School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Nanyang
Technological University in partial fulfillmentof the requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Arts in Linguistics & Multilingual Studies
2012Declaration of AuthorshipI declare that this assignment is my own original work, unless otherwise
referenced, as defined by the NTU policy on plagiarism. I have read the NTU
Honour Code and Pledge.
No part of this Final Year Project has been or is being concurrently submitted forany other qualification at any other university.
I certify that the data collected for this project is authentic. I fully understand thatfalsification of data will result in the failure of the project and/or failure of the course.

Ko Jia Min Tabitha_____________

19 November 2012

Name

Signature

DateChinese-English Translation of Passive Constructions

Page 1 of 56

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my gratitude to: Associate Professor Francis Bond, Division of Linguistics and Multilingual Studies,
Nanyang Technological University, for your advice and patient guidance Professor Key-Sun Choi, Head of Computer Science Department, Korea Advanced
Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST), for providing background information
and allowing access to KAIST Chinese-English multilingual corpus
 Ms Auyeong Weiying, Ms Diyana Hamzah and Ms Lee Qian Song Sarah for yourconstant encouragements

Ko Jia Min Tabitha

Chinese-English Translation of Passive Constructions

Page 2 of 56

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................................... 1
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................... 2
Abbreviations, Symbols and Typographical conventions .............................................................. 3
List of Tables & Figures ............................................................................................................................... 4
Abstract .............................................................................................................................................................. 5
1.

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 6

2.

Literature Review.................................................................................................................................. 7
2.1

Grammatical functions & Semantic roles ............................................................................ 7

2.2

Variations and Translation ....................................................................................................... 9

2.3

Passives and universality ........................................................................................................ 13

2.4

Passive constructions in Mandarin Chinese..................................................................... 15

2.5

Passive constructions in English .......................................................................................... 21

2.6

Passives and Translation ......................................................................................................... 25

3.

Aim and Hypotheses .......................................................................................................................... 26

4.

Methodology.......................................................................................................................................... 27

5.

Analysis & Results ............................................................................................................................... 28

6.

Discussion .............................................................................................................................................. 36

7.

6.1

Overall Translation of Chinese Passives to English....................................................... 38

6.2

Translation of Mandarin Chinese LONG PASSIVES .............................................................. 42

Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................. 46

References ...................................................................................................................................................... 47

Ko Jia Min Tabitha

Chinese-English Translation of Passive Constructions

Page 3 of 56

Abbreviations, Symbols and Typographical conventions

1SG

first person singular pronoun

3SG

third person singular pronoun

AFF

affectedness marker

NLT

native language textNP

NOUN phrasePARTparticle

PSV

passive morphemeSb.

somebodySLsource language

STsource text

TL

target language

TTtarget text

VP

VERB phrase

SMALL CAPITALS

technical terms

Italics

cited forms; abstract concepts; and for secondary emphasis

Bold typefor primary emphasis

Underlined

for marking PREPOSITIONS‘Single quotation marks’for English gloss“Double quotation marks”

for quotations from other authors*

for marking ungrammatical or erroneous interpretations>

for intended interpretations(Parentheses)

for enclosing optional elements

Ko Jia Min Tabitha

Chinese-English Translation of Passive Constructions

Page 4 of 56

List of Tables & Figures
Table 1.

Summary of Passive constructions in Mandarin Chinese

Table 2.

Summary of Passive constructions in English

25

Table 3.

Percentage of the frequency of common passive constructions

26

Table 4.

Summary of total number of passive constructions in ST and TT

30

Table 5.

Summary of PREPOSITIONS used with ACTOR phrase

34

Figure 1.

Proposed translation action for Chinese-English passive translation

40

Figure 2.

Proposed translation action for Chinese-English LONG PASSIVE translation

41

Ko Jia Min Tabitha

20-21

Chinese-English Translation of Passive Constructions

Page 5 of 56

Abstract

Retrieval of accurate translations is crucial in today’s technologically advanced world
where intercultural communications are frequent and necessary. Past research surrounding
passives and translations has largely focused on English-Chinese translations. Therefore, thispaper seeks to provide new insight by concentrating on Chinese-English passive translations.
In view of past observations, five hypotheses are proposed: (i) BEI++ hypothesis; (ii) RANG+
hypothesis; (iii) BE+ hypothesis; (iv) GET-control hypothesis; (v) BY-ACTOR hypothesis. For the
purpose of this study, a Chinese-English multilingual corpus from Korea Advanced Instituteof Science and Technology (KAIST) was used. Three of the proposed hypotheses, namely
BEI++ hypothesis, BE+ hypothesis and GET-control hypothesis, were supported. However, theRANG+ hypothesis and BY-ACTOR hypothesis were not supported. Additionally, the reductionof Chinese passives to PAST PARTICIPLE PHRASES and two new types of Chinese passive
constructions were noticed. Furthermore, analysis of English translations exhibited othertypes of English passives previously overlooked. Results also illustrated the influence of both
source language (SL) and target language (TL) norms in translations. An examinationassessing current machine translations indicated a lack of appropriate translations. Thus,
two sets of actions for Chinese-English passive translation have been proposed. Future
research exploring the application of the proposed actions is recommended.

Ko Jia Min Tabitha

Chinese-English Translation of Passive Constructions

Page 6 of 56

1. Introduction

A common tool in today’s communicative world, translation is the representation of one
language’s written or spoken information in another language (Xǔ Jiàn Píng, 2003).
Undoubtedly, communities across the world would share certain ideologies and concepts.
As such, the translation of these communal ideas and notions would be deemed easier due
to the fact that they are shared (i.e. universal). Nevertheless, each community would also
possess individual theories and worldviews creating a distinction of identity. Often, language,as a means of communication within and across populations, is the container that holds thecharacteristics of a society, and the key that enables others to unravel these contained
attributes.

For example, passive can be considered a shared concept between English and Chinese,but a distinguishing factor between English and Enga, a Papuan language (Li & Lang, 1979).
At the same time, the difference in the constructions of passives differentiates English andChinese.

In modern society, technology has intensified the regularity of cross-culturalcommunications. Together with a worldwide web of knowledge, the demand for accurate
information to be readily available is high. Thus, both human and machine translators are
required and highly sought after to meet the needs of today’s world. While a proper andacute translation advances mutual understanding between peoples of diverse cultural andsocial backgrounds, an improper or misinterpretation of words or expressions may result in
confusion (Xǔ Jiàn Píng, 2003).

Therefore, this study seeks to discover and suggest possible patterns and actions oftranslation that could better facilitate the translation process.

Ko Jia Min Tabitha

Chinese-English Translation of Passive Constructions

Page 7 of 56

2. Literature Review

2.1 Grammatical functions & Semantic roles

The smallest unit of syntax is a word, while the largest unit of syntax is a sentence. In
general, a sentence can be formed by a single clause or a combination of clauses.1 The
relationship between the verb phrase, which is the head of each clause, and its
complements can be reflected through grammatical functions and semantic roles (Miller,
2002). Hence, it is essential to provide a brief description of functions and roles before any
discussion on sentence constructions in order to fully understand the formation anddifference between various sentence constructions.

The basic grammatical functions prevalent in the grammars of most languages in theworld are:(a) SUBJECT: the first of two parts of the sentence; usually the topic about whichsomething is predicated[adapted from Klammer, Schulz & Della Volpe, 2010:433](b) OBJECT: a term used in the analysis of grammatical functions to refer to a major
constituent or sentence or clause structure, traditionally associated with the‘receiver’ or ‘goal’ of an action

Conventional analysis distinguishes two categories of OBJECTS:(i) DIRECT OBJECT: a NOUN phrase (NP) denoting the goal or the result of the actionof the verb

1

For further readings on sentence formation and clause structure refer to Miller, J. (2002). An introduction to
English syntax. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Ltd.

Ko Jia Min Tabitha

Chinese-English Translation of Passive Constructions

Page 8 of 56(ii) INDIRECT OBJECT: an NP representing the secondary goal of the action of theverb[adapted from Crystal, 2008; Batzarov, 2000]

Aside from their grammatical functions, arguments within a clause also employ
semantic roles that help build the context of the situations. The major semantic roles andtheir prototypical explanations are:(a) AGENT: the initiator of some action, capable of acting with volition(b) PATIENT: the entity undergoing the effect of some action typically performed by
an AGENT(c) INSTRUMENT: an entity prototypically used by an AGENT performing an action(d) EXPERIENCER: the entity which is aware of the action of state described by thepredicate but which is not in control of the action or state(e) STIMULUS: entity causing an effect in the EXPERIENCER(f) BENEFICIARY: the entity for whose benefit the action was performed(g) THEME: the entity which is moved by an action, or whose location is described(h) SOURCE: the entity from which something moves, either literally or
metaphorically(i) GOAL: the entity towards which something moves, either literally or
metaphorically(j) LOCATION: the place in which something is situated[adapted from Huddleston & Pullum, 2002:230-233; Saeed, 2009:153-154]

Ko Jia Min Tabitha

Chinese-English Translation of Passive Constructions

Page 9 of 56

2.2 Variations and Translation

Norms are standards or models that provide guidelines on correct and appropriate
behavior within a community. Linguistically, norms are represented through thegrammatical features of a language. Without a doubt, distinct societal and cultural norms
would produce languages of varying linguistic structures. Often, the translation of one
language is unable to be an accurate representation of another.

For example, Irish has a type of passive construction identified as IMPERSONAL PASSIVE,
which forbids the mentioning of the AGENT argument (Saeed, 2009). Even though English
passive constructions allow the omission of the AGENT phrase, it seems that Irish IMPERSONALPASSIVES cannot be accurately translated into English.

(1)
(i)

Thug siad Siobhán abhaile inniu
brought theyJoanhome today‘they brought Joan home today’ (active)(ii)

Tugadhbrought-IMPERS

Siobhán abhaile inniu
Joanhome today‘Joan was brought home today’ (passive)[Saeed, 2009:173]

Similar to the Irish passive, the English passive translation in (1ii) does not state the
AGENT. However, the translation provided is not equivalent of its Irish counterpart. While,the English passive translation presented in (1ii) still adheres to the typical non-AGENT
promotion movement, the non-AGENT argument of the Irish passive is still in the OBJECT
position and has not been promoted to SUBJECThood (Saeed, 2009).

