Where Centering Meets Chinese Discourse [1st ed.] 9789811586651, 9789811586668

Citation preview

Saina Wuyun

Where Centering Meets Chinese Discourse

Where Centering Meets Chinese Discourse

Saina Wuyun

Where Centering Meets Chinese Discourse

123

Saina Wuyun Shaanxi Normal University Xi’an, China

ISBN 978-981-15-8665-1 ISBN 978-981-15-8666-8 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8666-8

(eBook)

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore

Acknowledgements

This research monograph is partially based on my Ph.D. dissertation. First due is my acknowledgment to my supervisor—Prof. Haihua Pan. He has given me not only the best advice and support but also constant encouragement and friendship. Without his expertise and invaluable advice, this monograph would not have come together. I thank him for the many hours he invested in discussing and debating ideas with me and for his great patience and confidence in me. I am also particularly indebted to Prof. Peppina Lee. Peppina has always been more than kind to me, for offering valuable suggestions whenever I need them, and sharing many works she finds interesting with me. Her inexhaustible patience and continued support have helped to develop my potential to conduct research on linguistics. I would like to thank Prof. Hongyin Tao, Prof. Jonathan Webster, and Prof. Chunyu Kit, for their thoughtful advice and support and for exposing many shortcomings in previous versions of this monograph. My friends (in alphabetical order), Dr. Bei Chen, Dr. Li Chen, Dr. Yin Yee Lai, Dr. Yee Na Li, Dr. Huijuan Liu, Dr. Mengbin Liu, Dr. Shuo Lu, Dr. Hyunjun Park, Dr. Xin Peng, and Dr. Lei Zhang, have also left an imprint on this work of mine. Their friendship is a wonderful asset for me. There are a few names I would like to thank individually. A special “thank you” goes to Prof. Wangxi Zhang for letting me see the fascination of linguistics and for his efforts to help me in various aspects over the years. I thank Dr. Yuli Feng for being such a sweet friend, who treats all my questions, linguistic and nonlinguistic, with the utmost respect and the sincerest concern. I also want to thank Prof. Xi Chen for her tremendous and continual support during my time at Macau University of Science and Technology. I am greatly indebted to Prof. Xueqing Zhao, who allows me to see what I can accomplish in academia and gives me the opportunity to step out of my comfort zone. I greatly appreciate the valuable comments and positive feedback from the two anonymous external reviewers. I am also sincerely grateful to Ms. Rebecca Zhu, Ms. Carolyn Zhang, and Mr. Dharaneeswaran Sundaramurthy from Springer

v

vi

Acknowledgements

Nature. This monograph would not have been possible without the constant editorial support I have received from them. Finally, I would like to thank my family for their love and unconditional support; this book is dedicated to them.

Contents

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

1 1 2 4 5 6

2 A Refined Centering Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 A Brief Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Essential Notions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1 Type="Italic">Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2 Utterance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.3 Discourse Segment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Basic Constraints and Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 Some Notorious Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.1 A Unique Cb Versus Cb Branching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.2 Realization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.3 The Role of Constraint 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.4 Discourse Coherence Versus Semantic Entity Salience . 2.5 Hu and Pan (2001) Revisited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6 The Application of Centering Theory in Natural Language Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6.1 Anaphoric Resolution—Pronoun Production Versus Pronoun Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6.2 Brennan, Friedman, and Pollard’s (1987) Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6.3 Strube’s (1998) Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6.4 Tetreault’s (1999, 2001) Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7 Interim Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

9 9 11 11 14 17 17 23 23 28 31 32 34

...

38

...

39

. . . . .

