Two Types of Pseudo-Passives
Two Types of Pseudo-Passives
复制标题
两种类型的伪被动
DOI：
10.1163/9789004531369
复制
发表时间：
2002
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Hiroaki Konno
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Y. Kobukata;Hiroaki Konno
本研究关注的是伪被动句（或介词被动句），其中介词的宾语是被动的，而不是动词的宾语。(1)这间办公室以前从来没有人在里面工作过。（Takami（1992：127））本文的目的是表明，从信息的角度来看，伪被动句分为两种类型，并认为Takami（1992）提出的伪被动句的表征条件（以下简称CCPP）只适用于两种类型中的一种，因此在经验上是不充分的。Takami（1992：126）对CCPP的定义如下：（2）如果主语被句子的其余部分表征，即如果句子作为一个整体充当主语的表征，则伪被动句是可以接受的。否则，它被认为是不可接受的，或者充其量是微不足道的。根据Takami（1992：127），（1）是可以接受的，因为没有人在办公室工作过，这一事实适当地描述了它;（1）告诉我们，完全未使用的办公室不是一个旧办公室，而是一个全新的办公室。因此，它完全符合CCPP。让我们继续一个不可接受的情况：（3）* 办公室是在工作。（Takami（1992：89））Takami（1992：127）对（3）的不可接受性给出了以下解释：仅仅某人在办公室工作的事实不足以描述它。（3）因此未能履行CCPP，导致不可接受性。从到目前为止的讨论中可以很容易地推断出，CCPP似乎基本上与信息要求同义，即在伪被动句中，主语是句子的主题，句子的其余部分是对主题的评论，并且评论传达的信息足够丰富以表征主题。如果我们对CCPP的理解是正确的，那么下面的概括就不言自明了：（4）所有的伪被动句都是主题评论句。(1)事实上似乎被解释为主题评论句，符合（4）的预测，而（3）虽然也被解释为主题评论句，但被排除在外，理由是所做的评论信息量不够。还要注意的是，下面的概括是自动遵循的，因为主题评论句在信息上或功能上与事件报告句形成对比，后者将整个句子作为新信息引入话语领域：（5）没有充当事件报告句的伪被动句。然而，仔细观察就会发现，（4）和（5）都根本没有得到证实;有一些伪被动句充当事件报告句子。
This study is concerned with pseudo-passives (or prepositional passives), where the object of a preposition, not of a verb, is passivised. (1) This office has never been worked in before. (Takami (1992:127)) The purpose of this paper is to show that from an informational viewpoint pseudo-passives are divided into two types and to argue that the Characterization Condition for Pseudo-Passives (henceforth, CCPP), which Takami (1992) proposes, holds true only for one of the two types and therefore is empirically insufficient. Takami (1992:126) defines the CCPP as follows: (2) A pseudo-passive sentence is acceptable if the subject is characterized by the rest of the sentence; namely, if the sentence as a whole serves as a characterization of the subject. Otherwise, it is found unacceptable, or marginal at best. According to Takami (1992:127), (1) is acceptable because the fact that no one has ever worked in an office appropriately characterizes it; (1) tells us that being completely unused, the office is not an old office but a brand new one. Thus it adequately fulfills the CCPP. Let us proceed to an unacceptable case: (3) * The office was worked in. (Takami (1992:89)) Takami (1992:127) gives the following explanation for the unacceptability of (3): The mere fact that someone worked in an office does not suffice to characterize it. (3) therefore fails to fulfill the CCPP, resulting in the unacceptability. As is easily inferred from the discussion so far, the CCPP seems essentially synonymous with an informational requirement that in a pseudo-passive sentence, the subject be the topic of the sentence, the rest of the sentence be a comment on the topic, and the information conveyed by the comment be rich enough to characterize the topic. If our understanding of the CCPP is on the right truck, then the following generalization suggests itself: (4) All pseudo-passives are topic-comment sentences. (1) in fact seems to be interpreted as a topic-comment sentence, conforming to what is predicted by (4), while (3), though also interpreted as a topic-comment sentence, is excluded on the grounds that the comment was worked in is not informative enough. Note also that the following generalization automatically follows because topic-comment sentences informationally or functionally contrast with event-reporting sentences in that the latter introduce a sentence as a whole as new information into the universe of discourse: (5) There are no pseudo-passives that function as event-reporting sentences. A closer look, however, reveals that neither (4) nor (5) is borne out at all; there are pseudo-passives which function as event-reporting sentences.