The visible discrepancies between SOURCE TEXTS (ST) and TARGET TEXTS (TT) have been
consistently noticed. Picchi and Peters (1997) observe that TT do not represent the fullrange of linguistic possibilities of the TARGET LANGUAGE (TL). Thus, translations have been

Ko Jia Min Tabitha

Chinese-English Translation of Passive Constructions

Page 10 of 56

viewed as either a mere reflection of the idiosyncrasies of the SOURCE LANGUAGE (SL) (Picchi etal., 1997), or an unrepresented unique variant of the TL itself (McEnery & Xiao, 2007).
Regardless, researchers have found and agreed that the translational language is different
from SL and TL (Frawley, 1984; Olohan & Baker, 2000).

A contrastive study on the encoding of possession in English and Spanish highlights
the issue of interlingual impoverishments (Sequeiros, 1998). Whilst English explicitly
encodes possession linguistically (i.e. (2)), Spanish seems to prefer implicitly encoding
possession (i.e. (3)).

(2) He puts his hand in his pocket(3) Semetió la mano en el bolsillo

3SG put the hand in the pocket‘He puts his hand in his pocket’ / ‘He puts the hand in the pocket’[Sequeiros, 1998:147]

Although Spanish is capable of explicitly encoding possession linguistically, an
inclination for implicitness has been observed in the possessive structures of Spanish(Gómez Torrego, 1992). Thus, despite the existence of a direct translation equivalent of (2)(i.e. (4)), (3) is more commonly used.

(4) Semetió

sumano ensu

bolsillo

3SG put 3SG.Poss hand in 3SG.Poss pocket‘He puts his hand in his pocket’[Sequeiros, 1998:147]

As a result, TT that undergo similar translation processes as (3) would bear anincreased ambiguity in their interpretations. Yet, a translation of (4) would be conspicuousand foreign in the TL. It seems, then, that either way the TT would be unable to comfortably
and accurately represent the ST in the TL.

Ko Jia Min Tabitha

Chinese-English Translation of Passive Constructions

Page 11 of 56

Studies comparing Chinese translated texts and Chinese NATIVE LANGUAGE TEXTS (NLT)
have also highlighted several lexical and syntactical differences between translations and
NLT. Recent research has found a significantly lower ratio of lexical to function words in
Chinese translations than Chinese NLT (Xiao, 2010). Likewise, a significantly lower
percentage of lexical density in Chinese fiction translations compared to Chinese fiction NLT
have been reported (Xiao & Yue, 2009). Results of past research have also indicated a higher
occurrence of conjunctions in Chinese translations than in Chinese NLT even though thefrequency of conjunctions varies according to genre (Xiao, 2010). In addition, the type of
conjunctions used, similarly, differs across translated texts and NLT. That is, formal
conjunctions are more common in Chinese NLT, while informal and simple conjunctions are
more frequent in Chinese translations (Xiao, 2010).

It seems, then, that there is a need to overcome translation constraints in order toachieve a balance between ST and TT. In attempts to attain translation equivalence,translators test and employ different strategies.

For example, translators may choose to imitate grammatical features of the SL, as in
the case of translating English nominal characterization to Spanish. English typically uses
pre-modifying adjectives (40%) for nominal characterization, and infrequently uses
prepositional of-phrases (5%) (Rabadán, Labrador & Ramón, 2009).

(5) A wonderful time(6) A day of celebration

On the other hand, nominal descriptions in Spanish are often illustrated throughprepositional de-phrases (33.97%), and occasionally marked by pre-modifying adjectives(5.59%) (Rabadán et al., 2009).

(7) El tiempo dethe timelaPP the party‘the time of the party’

Ko Jia Min Tabitha

fiestaChinese-English Translation of Passive Constructions

Page 12 of 56(8) Un buen momento
a ADJ moment‘a good moment’

However, results from the study show an overuse of pre-modifying adjectives(18.21%), and an underuse of prepositional de-phrase (16.23%) in English-Spanishtranslation texts (Rabadán et al., 2009). These results clearly show a conformation towards
SL norms.

Typically, once a strategy is proven successful, the linguistic choice will be repeatedlyused, and a general pattern would ensue (Yang & Li, 2003). Baker (1993) observes that,
despite having different SL and translators, all translations seem to share particular linguisticfeatures.

For instance, TT has been reported to show lower frequencies of language-specificelements. This phenomenon is known as the unique items hypothesis (Trikkonen-Condit,
2005; Rabadán et al., 2009). A contrastive study on the representation of past time in
English and Spanish provides a clear illustration. In order to express past time, English uses
unmarked past forms whilst Spanish requires a choice between the PRETERITE and the
IMPERFECT TENSE (Rabadán et al., 2009). In Spanish, the PRETERITE always implies absolute past,

but the IMPERFECT TENSE accounts for a wider array of meanings, including absolute past,anaphoric past, past habit, hypothetical past, progressive and irrealis (Rabadán, 2005). Yet,
English-Spanish translations show no evidence of the IMPERFECT TENSE as absolute past.
Instead, all instances of absolute past have been indicated only by the PRETERITE (Rabadán etal., 2009).

Many studies have also revealed other common features that TT tend to exhibit,
such as explicitation (Blum-Kulka, 1986; Toury, 1991), simplification (Blum-Kulka &Levenston, 1983; Laviosa-Braithwaite, 1996), conventionalization or normalization (Baker,
1996; Mauranen, 2007), and so on. These shared linguistic properties of translated

Ko Jia Min Tabitha

Chinese-English Translation of Passive Constructions

Page 13 of 56

languages, which differ from the native SL and TL, irrespective of the languages used, havebeen identified as TRANSLATION UNIVERSALS (TU) (Baker, 1993).

The influential power of translation and TU over time has been highlighted throughan investigation on passive constructions between English and Persian. While the common
function of English and Persian passives is to impersonalize, Persian adopts other devices,like the use of first person plural, to mark formality and objectivity (Amouzadeh & House,2010). However, comparison between texts from the early stages (1950-1965) and recent
periods (1995-2004) of translation revealed a significant increase in the use of passives intranslated and Persian NLT (Amouzadeh et al., 2010). Moreover, this increase in use ofpassive constructions is found to be strongly correlated with the decrease in use of first
person plural forms in NLT (Amouzadeh et al., 2010). This result suggests a probability that,over time, the native language may adopt the supposed norms of translated languages.

Therefore, contrastive analysis is crucial for the identification of translation patterns inorder to ease the achievement of translation equivalence between two distinct languages.
Furthermore, the recognition of translation patterns would provide a foundation for the
possibility of language change and its future research.

2.3 Passives and universality

A system where “contrasting forms differ in the way semantic roles are aligned with(grammatical) functions, normally with some concomitant marking on the verb” is titledvoice (Huddleston et al., 2002:1427). In brief, the voice categorization of a clause (i.e. activeor passive) is determined according to the alignment of roles with functions within theclause.

Generally, a clause headed by a grammatical SUBJECT with an active semantic role (e.g.
AGENT) is considered active (9). On the other hand, a clause headed by a syntactic SUBJECT

with a passive semantic role (e.g. PATIENT) is passive (10).

Ko Jia Min Tabitha

Chinese-English Translation of Passive Constructions

Page 14 of 56(9) Active
The child ate the candy.
(10) Passive
The candy was eaten by the child.

Historically, the term passive is derived from the past participle of a Latin Verb –“passus sum (having-suffered I-am, that is, ‘I have suffered’)” (Miller, 2002, p.26). Thus,
studies have indicated that the basic purpose of passive constructions is to highlight the
PATIENT and its affectedness (Xiao, McEnery & Qian, 2006).

However, not all clauses express action. As such, passive clauses that do not express
action would not have an AGENT phrase per se (Huddleston et al., 2002). In note of thisobservation, this paper would refer to all syntactic SUBJECTS with active semantic roles as
2

ACTOR instead of the frequently used AGENT.

Additionally, all syntactic SUBJECTS with passive

semantic roles will be referred to as UNDERGOER.3

Two main characteristics of passive constructions have been consistently reported
across languages. First, the NP referring to the affected participant is commonly placed at
the front of the clause (Miller, 2002). This is also known as argument promotion, where the
UNDERGOER argument is being promoted from OBJECT to SUBJECT position (Huang, 1999).

Second, the NP referring to the participant that commits the action (i.e. ACTOR) is
consequently perceived as insignificant and, in some cases, redundant. Research has shownthat approximately 95% of passive constructions omit the ACTOR NP (Miller, 2002). These‘ACTOR-less’ passive constructions are called SHORT PASSIVES (Biber, Johansson, Leech, Conrad& Finegan, 1999; Miller, 2002). On the other hand, passive constructions that mention the
ACTOR are known as LONG PASSIVES (Biber et al., 1999; Miller, 2002).

2

ACTOR is a general term applicable to AGENT, EXPERIENCER and other active semantic roles (Kailuweit & Hummel,

2004)
3

UNDERGOER is a general term applicable to PATIENT, THEME, RECIPIENT and other passive semantic roles (Kailuweit

et al., 2004)

Ko Jia Min Tabitha

Chinese-English Translation of Passive Constructions

Page 15 of 56

2.4 Passive constructions in Mandarin Chinese

Passive constructions in Mandarin Chinese have been widely discussed. Collectively, paststudies have proposed two ways of constructing passives in Mandarin Chinese. Firstly,
passive constructions in Mandarin Chinese can be overtly marked through the addition of apassive morpheme (Zhāng Yù Xiǎo, 2004). This type of passive construction is known as
SYNTACTIC PASSIVE (McEnery & Xiao, 2005).

The main purpose of the passive morpheme in syntactic passives is to mark the
UNDERGOER status of the subject (Methven, 2006). Typically, the passive morpheme is added

directly before the VERB. However, if the ACTOR NP is present, the passive morpheme shouldbe placed between the UNDERGOER SUBJECT NP and the ACTOR NP.