39 40 42 44 45

1 An Introduction to the Book . . . . 1.1 The Scope and Methodology . 1.2 Data and Annotation . . . . . . . 1.3 Main Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 An Overview of the Book . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

vii

viii

Contents

3 A Centering Analysis of Discourse with Chinese Bei Passive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 A General Data Presentation—Discourse with Chinese Bei Passive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 The Contribution of Bei Utterance to Discourse Coherence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.1 A Scrutiny on Each Cb Transition State . . . . . . . . . 3.2.2 The Discourse Function of Bei Utterances . . . . . . . . 3.2.3 A Comparison with Givón’s (1983) Tradition . . . . . 3.3 A Reflection of the Syntactic Analysis Toward Long Versus Short Bei Passive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.1 An Introduction to the Long Versus Short Passive Debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.2 What Can Discourse Analysis Tell Us About Syntax? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 Centering Theory Revisited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 Interim Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 A Centering Analysis of Chinese Disposal Ba Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 A General Data Presentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 The Contribution of Ba Utterance to Discourse Coherence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.1 Combinations Starting with CONTINUATION 4.2.2 Combinations Starting with RETAIN . . . . . . . 4.2.3 Combinations Starting with SHIFT . . . . . . . . . 4.2.4 Interim Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Is Ba Construction Antipassive? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.1 Antipassive in Ergative Languages—Definition and Features of Antipassive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.2 Functions of Antipassive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.3 Classification of Antipassive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.4 Antipassive Versus Passive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.5 Is Ba Construction Antipassive? . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 Interim Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.1 A Summary of the Chapter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.2 Some Hints on Cf Ranking of Ba Utterance . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.....

49

.....

49

. . . .

. . . .

60 60 83 88

.....

91

.....

91

. . . .

92 95 97 99

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . . . . 101 . . . . . . . . . 101 . . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

110 110 116 119 119 120

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

120 124 126 127 128 136 136 137 139

5 Ranking of Forward-Looking Centers in Chinese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 5.1 The Ranking of Forward-Looking Centers in Different Languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

Contents

ix

5.2 A Proposal of Cf Ranking in Chinese Discourse . 5.2.1 Rationale of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.2 An Overview of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.3 Ba Utterance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.4 Gei Utterance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.5 Fang Utterance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.6 Bei Utterance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 Interim Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Concluding Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 Refinement to Centering Theory . 6.2 Main Findings and Contributions . 6.3 Further Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

147 147 148 150 155 158 164 167 169

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

171 171 173 176 177

Appendix A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 Appendix B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189

Abbreviations

ABS ACC AP BA BEI CL DAT DE ERG GEN -GUO IND INS INTR -LE LOC NOM OBJ OBL PASS PL POSS PRS PST REFL SG SPF

Absolutive case Accusative case Antipassive Marker of Chinese disposal ba construction Chinese bei passive marker Classifier Dative case Prenominal modification marker or post-verbal resultative/extent/descriptive marker de Ergative case Genitive case Experiential aspect marker guo Indicative Instrumental Intransitive Chinese perfective marker or sentence final particle le Locative Nominative case Object Oblique case Passive Plural Possessive case Present Past Reflexive Singular Sentence final particle

xi

xii

SUBJ TR ZAI/-ZHE

Abbreviations

Subject Transitive Durative aspect marker zai/-zhe

Chapter 1

An Introduction to the Book

Abstract This chapter first provides the scope and methodology of the book, as well as the selection and annotation of the data, followed by the main proposals of the work as well as an overview of the organization. In general, this research aims to answer a question that has not drawn sufficient attention in contemporary linguistic study, i.e., What can close discourse analysis bring to the understanding of language? To answer this question, the book provides a computational approach toward discourse analysis concerning several special sentence patterns in Chinese, namely the bei passive, disposal ba construction, ditransitive gei sentence, and locative fang sentence. The analytical tool of this book is Centering Theory, which provides a formal calculation and annotation of the selected data. This book examines the correlation between Centering Theory and Chinese discourse. Keywords Formal discourse analysis · Chinese discourse · Centering Theory