(11) UNDERGOER SUBJECT NP + PASSIVE MORPHEME (+ ACTOR NP) + VP

The most common type of SYNTACTIC PASSIVE is the BEI PASSIVE construction. While somehave viewed bèi (被) as a PREPOSITION (Wang, 1970; Li & Thompson, 1981; McCawley, 1992),
others have regarded it as a verb (Hsueh, 1989; Chiu, 1993; Ting, 1998; Bender, 2000).
However, Cann and Wu (2006) have refuted both claims and suggest that BEI has fully
grammaticalised from a lexical category to a functional category. The authors further
propose that the function of bèi is “(to signal) the preceding argument is the passive
recipient of the action” (Cann et al., 2006, p.38). Similarly, recent studies have observed that,in most passive constructions, bèi is a function word with no inherent meaning other thanto mark passive (McEnery et al., 2005; Xiao et al., 2006).

For the purpose of this study, bèi will be considered as a passive morpheme.

Ko Jia Min Tabitha

Chinese-English Translation of Passive Constructions

Page 16 of 56(12)(a) BEI PASSIVE
钱包

被

（小偷）

偷

了

qiánbāo bèixiǎotōu

tōu

lewallet PSV

thief

steal PART‘the wallet was stolen (by a/the thief)’(b) Active Counterpart
小偷

偷

了

钱包

xiǎotōu

tōu

le

qiánbāo

thiefsteal PARTwallet‘the thief stole the wallet’

Similar to English passives, the ACTOR NP in bèi passives can be disregarded or
mentioned. Likewise, SYNTACTIC PASSIVES with another passive morpheme, gěi (给), can also be
categorized as SHORT or LONG PASSIVES (Xiao et al., 2006).

(13)(a) GEI PASSIVE
弟弟

也

给

（公司）

辞

了

dìdì

yě

gěi

gōngsī

cí

le

also

PSV

company

terminatePARTyounger brother‘the younger brother was also fired (by the company)’(b) Active Counterpart
公司

也

辞

了

弟弟

gōngsī

yě

cí

le

dìdì

companyalso

terminate PART younger brother‘the company also fired the younger brother’Ko Jia Min Tabitha

Chinese-English Translation of Passive Constructions

Page 17 of 56

Apart from bèi and gěi, other SYNTACTIC PASSIVES include RANG PASSIVE, JIAO PASSIVE andWEI…SUO PASSIVE. However, these constructions seem to only appear with ACTOR arguments as
LONG PASSIVES (Shi, 1997; Tang, 2001; Xiao et al., 2006).

(14)(a) RANG PASSIVE
我

让

他

偷

了

四

块钱

wǒ

ràng

tā

tōu

le

sì

kuài qián

1SG PSV/allow 3SG steal PART four dollars‘I had four dollars stolen by him’/ ‘I had (allowed) him to steal four dollars’(b) Active Counterpart
他

偷

了

我

四

块钱

tā

tōu

le

wǒ

sì

kuài qián

3SG steal PART 1SG four dollars‘he stole my four dollars’(15)(a) JIAO PASSIVE
我

叫

他

偷

了

四

块钱

wǒ

jiào

tā

tōu

le

sì

kuài qián

1SG PSV/ tell

3SG steal PART four dollars‘I had four dollars stolen by him’/ ‘I told him to steal four dollars’(b) Active Counterpart
他

偷

了

我

的 四

块钱

tā

tōu

le

wǒ

de

kuài qiánsì

3SG steal PART 1SG de four dollars‘he stole my four dollars’

Ko Jia Min Tabitha

Chinese-English Translation of Passive Constructions

Page 18 of 56(16)(a) WEI…SUO PASSIVE
她

为

他 的

爱

所

感动

tā

wèi

tā de

ài

suó

gǎndòng

3SG PSV 3SG PART love PSV move (sb.)‘she was moved by his love’(b) Active Counterpart
他

的

爱

感动

了

她

tā

de

ài

gǎndòngletā

3SG PART love move (sb.) PART 3SG‘his love moved her’

Past studies have also observed that gěi is able to co-occur with bèi, jiào (叫) or ràng(让) in LONG PASSIVE constructions (Tang, 2001). In these constructions, gěi is said to function
more as an affectedness marker (AFF) as opposed to a passive morpheme (Tang, 2001). Thatis, the role of gěi is to intensify the affectedness of the UNDERGOER argument.
(17) 我妈wǒmāPOSS mom

被/叫/让

车 给

撞伤

了

bèi/jiào/ràng chē gěi zhuàngshāng
PSV

car AFF

injuredlePART‘my mom was injured by a car’[adapted from Xiao et al., 2006]

In addition, aside from marking passive, gěi, jiào and ràng have other grammatical
functions. While gěi can be used as either a verb expressing ‘to give’ or a PREPOSITION, jiào
can only be used as “a verb meaning ‘to call’ or ‘to order’” (Ross & Ma, 2006:103). Similarly,
ràng can only be used as a verb conveying permission (Ross et al., 2006). Due to their verbal
functions, the lack of a following OBJECT NP creates an ambiguous situation as gěi, jiào andràng can be interpreted as a passive morpheme or a verb (18). Usually, the context of thesituation helps alleviate the ambiguity and provide clarification.

Ko Jia Min Tabitha

Chinese-English Translation of Passive Constructions(18) 教授
jiàoshòu
professor

Page 19 of 56

让

学生

批评

了

ràng

xuésheng

pipingle

PSV/to allow students

to criticize PART‘the professor was criticized by the students’/ ‘the professor now allows thestudents to criticize’[Ross et al., 2006:103]

Secondly, passive constructions in Mandarin Chinese can also be covertly marked
through implicit semantics (Zhāng Yù Xiǎo, 2004). Past research has noted that a few LEXICALVERBS in Mandarin Chinese have an innate passive sense (Xiao et al., 2006). Constructions

with such VERBS like shòu (受), zāo (遭), and āi (挨) are known as AUTOMATIC PASSIVES (Zhāng
Zhì Gōng, 1953).

Aside from SYNTACTIC PASSIVES and AUTOMATIC PASSIVES, past studies have also observedthat some active constructions in Mandarin Chinese can likewise express a passive meaning(Kenneth, 1993). These unmarked passives are identified as NOTATIONAL PASSIVES.

Ko Jia Min Tabitha

Chinese-English Translation of Passive Constructions

Page 20 of 56

Types of Passives
SYNTACTIC PASSIVES

ExampleBEI SHORT PASSIVE

钱包

被

偷

了

qiánbāo bèi

tōu

le

wallet PSV steal PART‘the wallet was stolen’
BEI LONG PASSIVE

钱包

被

偷

了

qiánbāo bèi xiǎotōu tōu

lewallet

小偷

PSV thiefsteal PART‘the wallet was stolen by a/the thief’
GEI SHORT PASSIVE

他

也

给

辞

了

tā

yě

gěi

cí

le

3SG

also PSV

terminatePART‘he was also fired’
GEI LONG PASSIVE

他

也

给

公司

辞

了

tā

yě

gěi

gōngsī

cí

le

3SG

also PSV

company

terminatePART‘he was also fired by the company’
RANG PASSIVE

我

让

他

偷

了

四

块钱

wǒ

ràng

tā

tōu

le

sì

kuài qián

1SG

PSV

3SG steal PART four dollars‘I had four dollars stolen by him’
JIAO PASSIVE

我

叫

他

偷

了

四

块钱

wǒ

jiào

tā

tōu

le

sì

kuài qián

1SG

PSV

3SG steal PART four dollars‘I had four dollars stolen by him’
WEI…SUO PASSIVE

她

为

他 的

爱

所

感动

tā

wèi

tā de

ài

suó

gǎndòng

3SG PSV 3SG PART love PASS move (sb.) ‘
she was moved by his love’

Ko Jia Min Tabitha

Chinese-English Translation of Passive Constructions

Page 21 of 56

Types of Passives
AUTOMATIC PASSIVES

ExampleSHOU PASSIVE

一位

受

了

呵斥 的 小孩

yīwèi

shòu

le

hēchì de xiǎohǎi

PART

berate de child

one-CL suffer.PSV‘a child who has been berated’
ZAO PASSIVE

花园

有

遭

破坏

的

危险

huāyuányǒuzāopòhuàide wēixiǎn

gardenhave meet.PSV

destroy derisk‘the garden risked being destroyed anytime’
AI PASSIVE

她

早上

在

家

挨

了

打

tā zǎoshang

zài

jiā

āi

le

dǎ

3SG morning

at home suffer.PSVPART beat‘she was beaten at home this morning’
NOTATIONAL PASSIVES

鱼

吃

了

yú

chī

le

fish eat PART‘the fish has been eaten’

Table 1. Summary of Passive constructions in Mandarin Chinese
For the purpose of this study, only syntactic passives will be considered for analysis.

2.5 Passive constructions in English

In English, the passive clause is typically constructed syntactically with an auxiliary verb
and a passive participle (Miller, 2002). Firstly, the verb following the main auxiliary verb ismorphologically marked in past participle form (Klammer, et al., 2010). Secondly, theUNDERGOER of the sentence is promoted to grammatical SUBJECThood, while the ACTOR isdemoted. Thirdly, the demoted ACTOR is either absent or appears only as a prepositional
object with ‘by’ (Givón, 1993).

(19) UNDERGOER SUBJECT NP + VP (+ PREPOSITION + ACTOR NP)

Ko Jia Min Tabitha

Chinese-English Translation of Passive Constructions

Page 22 of 56

The only distinguishable syntactic feature between English passives would be the use ofdiffering auxiliary verbs (i.e. ‘be’ vs. ‘get’) functioning as the main verb (Givón, 1993). This
gives rise to two main types of English passives - (i) BE PASSIVE; (ii) GET PASSIVE.