1.1 The Scope and Methodology The main task of this book is to provide a formal discourse analysis toward several special sentence patterns, such as the bei passive construction, disposal ba construction, ditransitive gei sentence, and locative fang sentence. Bei passives and the disposal ba construction have been well studied on a sentential level from either a syntactic or a semantic perspective; however, discourse studies focusing on these two constructions are rare. This book will head in a promising direction in exploiting a formal discourse analysis toward these two sentential patterns of Chinese, and in turn show how discourse analysis can contribute to the syntactic and semantic studies of these sentences. It will also scrutinize the various thematic roles differentiated in the bei passive construction, disposal ba construction, ditransitive gei sentence, and locative fang sentence, namely agent, recipient, theme or patient, and locative, etc., and then reveal the different degrees of discourse accessibility of these thematic roles. This study is defined as a “formal” discourse analysis because the analytical tool it adopts is from a computational semantic theory, Centering Theory, which provides a formal calculation and annotation of the selected data. This book will focus on © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 S. Wuyun, Where Centering Meets Chinese Discourse, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8666-8_1

1

2

1 An Introduction to the Book

a relatively microscope of the Chinese discourse and the concrete role different sentential patterns play in connecting discourse and maintaining information flow. To achieve this objective, I will propose a refined Centering Theory, via which I will create a small-scale corpus through manual annotation. The transition states of attentional focus known as backward-looking center (Cb) concerning discourse with the Chinese bei passive construction, disposal ba construction, ditransitive gei sentence, and locative fang sentence will be manually annotated by following the regulations and constraints of Centering Theory. The reason for adopting Centering Theory as the calculating and analytical tool of this book is that it helps us in observing and describing the way in which sentences connect with each other and in turn how the information flow is maintained. It enables us to depict precisely the way in which the bei passive construction, disposal ba construction, ditransitive gei sentence, and locative fang sentence bridge the sentence immediately preceding and following them in a sentence-by-sentence manner. Thus, it is not my aim to obtain a full appreciation of a long discourse piece. Instead, I will focus on mini-discourse segments containing bei, ba, gei and fang utterances. The term “mini-discourse” is defined as follows: In this study, a mini-discourse segment consists of three to five adjacent utterances with the utterance preceding the bei/ba/gei/fang utterance, the bei/ba/gei/fang utterance, and the utterance following the bei/ba/gei/fang utterance being its core. It is such a mini-discourse segment that provides us with the necessary angle to investigate the functions of the bei passive construction, disposal ba construction, ditransitive gei sentence, and locative fang sentence in the discourse. Via calculating the backward-looking center transition states, this book discovers the discourse behaviors and contributions of the Chinese bei passive construction and disposal ba construction. These analyses also shed light, from both a quantitative description and qualitative attribution perspective, on some other relevant issues that have long been debated in the syntactic and semantic study of these two constructions, namely whether Chinese long and short bei passives share the same syntactic structure, and whether the Chinese ba construction is antipassive. This book provides a comparison of transition states between long and short bei passives and further supports the traditional “ellipsis analysis” of the relation between them from a discourse perspective. Further, it proposes a possible syntactic structure for Chinese bei passives. It also considers the possibility of treating the disposal ba construction on a par with the antipassive in terms of syntactic, semantic, and discourse aspects.

1.2 Data and Annotation Smith (2001, 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2009) classifies discourse into five different modes based on the situation and entities they introduce into the discourse as well as their contribution to the text progression; these five types are narrative, report, description, information, and argument. All of the data analyzed in this book are of a narrative mode of discourse, which has the most direct way of realizing discourse

1.2 Data and Annotation

3

coherence. Report mode is briefly discussed in Chap. 2 to introduce a fifth Cb transition mode, namely Cb branching, into the theoretical framework, other than that the maintenance of discourse coherence in the other discourse modes will not be examined in this book. Chapters 3 and 4 scrutinize discourse segments of narrative mode with bei utterance and ba utterance, respectively. A brief introduction to the operative procedure of data selection will be provided here. For discourse with bei utterance, novels from contemporary novelist Shuo Wang with 559,617 characters are selected from the CCL database of Peking University (https://ccl.pku.edu.cn:8080/ccl_corpus/) and subject to further screening. The first screening filters out: 1. All nonpassive bei such as “beizi” (quilt)/“maojinbei” (towel blanket), etc.; 2. All nonnarrative modes with bei utterance; 3. All bei utterance within/connecting conversations that does not bear a discourse connective function; and 4. All lexicalized passive words such as “beipo/beibi” (be forced/compelled). A total of 186 discourse segments sustained this screening. On the second screening, all bei utterances that act as noun phrase (NP) modifiers are excluded together with bei utterances within embedded clauses. Since no discourse connective function is undertaken by these bei utterances, their behavior is not appealing to the present study. A total of 141 discourse segments (a total dataset of 23,270 characters) with bei utterance are the final number to be subject to further analysis. All the discourse segments with ba utterance are from the same source as those of bei. Similarly, the first screening filters out: 1. All nondisposal ba such as “bashou” (handle)/“menba” (door knob), etc.; 2. All nonnarrative modes with ba utterance; and 3. All ba utterance within/connecting conversations that does not bear a discourse connective function. A total of 226 discourse segments sustained the screening. On the second screening, all ba utterances acting as NP modifiers were excluded together with ba utterances within embedded clauses. A total of 193 discourse segments with ba utterance with 23,303 characters is the final number for further analysis. Chapter 5 scrutinizes and analyzes Chinese discourse segments containing ba/gei/fang/bei utterances. From CCL database (https://ccl.pku.edu.cn:8080/ccl_cor pus/), I selected 115 discourse segments containing ba utterance,1 118 containing gei utterance, 106 containing fang utterance, and 124 containing bei utterance, totaling 463 narrative discourse segments, with 35,956 words. With the analytical tool of Centering Theory, I focus on the transition states of Cb between these four types of utterances and their previous and subsequent utterances 1 The dataset annotated and used in Chaps. 3 and 4 for the analysis of the Chinese bei passive and disposal ba construction are not reused in Chap. 5.

4

1 An Introduction to the Book

(i.e., the discourse segment taking “Uba/gei/fang/bei-1 —Uba/gei/fang/bei —Uba/gei/fang/bei+1 ” as a unit). All the data are manually annotated and calculated by taking the Centering Theory framework, and the concrete calculating algorithm and process will be provided in each chapter.

1.3 Main Proposals For the theoretical part, this book proposes a refined Centering Theory by taking Chinese discourse into consideration. Firstly, the definitions of center and utterance are modified based on a preliminary data analysis, and these two definitions are further tested and verified by the mini-discourse segments in question. Secondly, I argue for a branching of backward-looking center in Chinese discourse. Cb branching is witnessed frequently by the report mode of discourse in Chinese, so a centering study should extend its scope so as to be compatible with Chinese discourse reality. The ranking of the Cf template is also discussed in this book. Languages differ in regard to the Cf -template ranking standard, and none of the existing standards can be applied directly to Chinese utterances with ba, gei, fang, and bei utterances. I propose a two-tier Cf template in this book. The first tier involves information structure and the second argument structure (thematic hierarchy). Firstly, the information structure picks out the topic position semantic entity as the most salient one for an utterance, which will be ranked first in the Cf template. And secondly, the thematic hierarchy ranks all the remaining semantic entities—the degree of salience descends from left to right. In the data analysis parts, an inter-sentential function of Chinese bei and ba utterances is proposed. By demonstrating a division of labor between the topic at the utterance-initial position and the object of bei/ba, I propose that it is the centers in these two positions that bridge the utterances immediately preceding and following bei/ba utterances. Thus, besides the well-studied intra-sentential functions, I propose that bei and ba utterances also function inter-sententially. Data analysis of discourse with bei utterances shows that a covert bei object as in a short bei passive construction, similarly to its overt counterpart, could act as a retained Cb, i.e., it is responsible for passing the Cb from its preceding utterance to its following one. This function is not witnessed equally by the semantically inferable entities or the logical subjects in middle construction; I thus propose that the covert bei object occupies a syntactic position and it should be regarded as a pro. Furthermore, a unified syntactic structure is provided to both long and short bei passives. It is also argued that the only distinction between long and short bei passives lies in the fact that an overt object of bei may provide a possible Cb for the following utterance, whereas the role of a short passive is to connect utterances and maintain a fluent information flow. The possibility of incorporating the disposal ba construction into the antipassive framework is also seriously considered in this book. However, evidence from syntax,