Despite syntactic similarities, the BE PASSIVE and GET PASSIVE differ greatly semantically.
One of the major differences involves the notion of control or intent (Givón, 1993).
According to Lakoff (1971), control is retained by the demoted ACTOR of the BE PASSIVE, while
control is maintained by the promoted UNDERGOER of the GET PASSIVE. This is clearly illustrated
in constructions with purpose adverbs:(20) Sarah was kissed by Andy intentionally> Andy acted with intention to kiss*> Sarah acted with intention to be kissed(21) Sarah got kissed by Andy intentionally> Sarah acted with intention to be kissed*> Andy acted with intention to kiss

The difference in control preservation highlights the contrasting underlying nature of
the BE PASSIVE and GET PASSIVE. That is, the BE PASSIVE has a stative nature, while the GET PASSIVE
has a dynamic nature (Miller, 2002). The comparison of the following sentences (22-23)
would provide a clearer explanation.

(22) The cup was broken(23) The cup got broken

Due to the inherent static nature of be, (22) can be interpreted either as describing
the state in which the cup is, or an event in which someone broke the cup. In contrast, (23)can only be understood as describing an event in which someone broke the cup.

Ko Jia Min Tabitha

Chinese-English Translation of Passive Constructions

Page 23 of 56

According to Huddleston and Pullum (2002), passives constructed with be that
describe events are verbal BE PASSIVES (24); while passives constructed with be that describe astate are ADJECTIVAL PASSIVES (25). The authors further state that be in BE PASSIVES is a“catenative verb taking a bare verbal passive as complement” (p.1436). Conversely, be in
ADJECTIVAL PASSIVES functions as a copula with a predicative complement in a complex-

intransitive construction (Huddleston et al., 2002). Hence, the term ADJECTIVAL PASSIVE strictly
refers to the predicative complement.

(24) BE PASSIVES
The cup was broken by a strong wind(25) ADJECTIVAL PASSIVES
No one noticed that the cup was broken

Owing to ambiguous interpretations of be, BE PASSIVE is perceived as more apt withresultative sequences (26) while GET PASSIVE is more suitable for active, reflexive actions (27)(Givón, 1993).

(26)(a) Jean was found sleeping in the room(b) *Jean got found sleeping in the room(27)(a) Jane got dressed by herself(b) *Jane was dressed by herself

Additionally, the agentive nature of the GET PASSIVE seems to restrict its grammatical
SUBJECT to animacy. Studies have shown that the distribution of human and non-human
SUBJECTS is almost equivalent in BE PASSIVES, but biased towards human SUBJECTS in GET PASSIVES(Herold, 1986).4

4

Percentages of distribution of human and non-human subjects in BE PASSIVES are 54% and 46% respectively.
Percentages of distribution of human and non-human subjects in GET PASSIVES are 89% and 11% respectively.

Ko Jia Min Tabitha

Chinese-English Translation of Passive Constructions

Page 24 of 56

Moreover, in situations where the SUBJECT of the GET PASSIVE is non-human, andthereby itself inanimate and incapable of control, a human SUBJECT related to the inanimate
SUBJECT or event will either be given control, involved physically or emotionally, or affected

adversely (Lakoff, 1971).

(28)(a) My cookie was eaten by the hungry dog>The cookie was eaten by the hungry dog because it was very hungry*>The cookie was eaten by the hungry dog because I was inattentive(b) My cookie got eaten by the hungry dog>The cookie was eaten by the hungry dog because I was inattentive*>The cookie was eaten by the hungry dog because it was very hungry

Aside from passive constructions with auxiliary verbs be and get, English also has
another type of passive - BARE PASSIVE - that contains neither of these verbs (Huddleston et al.,2002). Nevertheless, the verbs of BARE PASSIVES are still in the past participle form, and are
restricted to subordinate clauses (Huddleston et al., 2002).

Previous studies have also mentioned that English passives can be reduced to PASTPARTICIPLE PHRASES for five functions: (i) Postnoun modifier (adjectival); (ii) Prenoun modifier(adjectival); (iii) Adjectival object complement; (iv) Pre- or postclause modifier (adverbial);and (v) Pre- or postclause modifier (ambiguous: adverbial or adjectival) (Klammer, et al.,2010).

Ko Jia Min Tabitha

Chinese-English Translation of Passive Constructions

Page 25 of 56

Types of Passives

ExampleVERBAL PASSIVESBE PASSIVEJohn was bitten (by a snake)

GET PASSIVEJohn got bitten (by a snake)

BARE PASSIVE

The man bitten by a snake was John
No one noticed that John was bitten

ADJECTIVAL PASSIVESPAST PARTICIPLE PHRASESPOSTNOUN MODIFIER(adjectival)
PRENOUN MODIFIER

The car parked behind the hospital belongs toJohn
Provoked snakes bite deeper into the wound(adjectival)
ADJECTIVAL OBJECT

The patients saw John rejected by the nurse

COMPLEMENT
PRE- or POSTCLAUSE

When bitten, John screamed

MODIFIER (adverbial)
PRE- or POSTCLAUSE
MODIFIER (ambiguous)

Refused a bed in the hospital, John decided toleave

Table 2. Summary of Passive constructions in English
2.6 Passives and Translation

Past research on English and Chinese passives has observed a higher frequency of
passives in English, and an avoidance of passives in Chinese (McEnery et al., 2005). The
authors further report that English passives are equally used in both static and dynamic
events, while Chinese passives seem to only be used in dynamic events. Another study
mentions that, in translation, adversative English passives describing dynamic events withclear passive action generally produce Chinese passives (Liu, 2001).

A study surrounding the Chinese translations of English passives discovered a higher useof passive constructions in Chinese translations than in Chinese NLT (Dai & Xiao, 2011). The
authors propose that the widespread use of passive constructions in Chinese translated
texts is a result of influence from the ST. That is, the popular use of passive constructions inEnglish seems to have an effect on the translated texts.

Ko Jia Min Tabitha

Chinese-English Translation of Passive Constructions

Page 26 of 56

Correspondingly, the above finding of increased number of passive constructions in TT
as opposed to NLT is consistently reported in another corpus-based study (Hung, 2011).
Analysis of passives in Chinese translated and Chinese native News texts reveals that themost common type of passive construction for both text types is the BEI PASSIVE. Nonetheless,the percentage of the frequency of BEI PASSIVE in Chinese translations (0.257%) seems todouble that in Chinese NLT (0.122%).

Apart from the BEI PASSIVE, the percentage scores for four other passive constructions,
namely RANG PASSIVE, SHOU PASSIVE, GEI PASSIVE, and ZAO PASSIVE, similarly indicate the extent of
their usage in Chinese NLT (Table 3). In relation to the percentage of frequency of the BEI
PASSIVE, the RANG PASSIVE is reportedly the second most common passive construction in

Chinese NLT. However, these results are not reinterpreted in Chinese translated texts.

Rather, the percentage of the frequency of the mentioned four other common passive
constructions in Chinese translated texts appear to largely differ. Furthermore, in relation to
the percentage of frequency of the BEI PASSIVE, the RANG PASSIVE is ranked the least common in
Chinese translated texts. Percentage scores of the other passives relative to the frequencyof the BEI PASSIVE are also lower in Chinese translations than in Chinese NLT. The author
concludes with the existence of a tendency for translators to translate all English BE PASSIVES
to Chinese BEI PASSIVE.

BEI PASSIVERANG PASSIVESHOU PASSIVEGEI PASSIVEZAO PASSIVE

Chinese Native Texts

0.122%

0.058%

0.035%

0.033%

0.022%

Translated Texts

0.257%

0.024%

0.156%

0.035%

0.029%

Table 3. Percentage of the frequency of common passive constructions[adapted from Hung, 2011, p.35]

3. Aim and Hypotheses

It appears that studies surrounding the translation of English and Chinese passive
constructions have largely focused on English-Chinese translations. Some have also
compared between Chinese NLT and TT. However, few have researched on Chinese-English

Ko Jia Min Tabitha

Chinese-English Translation of Passive Constructions

Page 27 of 56

translations. Therefore, this study aims to provide new insight on the translation of passive
constructions, particularly from Chinese to English.

In view of observations from past studies, the following hypotheses are proposed:i.

BEI++ hypothesis:
BEI PASSIVE to be most frequent in ST

ii.

RANG+ hypothesis:

Occurrence of RANG PASSIVE will be second to BEI PASSIVE in ST

iii.

BE+ hypothesis:

Tendency to translate Chinese passives to English BE PASSIVES, except when thepassive subject is to retain controliv.

GET-control hypothesis:
When control is retained by the passive SUBJECT, Chinese passives will betranslated to English GET PASSIVESv.

BY-ACTOR hypothesis:

Occurrence of demoted ACTOR in LONG PASSIVE translations only withprepositional BY-phrase

Additionally, results from past studies suggest a possibility of a translation trend, wheretranslations in TT would contain popular TL constructions (Sequeiros, 1998; Hung, 2011).
Thus, this study also seeks to suggest translation actions in aid of future Chinese-English
passive translations through visible translation patterns.

4. Methodology

In consideration of the objectives of this study, a multilingual parallel corpus was used.
Specifically, Chinese-English translation data was extracted from a Chinese-English

Ko Jia Min Tabitha

Chinese-English Translation of Passive Constructions

Page 28 of 56

multilingual corpus obtained from Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology(KAIST).

Created in 2005, the KAIST Chinese-English multilingual corpus contains American
English translations of sentences from a Mandarin Chinese textbook. Comprising ofapproximately 60 000 sentences, passive morphemes bèi, gěi, ràng, jiào and the wèi … suó(为…所) structure appeared in 4,127 sentences. After extraction, another 116 sentenceswere discovered to have no corresponding appropriate translation, and thereby ignored.
The remaining 4,011 sentences were retrieved for further analysis.

5. Analysis & Results

Amongst the 4,011 sentences extracted, gěi appeared the most (1,565 sentences) andthe wèi…suó structure occurred the least (47 sentences). Other passive morphemes like bèi
emerged in 1,452 sentences; ràng in 566 sentences; and jiào in 381 sentences.

However, out of the 4,011 sentences to be analyzed, many were considered active.