1.3 Main Proposals

5

semantics, and discourse suggests that this might not be on the right track. Syntactically, it is shown that the pre-posed ba object is not always the logical object of the transitive verb, and even if the object is demoted to an oblique status, it is not in itself an antipassive object. In addition, the demoted object of antipassive constructions or incorporations can never take a wide scope over the external argument, nor can it undergo a quantifier raising movement; however, it is always possible for a ba object. Semantically, all the core semantic features of the antipassive construction are missing from the Chinese ba construction, namely the imperfective aspect of the verb, the low degree of affectedness of the object, and the nonvolitional meaning of the agent subject. Last but not least, data analysis shows that the ba object can be featured and maintained in the upcoming discourse, which is not possible for an antipassive object. Thus, I propose that it is better not to analyze the disposal ba construction in Chinese in line with the antipassive. All of the above-mentioned proposals about Chinese bei and ba constructions are made from a centering perspective. This book also gives great attention to comparing the centering approach with the traditional Givón (1983) approach toward discourse analysis. Based on the comparison, I propose that the Givón tradition is actually an analytical tool of discourse relatedness since it focuses on a relatively macro scope of discourse relations while it attaches less to concrete information flow. Centering Theory, on the other hand, describes in detail the information flow of a certain discourse utterance by utterance and reveals the discourse connectedness status in a rather concrete manner. Thus, I claim that the centering approach is a more competent analytical tool in studying discourse coherence. The studies conducted in this book, together with the proposals thus drawn, provide a new perspective to the analysis of Chinese discourse as well as the special sentential patterns involved. This brings us to the fact that the Chinese language is far from being adequately studied, even some of its most frequently occurring sentential patterns such as the bei passive and disposal ba construction. A change of viewpoint may introduce more abundant facts to our understanding of the language, and this is the aim of this book, i.e., to answer the question: What can close discourse analysis bring to the understanding of language?

1.4 An Overview of the Book The rest of this book is organized as follows: Chapter 2 presents a thorough introduction to Centering Theory. In Sect. 2.1, a brief overview of Centering Theory is provided, followed by a delineation of the units of different levels within the theoretical framework, namely center, utterance, and discourse segment (Sect. 2.2), and in turn specification of the constraints and rules the theory regulates (Sect. 2.3). It will also make known some to-be-addressed issues, such as the adequacy of the current definition of center and realization, the indispensability of Constraint 3, and the relation between discourse coherence and entity salience (Sect. 2.4). Lastly, a comparison between Hu and Pan’s (2001) refinement

6

1 An Introduction to the Book

of Centering Theory and the traditional approach from Grosz, Joshi and Weinstein (1995) will be given in Sect. 2.5, followed by the application of Centering Theory in natural language processing (Sect. 2.6) and an interim summary (Sect. 2.7). Chapter 3 starts with a general data description of the discourse segment including the Chinese bei passive (Sect. 3.1) and further implements a thorough analysis concerning the following aspects: (1) the contribution of the bei utterance2 to discourse coherence with a comparison to the Givón tradition (Sect. 3.2); (2) a scrutiny of the discoursal behavior of the long and short bei passive, as well as the light it may shed on the syntactic analysis of the bei passive construction (Sect. 3.3); and (3) a test of the proposed definition and development of Centering Theory in Chap. 2 (Sect. 3.4). Lastly, an interim summary is given in Sect. 3.5. Chapter 4 provides some further support for the findings from Chapter 3. Section 4.1 makes a general data presentation of the mini-discourse segments containing the disposal ba construction. The discourse contribution of the ba utterance (including the semantic entity at the utterance-initial position and the object of ba, as well as the predicate object bearing the recipient role) is well studied in Sect. 4.2. Section 4.3 is devoted to comparing the Chinese ba construction with the antipassive construction in ergative languages, and it is claimed that it is better not to treat the former in line with the latter. In Sect. 4.4, a reflection on Cf ranking is carried out based on the discourse fact of Chinese ba utterances. Chapter 5 first conducts a typological review with regard to Cf ranking proposed for different languages ranging from Japanese to Italian, Turkish, Hindi, Greek, and German in Sect. 5.1. By comparing existing researches, it proposes a two-tier Cf ranking for Chinese. With the analytical tool of Centering Theory, Sect. 5.2 focuses on the transition states of the backward-looking center (Cb) between ba/gei/fang/bei utterances and their adjacent (previous and subsequent) utterances in Chinese discourse. Section 5.3 provides an interim summary. Finally, in Chap. 6, I draw some general conclusions and propose some further tasks.

References Givón, T. (Ed.). (1983). Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.3 Grosz, B. J., Joshi, A. K., & Weinstein, S. (1995). Centering: A framework for modeling the local coherence of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 21(2), 203–225. Hu, J., & Pan, H. (2001). Processing local coherence of discourse in centering theory. In Proceedings of the 15th Pacific Asia conference in language, information and computation. Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong. Citeseer.

2 In

this book, bei utterance is used for naming an utterance with a passive marker bei. A detailed introduction with regard to the study objects will be given in Chap. 3. Similarly, ba utterance refers to an utterance with a disposal marker ba, gei utterance refers to an utterance with a ditransitive gei, and fang utterance refers to an utterance with a locative verb fang.

References

7

Smith, C. S. (2001). Discourse modes: A linguistically interesting level of text structure. In: Proceedings of the third international workshop on text structure (No. 12, pp. 1–34). Department of Linguistics, University of Texas. Smith, C. S. (2003). Modes of discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Smith, C. S. (2004). The domain of tense. In J. Guéron & J. Lacarme (Eds.), The syntax of time (pp. 597–620). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Smith, C. S. (2005). Aspectual entities and tense in discourse. In P. Kempchinsky & R. Slabakova (Eds.), Aspectual inquiries (pp. 223–237). Netherlands: Springer. Smith, C. S. (2007). Tense and temporal interpretation. Lingua, 117(2007), 419–436. Smith, C. S. (2009). Temporal structures in discourse. In R. P. Meier, A.-D., Helen, & E. Destruel (Eds.), Text, time, and context: Selected papers of Carlota S. Smith (pp. 285–302). Springer.

Chapter 2

A Refined Centering Theory

Abstract This chapter presents a thorough introduction to Centering Theory. Centering Theory is a computational semantic theory concerned with local coherence and semantic entity salience. It differentiates various levels of discourse units, such as center, utterance, and discourse segments, within a given discourse. Each level of unit plays its unique role in naturally produced discourse, and together, they construct a coherent discourse while making a distinction between the salient discourse entity and the lesser ones. The current version of Centering Theory suffers from some definitional vulnerabilities as shown in this chapter. These vulnerabilities partially result from typological discrepancies between different languages. In other words, previous conclusions and proposals being drawn from discourse of other languages might not be equivalently applicable for Chinese analysis. For this reason, this chapter further develops Centering Theory by taking more Chinese discourse data into consideration, which makes it a more competent theoretical framework for further data analyses of this book. Keywords Centering Theory · Discourse coherence · Chinese discourse · Refinement

2.1 A Brief Introduction Centering Theory is developed through a series of works from Joshi and Weinstein (1981), Grosz et al. (1983, 1995), and Walker et al. (1998). The basic theoretical framework focuses on local discourse coherence and semantic entity salience, the difficulty of discourse processing, discourse anaphora, discourse coherence, and so on. It is argued that discourses consist of a bundle of constituent segments, each of which is represented as part of a discourse model, and that the semantic entities called centers are part of such a discourse model for utterance in a discourse segment. By tracing the attentional states of the speaker within a local discourse, Centering Theory mainly deals with the following issues. First, tracking the attentional focus termed as center within an utterance and also from one utterance to another. As will be introduced in the immediate following © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 S. Wuyun, Where Centering Meets Chinese Discourse, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8666-8_2