As previously mentioned, gěi, ràng and jiào have other grammatical functions besides
marking passivity. In addition, it has been reported that ambiguity arises in sentences wherethe verb does not precede an object phrase, and gěi, ràng and jiào can be perceived aseither a passive morpheme or a verb (Ross et al., 2006). Results from this study haveindicated the habitual and preferred use of gěi, ràng and jiào as main verbs instead of
passive morphemes. Further analysis has also observed that in ambiguous cases, sentenceswere commonly translated into active English sentences.

(29) 她
tā

让

他

吻

她

的

面颊

ràng tāwén

tāde miǎnjiá

3SG to let 3SG to kiss 3SG PART cheek‘she gave him her cheek to kiss’/ ‘she was kissed by him on the cheek’[Sentence code: 14841, CEKcorpus09, KAIST]Ko Jia Min Tabitha

Chinese-English Translation of Passive Constructions

Page 29 of 56

For example, two readings can be obtained from (29). The active interpretation
would be ‘she gave him her cheek to kiss’; while the passive interpretation would be ‘she
was kissed by him on the cheek’. However, the only translation present in the corpus was
the active counterpart. As no contextual cues were present to provide clarification, thesesentences with vague readings were considered as originally active.

Additionally, though bèi is prominently known to mark passive, there were 29 casesof bèi being used as part of an NP (e.g. 被单 bèi dān ‘bedsheet’). A study tracing thediachronic transformation of bèi notes that the original nominal sense of bèi is “blanket,
comforter” (Jiang, 2008:11). Observations of bèi as a nominal in this study further support
the author’s stance on the retention of the nominal sense of bèi in Contemporary Chinese
today.

Regarding elements in the wèi…suó structure, past studies have noted that, in
WEI…SUO PASSIVE, wèi marks the passivized ACTOR, while suó refers to the UNDERGOER (Jiang,

2008). However, individually, wèi (‘for/on behalf of’) can either be used as a PREPOSITION toindicate the BENEFICIARY or RECIPIENT, or a connective to introduce a desired effect or result(Ross et al. 2006). On the other hand, suó can function independently as a classifier (Ross etal., 2006), or with a relativized object in a relative clause (30) (Ting, 2003; Huang, 1999).
Thus, it is probable that parts of the data will subscribe to either one of the above
mentioned functions. This expectation is demonstrated in 14 sentences.

(30) 他

今年

所

出版

的 书

都 很

好

tā

jīnnián

suǒ chūbǎn de shū dōu hěn hǎo

3SG this year SUO publish DE book all very good‘Books which he has published this year are all very good’[Her, 2009:425]

Ko Jia Min Tabitha

Chinese-English Translation of Passive Constructions

Page 30 of 56(31) 她 为

她

所

受

的 冤屈

报复

tā wèitāsuǒ shòu de yuānqū bàofù

3SG for 3SG SUO suffer DE wrong avenge‘she avenged the wrong she had suffered’[Sentence code: 53131, CEKcorpus47, KAIST]

After eliminating sentences consisting of the above mentioned discrepancies, theremaining 1,544 pairs of sentences were considered to be originally passive.

PAST PARTICIPLE
BE

GET

BARE

ADJECTIVAL

ACTIVE

Total

NOUN
PHRASEBEI SHORT

810

15

21

6

65

33

25

975

BEI LONG

300

6

38

7

53

8

4

416

BEI…SUO

27

-

2

-

1

1

1

32

GEI SHORT

38

1

6

1

5

1

-

52

GEI LONG

13

-

5

-

8

-

-

26

ATYPICAL GEI

9

-

-

-

-

-

-

9

RANG

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

WEI…SUO

27

-

2

1

3

-

-

33

1225

22

74

15

135

43

30

1544

Total

Table 4. Summary of total number of passive constructions in ST and TT

In alignment with expectations (i.e. BEI++ hypothesis), the bèi passive morpheme wasmost frequently employed (1,423 sentences, 92.163%). Besides the 975 cases of BEI SHORTPASSIVES and 416 examples of BEI LONG PASSIVES accounted for, another passive structure

involving the bèi morpheme was uncovered – BEI…SUO PASSIVE (32 sentences).

(32) 他 被

人民

所

抛弃

tā bèi rénmín suó

pāoqì

3SG PASS people PSV

forsake‘he was forsaken by the people’[Sentence code: 9430, CEKcorpus03, KAIST]Ko Jia Min Tabitha

Chinese-English Translation of Passive Constructions

Page 31 of 56

A study investigating the diachronic and typology of Chinese passives reported adecline in the use of wèi…suó construction, and growth in the use of BEI PASSIVE in the Six
Dynasties (222AD - 589AD) (Jiang, 2008). One reason identified for the decline was that,during the Six Dynasties period, wèi started functioning as a true copula, and, consequently,
the wèi…suó structure became ambiguous between passive construction and cleft
construction (Jiang, 2008). By the Sue-Tang Dynasty (581AD-907AD), the widely accepted BEI
PASSIVE had seemingly replaced WEI…SUO PASSIVE (Jiang, 2008). Although at present the use of
WEI…SUO PASSIVE is limited to a handful of literary texts, it is highly possible that, in due time,

the sole function of wèi would be as a copula, and its passive function will be phased out bybèi. Thus, this paper submits that the occurrence of BEI…SUO PASSIVE is a result of thereplacement of wèi with bèi.

Contrary to previous findings and RANG+ hypothesis, RANG PASSIVE was not frequently
used. In fact, there was only one instance of RANG PASSIVE (0.065%). As RANG PASSIVES havebeen reported to be more common in colloquial genres than formal written genres (Xiao etal., 2006), it is suggested that the formal genre of the ST resulted in low frequency of RANGPASSIVE.

The second most employed passive construction was GEI PASSIVE. Sentences with gěi
occurred 87 times (5.635%). Out of which, there were 52 GEI SHORT PASSIVE and 26 GEI LONGPASSIVE. In addition, an atypical passive construction with gěi functioning as a PREPOSITION was

also found (9 sentences). In these instances, the UNDERGOER argument is still promoted togrammatical subjecthood, however, unlike typical passive constructions, there is no passive
morpheme. Additionally, the construction differs from NOTATIONAL PASSIVE as theinterpretation is unambiguously passive (33).5(33) 食物

分发

给

了

难民

Shíwù

fēnfā

gěi

le

nànmínfood

to distribute to (prep.) PART refugee‘the food was doled out to the refugees’[Sentence code: 8700, CEKcorpus03, KAIST]5

For referential purposes, this construction will be known as PREPOSITION GEI PASSIVE

Ko Jia Min Tabitha

Chinese-English Translation of Passive Constructions

Page 32 of 56

Furthermore, there were 33 cases of the WEI…SUO PASSIVE (2.137%). Unfortunately, no
examples of JIAO PASSIVE were found.

The translations of all 1,544 Mandarin Chinese passive constructions were varied.
Regardless of the type of passive construction used, the majority of Chinese passives weretranslated to the English BE PASSIVE (1,225 sentences; 79.339%). Few were translated to BARE
PASSIVE (74 sentences; 4.793%), and a handful were translated to GET PASSIVE (22 sentences;

1.425%). Moreover, 43 passive constructions were translated to PAST PARTICIPLE PHRASE(2.785%), and 15 sentences were translated to ADJECTIVAL PASSIVE (0.972%). There were also
135 cases of active translations from passive constructions (8.744%). It was further noticed
that only BEI PASSIVES were translated into English NOUNS (30 sentences; 1.943%).

The high frequency of English BE PASSIVE translations exhibited was expected andconsistent with BE+ hypothesis. Considering past observations of TT containing commonlyused TL structures, and the widespread use of BE PASSIVE in English (Huddleston et al., 2002),
this paper hypothesized a tendency for Chinese passives to be translated to BE PASSIVE.
Correspondingly, results from the study have supported this hypothesis. Further evaluations
have also indicated that regardless of the Chinese passive morpheme used or the type of
passive (i.e. LONG or SHORT), the preference is still evident.

In addition, the proposition of the occurrence of GET PASSIVE translations only insituations where the passive SUBJECT is to retain control (i.e. GET-control hypothesis) was
likewise proven. Generally, it was observed that when affected subjects in Chinese passives
are deserving of the affectedness, the passive would be translated to the English GET PASSIVE(34).

(34) 他tā因迟到 而 被yīn chídào ér

bèi

骂
mà

3SG cause late and PSV scold‘he got scolded for being late’[Sentence code: 13189, CEKcorpus07, KAIST]Ko Jia Min Tabitha

Chinese-English Translation of Passive Constructions

Page 33 of 56

Moreover, SUBJECTS of Chinese passives translated to GET PASSIVE were animate, withthe exception of one. These findings not only mirror the biasness towards animate SUBJECTS
in GET PASSIVES previously found (Herold, 1986), it is also in accordance to Lakoff’s control
proposition which states that the affected SUBJECT of GET PASSIVE retains control (1971). The
author further mentions that in situations where the SUBJECT of the GET PASSIVE is inanimate
and incapable of control, a related animate SUBJECT would either be given control, involved,
or affected adversely (Lakoff, 1971).

(35) 我 的 衣服
wǒ de

yīfu

被

钉

钩住

bèi dīng gōuzhù

1SG de clothes PSV nail hooked‘my dress got hitched on a nail’[Sentence code: 16448, CEKcorpus10, KAIST]The only exception case of an inanimate SUBJECT found consistently supports Lakoff’s
supposition. Looking at (35), the inanimate SUBJECT would be the ‘dress’, yet, the possessive
relation drawn to an animate subject (i.e. ‘my’) suggests that ‘I’ will be affected by what had
happened to the ‘dress’.

It is also constantly noticed that when passives function as a noun or clausal modifier
in Chinese, the passive clause will be favorably translated into a PAST PARTICIPLE PHRASE (36).

(36) …被

蒙住

眼睛

的

女人

bèi méngzhù yǎnjing de nǚrén
PSV

coveredeye

de woman‘…a blindfolded woman’[Sentence code: 32211, CEKcorpus 26, KAIST]

Seeing that the function of passives as a modifier in Chinese is relatively new and not
widely discussed, it is highly likely that the modifier function of passives arose from constantinteraction with English through translation. Previous studies have mentioned that, over

Ko Jia Min Tabitha

Chinese-English Translation of Passive Constructions

Page 34 of 56

time, translation could result in the adoption of features from other languages (Amouzadeh
et al., 2010; Teich, 2003). In view that English passives can be reduced to PAST PARTICIPLEPHRASE, this paper suggests that Chinese passives are beginning to adopt the reduction ofpassives to PAST PARTICIPLE PHRASE.