9

10

2 A Refined Centering Theory

section, three types of centers are differentiated within the theoretical framework. Among these three types, the decision of the most centrally concerned one, backwardlooking center (Cb), the overlapping status between Cb and the most salient center, preferred center (Cp), and the ranking among all the semantic entities in a certain utterance, forward-looking centers (Cf ), all attract interest from linguists working on Centering Theory. Aside from these, consensus on a number of related notions still cannot be reached—to name a few here and to further specify in the rest of this book: the realization of centers (Walker 1993; Grosz et al. 1995; Walker et al. 1998; Di Eugenio 1998, among others), the interaction and “gaming” between local coherence and entity salience (Brennan et al. 1987; Grosz et al. 1995; Di Eugenio 1998; Turan 1998, among others), and the standards of Cf ranking (Kameyama 1985, 1986; Grosz et al. 1986; Walker et al. 1994, 1998; Turan 1998; Miltsakaki 2001, among others), and so on.1 The third issue concerns the relation between pronominalization and the recognition of Cb. As stated in rule 1 of Centering Theory (Grosz et al. 1983), Cb prefers to be realized as a pronominal form if any other semantic entities are pronominalized within the same utterance. The reliability and possibility of generalization of such a claim have been repeatedly examined cross-linguistically from a natural language processing perspective (cf. Kameyama 1986; Gordon et al. 1993; Walker et al. 1994; Turan 1998; Di Eugenio 1998; Wang 2004; Duan and Jiang 2010, among others). The rest of this chapter will generally review the current research concerning the above-mentioned three aspects. It will first delineate the units of different levels within Centering Theory, namely center, utterance, and discourse segment (§2.2), and in turn specify the constraints and rules the theory regulates (§2.3). It will also make known some to-be-addressed issues, such as the adequacy of the current definition of center and realization, the indispensability of Constraint 3, and the relation between discourse coherence and entity salience (§2.4). Lastly, a comparison between Hu and Pan’s (2001) refinement of Centering Theory and the traditional approach will be given in §2.5, followed by a brief introduction regarding how Centering Theory can be applied in natural language processing (§2.6) and an interim summary (§2.7).

1 In

this book, I will focus on the traditional approach toward Centering Theory by following the basic theoretical framework designed by Joshi and Weinstein (1981), Grosz et al. (1983, 1995), and Walker et al. (1998). Quite a few variants of Centering Theory have been developed in the past two decades or so, such as the meta-informative Centering Theory from Wlodarczyk and Wlodarczyk (2006a, b, 2008a, b, 2011); the dynamic Centering Theory developed by Hardt (1996, 1999, 2003, 2004); the Centering on Optimality Theory proposed by Beaver (2000, 2004); and the parametric Centering Theory elaborated by Poesio et al. (2004), Xu (2008), and Duan et al. (2009). I acknowledge the existence of these variants without discussing them in detail due to limited space. The reason why I am sticking to the traditional Centering Theory is because all of these variations that I have listed in this footnote are developed from the traditional approach and their very fundamental skeletons are all from the traditional one. So maybe the simpler is the better.