Irrespective of the overall translation variations, SHORT PASSIVES were respectivelytranslated to SHORT PASSIVES, and LONG PASSIVES were mostly translated to LONG PASSIVES.
However, the translation of demoted arguments present in LONG PASSIVES differed, and 81
cases of LONG PASSIVES translated to SHORT PASSIVES (i.e. ACTOR-less) were also found.

The most common prepositional phrase used to introduce the demoted argument
was the BY-phrase (256 sentences). However, in contrast to previous findings (Givón, 1993)
and the BY-ACTOR hypothesis, the introduction of the ACTOR phrase was not limited to BYphrases. Other PREPOSITIONS employed were WITH- (39 sentences), IN- (17 sentences), TO(11 sentences), UNDER- (9 sentences), ON- (7 sentences), AT- (6 sentences), FROM- (4sentences), OVER- (3 sentences), FOR- (1 sentences), and IN BETWEEN- (1 sentence).

BY-

256

WITH-

39

IN-

17

TO-

11

UNDER-

9

ON-

7

AT-

6

FROM-

4

OVER-

3

FOR-

1

IN BETWEEN-

1

Ø

6

81

Total

435

Table 5. Summary of PREPOSITIONS used with ACTOR phrase6Ø indicates a null ACTOR phrase translation (i.e. LONG PASSIVE is translated to SHORT PASSIVE)

Ko Jia Min Tabitha

Chinese-English Translation of Passive Constructions

Page 35 of 56

An in-depth examination on the translation of Chinese LONG PASSIVES to English SHORTPASSIVES (i.e. ACTOR-less) provided two distinct translation patterns. Firstly, an animate ACTOR

with a generic referential term (i.e. ‘人’ rén ‘people’) tends to be omitted in the translation
process (37).

进入

银行

时

被

人

看到

了

tāmen jìnrù

yínháng

shí

bèi

rén

kàndàole(37) 他们

3PL

to enter bankperiod PSV people seenPART

‘they were observed entering the bank’[Sentence code: 50039, CEKcorpus 44, KAIST]

Secondly, an inanimate ACTOR can be incorporated into the verb. That is, if acorresponding verb translation is capable of expressing the action and the ACTOR, theinanimate ACTOR will be fused into the verb. For example, the ACTOR ‘链子’ (liànzi ‘chain’) of(38) is translated to the verb “chain” which conveys both the action explicitly and the ACTOR
implicitly.
(38) 囚犯被链子 锁qíufànbèi

liànzi suǒ zàiyīqǐ

prisoner PSV

chain lock together

在一起‘the prisoners were chained together’[Sentence code: 8186, CEKcorpus02, KAIST]

Besides passive-to-passive translations, a small number of active-to-passive
translations were unexpectedly discovered (7 sentences). Past studies have mentioned that
Chinese active sentences can be translated into English passives for coherence or emphasison the OBJECT of the action (Xǔ Jiàn Píng, 2003). Additionally, the English language is believed
to employ more passive constructions than Chinese (McEnery et al., 2005). Due to the small
number of sentences retrieved and the lack of contextual information, it can only be
proposed that these occurrences are results of seeking coherence. Future in-depth studies
into this movement are suggested for a more detailed explanation.

Ko Jia Min Tabitha

Chinese-English Translation of Passive Constructions(39) 太阳和热tàiyáng gěi wǒmen guāng hé

rè

sun

给

give

我们

Page 36 of 56

1PL

光light and heat

‘heat and light are given to us by the sun’[Sentence code: 15529, CEKcorpus09, KAIST]

6. Discussion

Findings obtained from the study appear to highlight the relevance of Grice’s maxims of
conversational cooperation in the translation process. For example, the omission of ACTOR
phrases in LONG PASSIVES appears to support the Maxim of Quantity, which requires thecontribution of information to be precise without lack or excess (Saeed, 2009). A translationof ACTOR phrases with generic references would appear excessive, while the incorporation of
ACTOR phrases to related verbs is appropriate for a brief yet accurate delivery of information.

In addition, the Maxim of Manner, which stresses clarity and conciseness (Saeed, 2009),
seems to be widely applied in the translation process. For example, sentences with
ambiguous interpretations tend to be translated to the active voice. It is highly probablethat this recurrent process is favored because active constructions are considered to be
more basic and thereby easier to comprehend than passive constructions (Chomsky, 1965).
Seeing that translation is a communicational tool used to convey a wide variety of
information across countries, cultures and communities, the need to be lucid and succinct is
explicable.

Additionally, regardless of the passive morpheme used and the type of passive (i.e. SHORTor LONG), a few general tendencies have been found consistent in the translation of Chinese
passive constructions to English. A second examination was carried out to investigate if
these tendencies, specifically the translation of Chinese passives to GET PASSIVES if thepassivized subject retains control, were reflected in current machine translations available.
For this assessment, two free translation services available online, namely Google Translate
and hǎicí fānyì (海词翻译), were used. These systems engage in “statistical machinetranslation” by generating translations from detected patterns in existing translated

Ko Jia Min Tabitha

Chinese-English Translation of Passive Constructions

Page 37 of 56

documents (Google, 2012). Unfortunately, tendencies found in the present study were notmirrored.

Out of the 22 Chinese native sentences translated to GET PASSIVE in this study, 8translations from Google Translate, and 6 translations from hǎicí fānyì were ungrammatical.
Nevertheless, none of the remaining grammatical translations were GET PASSIVES. Instead,translations obtained were largely BE PASSIVE (40), and only a handful was BARE PASSIVE or
active translations (41).
(40) 他 左 腿
tā zuǒ tuǐ

被

烫伤

了

bèi tàngshāngle

3SG left leg PSV

scald

PART

‘he got burned on the left leg’‘his left leg was scalded’ (Google Translate)‘his left leg was burned’ (hǎicí fānyì)[Sentence code: 13855, CEKcorpus08, KAIST](41) 我 的 衣服
wǒ de

yīfu

钩住

了

bèi dīng gōuzhù

le

被

钉

1SG de clothes PSV nail hooked PART‘my dress got hitched on a nail’‘my clothes were nail hooked’ (Google Translate)‘my dress hitched on a nail hook’ (hǎicí fānyì)[Sentence code: 16448, CEKcorpus10, KAIST]Thus, this paper proposes two sets of translation action for future Chinese-English
passive translations (refer to Figure 1 & Figure 2). Specifically, Figure 1 is the proposed
action for the overall translation of Chinese passives to English; while, Figure 2 is the
proposed action for the translation of ACTOR phrases from Chinese LONG PASSIVES to English.

Ko Jia Min Tabitha

Chinese-English Translation of Passive Constructions

Page 38 of 56

6.1 Overall Translation of Chinese Passives to English

Before the translation of Chinese passives occurs, it is suggested that the voice (i.e.
active or passive) of a sentence be determined first.7 If the sentence is deemed ambiguous,
an active translation should follow. Conversely, should the sentence be passive, the next
step would be to consider if any relations of possession are expressed. In situations whereindividual ownership is expressed in the passive SUBJECT NP, an active translation ensues (42).
(42) 他 的 皮夹

被

偷

了

tā de píjiā

bèi

tōu

le

3SG de wallet PSV steal PART‘he had his wallet stolen’[Sentence code: 10096, CEKcorpus04, KAIST]

Alternatively, if no relation of possession is expressed, the translator would need toconsider if the passive construction in Chinese is acting as a modifier of a noun or a clause,or not. If the Chinese passive is functioning as a modifier, it can be translated as a NOUN or a
PAST PARTICIPLE PHRASE. Bearing in mind that translation is sometimes dependent on atranslator’s individual preference; the choice of the TL construction to be used at this stage
is left at the translator’s discretion. However, as past studies have highlighted a translationpreference for familiar TL constructions, this paper suggests that Chinese passives
functioning as modifiers be translated to English PAST PARTICIPLE PHRASES, since the reductionof English passives to PAST PARTICIPLE PHRASE for modification is common (Klammer, et al.,2010).

On the contrary, if the Chinese passive is simply a passive sentence, this paper
asserts that Grice’s conversational maxims be observed. Thus, the translator is required tolook for contextual cues to determine an appropriate focus for coherence. Should a focus on
the ACTOR or action be found suitable, an active translation or NOUN translation should follow
accordingly. Otherwise, a passive translation should prevail.

7

Due to the focus of this paper, the sets of translation action provided only adhere to sentences with passive
only interpretations and ambiguous interpretations (i.e. active or passive)

Ko Jia Min Tabitha

Chinese-English Translation of Passive Constructions

Page 39 of 56

Prior to the selection of an appropriate TL passive construction, two areas must be
considered. Firstly, the dynamicity of the Chinese passive must be determined. If the passive
construction describes a state of the passive subject (i.e. stative), an ADJECTIVAL PASSIVE
translation should ensue (43). However, if the Chinese passive is considered dynamic, thenotion of control must then be judged. If the passive subject retains control, a GET PASSIVE
translation should be opted. In contrast, if control is awarded to other roles, the translator
can choose between a BE PASSIVE translation and BARE PASSIVE translation. Nevertheless, due tothe widespread use of the BE PASSIVE in English, this paper recommends the choice of the BE
PASSIVE translation.

(43) 我宣布 威廉·琼斯被wǒ xuānbù wēilián qióngsī bèi
1SG declare William Jones

PSV选中xuǎnzhòng
elect‘I declare William Jones elected’[Sentence code: 56947, CEKcorpus51, KAIST]

Secondly, the type of Chinese passive (i.e. SHORT or LONG) must also be deliberated.
Results have suggested that a SHORT PASSIVE can only be translated to another SHORT PASSIVE,
while a LONG PASSIVE can be translated either to a SHORT or LONG PASSIVE. In order to decide if a
LONG PASSIVE should be translated to a LONG or SHORT PASSIVE (i.e. ACTOR-less), another set ofaction has been proposed (Figure 2).

Ko Jia Min Tabitha

Chinese-English Translation of Passive Constructions

Page 40 of 56

Figure 1. Proposed translation action for Chinese-English passive translation

Ko Jia Min Tabitha

Chinese-English Translation of Passive Constructions

Page 41 of 56

Figure 2. Proposed translation action for Chinese-English LONG PASSIVE translation

Ko Jia Min Tabitha

Chinese-English Translation of Passive Constructions

Page 42 of 56

6.2 Translation of Mandarin Chinese LONG PASSIVESWith regards to the translation of the ACTOR in LONG PASSIVES, this paper has found nocorrelation between the PREPOSITIONS used in the Mandarin Chinese ST and English TT.
However, other factors influencing the translation of the ACTOR will be subsequently
discussed further.

In administering the translation of ACTOR phrases in LONG PASSIVES, the animacy of the
ACTOR must first be distinguished. If the ACTOR is animate, and has a generic reference, the
LONG PASSIVE will be translated into a SHORT PASSIVE (i.e. the ACTOR will be omitted). However, if

the ACTOR is animate, but has a non-generic reference, the ACTOR will then appear as part of a
prepositional phrase. Specifically, an ACTOR accompanying the UNDERGOER in its affectedness
will be attached to WITH- (46), while a non-comitative ACTOR will be assigned to BY- (47).

(44) 那 名

年轻

歌星 被

兴奋

得

少女们

团团围住

nà míng niánqīng gēxīng bèi

xīngfèn dé shàonǚmen tuántuánwéizhù

that CL young singer PSV

excited degirl.PLsurround‘the young singer was ringed about with excited girls’[Sentence code: 24447, CEKcorpus18, KAIST](45) 我

被

他

绊倒

了

wǒ

bèi

tā bàndǎole

1SG PSV 3SG tripPART

‘I was tripped by him’[Sentence code: 16037, CEKcorpus10, KAIST]

Should an inanimate ACTOR be stated in the Chinese passive, the ACTOR phrase can betranslated implicitly or explicitly. That is, in accordance with Grice’s Maxim of Quantity, if
the implicit translation of the ACTOR would provide a simple, appropriate representation of
the Chinese passive, a SHORT PASSIVE would result. On the other hand, if explicit translation isnecessary, and there is (physical or metaphorical) contact between the ACTOR and the
UNDERGOER, the ACTOR would then be introduced by the PREPOSITION ON- (46).

Ko Jia Min Tabitha

Chinese-English Translation of Passive Constructions(46) 我 的 衣服
wǒ de

钉

钩住

了

bèi dīng gōuzhù

le

被

yīfu

Page 43 of 56

1SG de clothes PSV nail hooked PART‘my dress got hitched on a nail’[Sentence code: 16448, CEKcorpus10, KAIST]In the event where there is no contact between the ACTOR and the UNDERGOER, the
ACTOR phrase could then be analysed as an instrument, a location or a direction.

If the ACTOR is identified as an entity that causes the affectedness of the UNDERGOER (i.e.
instrument), the instrument would then be introduced with a WITH-phrase or a BY-phrase.
When the instrument expresses the manner of the state of the UNDERGOER, a WITH-phrase
will be translated (47). Else, a BY-phrase will be used.

被

泥

堵住

了

páishuǐguǎn bèi

ní

dŭzhù

le

(47) 排水管

drain

PSV mud choke PART‘the drain was choked with mud’[Sentence code: 7625, CEKcorpus01, KAIST]

When the causation results in a (physical or metaphorical) locative space,
PREPOSITIONS UNDER- (48), AT- (49) and IN (BETWEEN)- (50-51) can be engaged.

(48) 书架 被

厚重

的

书

shūjià bèi hòuzhòng de shū
shelf PSV

heavy

压 得

凹陷 下去

yā dé āoxiàn xiàqù

de book press de

sag down‘the shelf is yielding under the heavy books’[Sentence code: 47449, CEKcorpus41, KAIST](49) 我们被wǒmen bèi
1PL

大 雾

困

在 伦敦

机场

达 十二

小时

dà wù kùn zài lúndūn jīchǎng dá shier xiǎoshí

PSV big fog trap in London airport to twelve hours‘We were fogbound at London Airport for 12 hours’[Sentence code: 29046, CEKcorpus23, KAIST]Ko Jia Min Tabitha

Chinese-English Translation of Passive Constructions(50) 船冰被chuán bèi
boatPage 44 of 56

封住…

bīng fēngzhù

PSV icelock‘the ship was locked in ice’[Sentence code: 40204, CEKcorpus34, KAIST](51) 我们 的汽车 被wǒmen de qìchē bèi
1PL

de

两

辆

卡车 夹 在中间liǎng liàng kǎchē jiá zài zhōngjiā

car PSV two CL truck clip in

middle‘Our car was sandwiched in between two trucks’[Sentence code: 55537, CEKcorpus49, KAIST]

On occasions where causation entails a (physical or metaphorical) movement, thedirection of the movement would determine the PREPOSITION used. For example, a movementaway from the ACTOR (i.e. source) would be highlighted by a FROM-phrase (52). While the
ACTOR phrase would be translated with TO-, when movement is made towards the ACTOR (53).

The use of PREPOSITION OVER- would denote the path taken by the UNDERGOER as a result of
the caused event (54).

(52) 那 个

男生

被

学校

开除

了

nà gè nánshēng béi

xuéxiào kāichú lethat CLschoolboy

PSV

expel PART‘the boy was expelled from school’[Sentence code: 43907, CEKcorpus38, KAIST](53) 他 被tā bèi警方传讯jǐngfāng

chuánxùn

3SG PSV police

summon (for interrogation)‘he was required to report to the police’[Sentence code: 9394, CEKcorpus03, KAIST]Ko Jia Min Tabitha

Chinese-English Translation of Passive Constructions

Page 45 of 56(54) 他

被

树根

绊

了

一跤

tā

bèi

shùgēn bàn

leyījiāo3SG PSVroot

trip PARTfall‘he tripped over a root and fell’[Sentence code: 9441, CEKcorpus03, KAIST]

Although FOR- was also used as a means to introduce the ACTOR, it was only limited to
one example. As such, the generalisation for FOR- could not be made. On the other hand,though IN BETWEEN- similarly occurred once, it was grouped with IN- as both PREPOSITIONS
largely express containment.

Apart from contributions from the ST, this study has also found that the choice of
PREPOSITION for the introduction of the ACTOR phrase is, at times, dependent on the rules of

the English grammar (i.e. TL rules).

(55) 他

因

驾车

tā

yīn

jiàchē chāosù

3SG because drive

超速

speed

被

法院

bèi fǎyuàn

传讯chuánxùn

PSV court summon (for interrogation)‘he was hauled in to court for speeding’[Sentence code: 51604, CEKcorpus45, KAIST]

It has been noted that some VERB + PREPOSITION combinations in English are specific innature. That is, the selection of the PREPOSITION is strictly reliant on the verb. These exclusive
VERB + PREPOSITION combinations are commonly known as PREPOSITIONAL VERBS (Huddleston etal., 2002) or PHRASAL VERBS (Rundell & Fox, 2005). For example, in (55), the PREPOSITION ‘in’ isparticularly chosen by the verb ‘haul’ to express the idea of making someone appear in court(Rundell et al., 2005). In this case, no other PREPOSITION would be a suitable replacement.

Ko Jia Min Tabitha

Chinese-English Translation of Passive Constructions

Page 46 of 56

7. Conclusion

Similar to past studies, the most common Mandarin Chinese passive construction
identified in NLT is BEI PASSIVE. Other Chinese passives found were GEI PASSIVE, RANG PASSIVE andWEI…SUO PASSIVE. Contrary to past results, GEI PASSIVE as opposed to RANG PASSIVE was thesecond most frequent passive construction. Additionally, two new types of passive
constructions were noted, namely BEI…SUO PASSIVE and PREPOSITION GEI PASSIVE. Chinese
passives were also observed to be reduced to PAST PARTICIPLE PHRASES. This act of reduction issuggested to be an influence of interlingual translation between English and Chinese, and an
adoption of TL norms. Future research can seek to expand on the development andtranslation of BEI…SUO PASSIVE, PREPOSITION GEI PASSIVE and reduced Chinese passives.

In relation to TT, the most frequent passive translation found was BE PASSIVE. Parallel topast research, GET PASSIVES were employed when passive subjects were to retain control.
However, unlike past analysis, other translations observed were BARE PASSIVE, ADJECTIVALPASSIVE, NOUN and PAST PARTICIPLE PHRASE. Active translations of passives were also found.

Additionally, this paper has observed that the ACTOR phrase in LONG PASSIVES can be
introduced by PREPOSITIONS other than BY-. Aside from conditions provided by the SL fortranslation actions, the contribution of TL grammar to translations has also been noticed.

Furthermore, an examination investigating the suitability of current machinetranslations indicated a lack of appropriate translations. Thus, two sets of actions for
Chinese-English passive translation have been proposed. These sets of actions are suggested
to be applied together with Grice’s maxims of conversational cooperation in translation.
Further research centering the application of these translation actions on machinetranslators is suggested.

Due to the limited scope of this paper, further research on Chinese-English passive
translation examining other types of passive constructions is recommended.

Ko Jia Min Tabitha

Chinese-English Translation of Passive Constructions

Page 47 of 56

References

Amouzadeh, M. & House, J. (2010). Translation as a language contact phenomenon: Thecase of English and Persian passives, Languages in contrast, 10(1), 54-75.

Baker, M. (1993). Corpus linguistics and translation studies – Implications and applications.
In M. Baker, G. Francis & E. Togini-Bonelli (Eds.), Text and technology: In honour ofJohn Sinclair (pp.233-250). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Baker, M. (1996). Corpus-based translation studies: The challenges that lie ahead. In H.
Somers (Ed.), Terminology, LSP and translation studies in language engineering: In
honour of Juan C. Sager (pp.175-186). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Batzarov, Z. (2000). Linguistic Terms. Orbis Latinus. Retrieved November 4, 2012, fromhttp://www.orbilat.com/General_References/Linguistic_Terms.html.

Bender, E. (2000). The syntax of Mandarin BA: Reconsidering the verbal analysis, Journal of
East Asian Languages, 9(2), 105-145.

Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of
spoken and written English. London: Longman.

Blum-Kulka, S. (1986). Shifts of cohesion and coherence in translation. In J. House & S. BlumKulka (Eds.), Interlingual and intercultural communication: discourse and cognition intranslation and second language acquisition studies (pp.17-35). Tübingen: Gunter
Narr.

Blum-Kulka, S. & Levenston, E.A. (1983). Universals of lexical simplification. In C. Faerch & G.
Kasper (Eds.), Strategies in interlanguage communication (pp.119-139). London/New
York: Longman.

Ko Jia Min Tabitha

Chinese-English Translation of Passive Constructions

Page 48 of 56

Cann, R. & Wu, Y. (2006). The dynamic syntax of Chinese passive constructions. Unpublished
Master’s Thesis. University of Edinburgh & University of Hong Kong.

Chiu, B. (1993). The inflectional structure of Mandarin Chinese. PhD Dissertation. Universityof California, Los Angeles.

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of a theory of syntax. Cambridge: M.I.T.

Crystal, D. (2008). Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Dai, G. & Xiao. Z. (2011). “SL shining through” in translational language: A corpus-based
study of Chinese translation of English passives, Translation Quarterly, 62, 85-108.

Frawley, W. (1984). Prolegomenon to a theory of translation. In W. Frawley (Ed.),
Translation: Literary, linguistic and philosophical perspectives (pp.159-175). Newark:
University of Delaware Press.

Givón, T. (1993). English grammar: A function-based introduction, Vol. 2. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins Publishing Company.

Gómez Torrego, L. (1992). Valores gramaticales de ‘se’. Madrid : Arco Libros.

Google. (2012). About Google Translate. Retrieved 12 November, 2012, fromhttp://translate.google.com/about/intl/en_ALL/.

Her, O.-S. (2009). Unifying the long passive and the short passive: On the Bei construction in
Taiwan Mandarin, Language and Linguistics, 10(3), 421-470.

Herold, R. (1986). A quantitative study of the alternation between BE- and GET-passives.
Paper presented at the 15th New Ways of Analyzing Variation (NWAV) Conference,
Stanford University.

Ko Jia Min Tabitha

Chinese-English Translation of Passive Constructions

Page 49 of 56

Hsueh, F.F.-S. (1989). The structural meaning of ba and bei constructions in Mandarin
Chinese. In J.H.-Y. Tai & F.F.-S. Hsueh (Eds.), Functionalism and Chinese grammar(pp.95-125). South Orange: Chinese Language Teachers Association.

Huang, C.-T.J. (1999). Chinese passives in comparative perspective, Tsing Hua Journal of
Chinese studies, New series 29(4), 423-509.

Huddleston, R. & Pullum, G.K. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. UK:
Cambridge University Press.

Hung, C.-H. (2011). Corpus-based analysis for English-Chinese translation of passives in VOA
news, Compilation of Translation Review, 4(2), 25-53.

Jiang, H. (2008). Diachrony and typology: The case of passive constructions in Chinese.
Unpublished Manuscript. Rice University, Houston. Retrieved 5 October, 2012, fromhttp://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~hj3/pub/passive_in_chinese.pdf.

Kailuweit, R. & Hummel, M. (2004). Semantische Rollen. Germany: Gunter Narr Verlag.

Kenneth, W. (1993). The Columbia guide to standard American English. New York: Columbia
University Press.

Klammer, T.P., Schulz, M.R., Della Volpe, A. (2010). Analyzing English Grammar, Sixth Edition.
New York: Pearson Education, Inc.

Lakoff, R. (1971). Passive Resistance. In Chicago Linguistic Society (Ed.), Papers from theseventh regional meeting of Chicago Linguistic Society (pp.149-162). Chicago:
Chicago Linguistic Society.

Laviosa-Braithwaite, S. (1996). The English comparable corpus (ECC): A resource and amethodology for the empirical study of translation. Unpublished PhD Thesis. UMIST,Manchester.

Ko Jia Min Tabitha

Chinese-English Translation of Passive Constructions

Page 50 of 56

Li, C.N. & Lang, R. (1979). The syntactic irrelevance of an Ergative case in Enga and other
Papuan languages. In F. Plank (ed.), Ergativity: Towards a theory of grammatical
relations (pp.307-345). London/New York: Academic Press.

Li, C.N. & Thompson, S.A. (1981). Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar.
Berkeley: University of California Press.

Liu, M. (2001). Yingyu beidong yutai de yuyong fenxi ji qi fanyi [Translation and Analysis of
the Translation of English Passive Voice], Chinese Science and Technology Translators
Journal, 14(1), 1-4.

Mauranen, A. (2007). Universal tendencies in translation. In M. Rogers & G. Anderman (Eds.),
Incorporating corpora. The linguist and the translator (pp.32-48). Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.

McCawley, J.D. (1992). Justifying part-of-speech assignments in Mandarin Chinese, Journalof Linguistics, 20(2), 211-246.

McEnery, A.M. & Xiao, R. (2005). Passive constructions in English and Chinese: A corpusbased contrastive study, Proceedings from the Corpus Linguistics Conference Series,
1(1), Birmingham, UK.

McEnery, T. & Xiao, R. (2007). Parallel and comparable corpora: What is happening? In M.
Rogers & G. Anderman (Eds.), Incorporating corpora. The linguist and the translator(pp.18-31). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Methven, A. (2006). Voice changes in translation – a comparative study of active and passive
voice in Chinese and English. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. SOAS, London. Retrieved
5 October, 2012, from http://www.translationdirectory.com/articles/article1457.php.

Ko Jia Min Tabitha

Chinese-English Translation of Passive Constructions

Page 51 of 56

Miller, J. (2002). An introduction to English syntax. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University PressLtd.

Olohan, M. & Baker, M. (2000). Reporting that in translated English: Evidence forsubconscious processes of explicitation?, Across Languages and Cultures, 1(2), 141158.

Picchi, E. & Peters, C. (1997). Reference corpora and lexicons for translators and translation
studies. In A. Trosberg (Ed.), Text typology in translation (pp.247-274).
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Rabadán, R. (2005). The applicability of description: Empirical research and translation tools,
Contemporary problematics of translation studies. Revista canaria de estudios
Ingleses, 51, 51-70.

Rabadán, R., Labrador, B. & Ramón, N. (2009). Corpus-based contrastive analysis: A tool fortranslation quality assessment English- Spanish?, Babel, 55(4), 303-328.

Ross, C. & Ma, J.-H.S. (2006). Modern Mandarin Chinese grammar: A practical guide. London
and New York: Routledge.

Rundell, M. & Fox, G. (Eds.). (2005). Macmillan phrasal verbs plus. UK: Macmillan Education.

Saeed, J.I. (2009). Semantics, Third Edition. UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

Sequeiros, X.R. (1998). Interlingual impoverishment in translation, Bulletin of Hispanic
Studies, 75(1), 145-157.

Shi, D. (1997). Issues on Chinese passives, Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 25, 41-70.

Tang, S. (2001). A complementation approach to Chinese passives and its consequences,
Linguistics, 39(2), 257-295.

Ko Jia Min Tabitha

Chinese-English Translation of Passive Constructions

Page 52 of 56

Teich, E. (2003). Cross-linguistic variation in system and text: A methodology for theinvestigation of translations and comparable texts. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Ting, J. (1998). Deriving the bei-construction in Mandarin Chinese, Journal of East Asian
Languages, 12(2), 121-139.

Ting, J. (2003). The nature of the particle SUO in Mandarin Chinese, Journal of East Asian
Languages, 12, 121-139.

Trikkonen-Condit, S. (2005). Do unique items make themselves scarce in translated Finnish?
In K. Károly & Á. Fóris (Eds.), New trends in translation studies. In honour of Kinga
Klaudy (pp.177-189). Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.

Toury, G. (1991). Experimentation in translation studies: Achievements, prospects and some
pitfalls. In S. Tirkkonen-Condit (Ed.), Empirical research in translation andintercultural studies (pp.45-66). Tübingen: Gunter Narr.

Wang, P.C.-T. (1970). A transformational approach in Chinese Ba and Bei. PhD Dissertation.
University of Texas, Austin.

Xiao, R. (2010). How different is translated Chinese from native Chinese: A corpus-based
study of translation universals, International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15(1), 5-35.

Xiao, R., McEnery, T. & Qian, Y. (2006). Passive construction in English and Chinese: A
corpus-based contrastive study, Languages in Contrast, 6(1), 109-149.

Xiao, R. & Yue, M. (2009). Using corpora in translation studies: The state of the art. In P.
Baker (Ed.), Contemporary Corpus Linguistics (pp.237-262). London: Continuum.

Ko Jia Min Tabitha

Chinese-English Translation of Passive Constructions

Page 53 of 56

许建平 Xǔ Jiàn Píng. (2003). 英汉互译实践与技巧 yīng hàn hùyì shíjiàn yǔ jìqiǎo [Apractical course of English-Chinese and Chinese-English translation, Second Edition].
Beijing: Tsinghua University Press.

Yang, C.C. & Li, K.W. (2003). Automatic construction of English/Chinese parallel corpora,
Journal of the American society for information science and technology, 54(8), 730742.

张欲晓 Zhāng Yù Xiǎo (2004). 浅谈英语被动语态的汉译技巧 qiǎntán yīngyŭ bèidòng yŭtài
de hànyì jìqiǎo [On the translation skills of English passive voice into Chinese],
Journal of the Department of Foreign Languages, Shenyang Normal University, 28(2),110-114.

张志公 Zhāng Zhì Gōng (1953). 汉语语法常识 hànyŭ yŭfǎ chángshí [Elementary knowledgeof Chinese grammar]. Beijing: Chinese Youth Publishing House.

Ko Jia Min Tabitha