2.2 Essential Notions

11

2.2 Essential Notions 2.2.1 Center The definition of center is the most fundamental issue and is what I am starting. In a given utterance, all the semantic entities are recognized as centers, which specify what the utterance is about. Take “The waitress handed Jill a glass of wine,” for instance. The waitress, Jill, and a glass of wine are three centers of this sentence,2 and together they outline what this sentence is about, and also determine our understanding of the sentence. The notion of “aboutness,” as defined by Strawson (1964), explains how information in a sentence is understood and assessed in context. Thus, it is the centers that organize the understanding and assessment of the sentence in question, and it is also the centers that affect the truth-conditional semantic interpretation. For instance, a definite noun phrase like the waitress triggers a presupposition of existence “∃” when it occupies the backward-looking center position, but not otherwise. Three types of centers are differentiated by Centering Theory as listed below (Grosz et al. 1995): (I)

The set of forward-looking centers—Cf (Ui, D), which presents discourse entities evoked by an utterance Ui in a discourse segment D. For instance, the Cf of the sentence given above is a set consisting of the waitress, Jill, and a glass of wine, written as Cf : {the waitress, Jill, a glass of wine}. (II) The backward-looking center—Cb (Ui, D), which is a special member of the Cf set representing the discourse entity that the utterance Ui most centrally concerns. It functions in a similar way to what is elsewhere called the “topic” and links the current utterance to the previous discourse. In the example, the waitress plays such a role as Cb. (III) The set of forward-looking centers is ranked according to the discourse salience of its members. The highest-ranked member of the Cf set is referred to as the preferred center—Cp (Ui, D), which represents a prediction about the Cb of the following utterance as will be specified in Sect. 2.3. In simple and clear utterances like the one given above, recognizing centers as semantic entities are out of the question. However, the naturally produced discourse is much more complex and imperfect. In what follows, I would like to list three common syntactic problems set before this scanty definition. The first question that needs to be answered is whether the semantic entity recognized as center occupies any position in the syntactic structure of the utterance it belongs to. Partee (1989)3 points out in her famous “Marble Example” that, if there 2 In

this section, sentence and utterance are used interchangeably for now. Differentiation will be made in Sect. 2.2.2. 3 The “Marble Example” was first proposed in Heim (1982, 21), and the original examples are: a. I dropped ten marbles and found all of them, except for one. It is probably under the sofa. b. I dropped ten marbles and found only nine of them. It is probably under the sofa. Partee’s (1989:280-Note 13) examples are:

12

2 A Refined Centering Theory

is no discourse marker available in the antecedent sentence that corresponds to the semantic entity, this entity cannot be referred to by means of an anaphoric pronoun, as exemplified in the following two sentences. i. (a) I lost 10 marbles and found only nine of them.??? It is probably under the sofa. (b) I lost 10 marbles and found only nine of them. The missing one is probably under the sofa.

Such a claim indicates that without a syntactic position in the current utterance, any semantic entity is forbidden from serving as the antecedent of the anaphoric expressions in the following utterance. Now, put the first question another way; could the inferable entities be counted as centers in an utterance? As will be specified later in this section, it is better not to treat such inferable entities as centers due to their failure to perform as antecedents. The second question is also syntactically relevant. Is it necessarily the case that a semantic entity should present itself overtly? Rephrasing it from a generative grammar perspective, does Centering Theory regard as centers empty categories such as Pros4 and traces? Since all the A-movement traces must be bound by a coindexed constituent within their governing domain, and a PRO must be controlled by an overt subject/object in its control domain, it is always possible to locate an overt constituent in the same sentence referring to the same referent with a trace or a PRO. Tentatively treating a simple sentence as one unit of utterance, the case of trace or PRO does not actually answer the question posed here because an overt form is always presented within the same sentence with a PRO/trace and this overt form inevitably has its position in the Cf set. Now, we come to the pro case. As a non-pro-drop language, English is no longer involved in this discussion, so we now turn to Chinese. The discourse segment given below is not at all uncommon in Chinese discourse and it has as subject (and as Cb) a pro in both the second and the third utterance.5 1)

U1: Lisite kan-zhe zheren youxie yanshu, Liszt look at this guy a little familiar U2: guji shi mouwei zhongyao-de jingli, think BE some-CL important-DE manager

c. One of the ten balls is missing from the bag. It’s under the couch. d. Nine of the ten balls are in the bag. #It’s under the couch. Later studies acknowledge Partee (1989) for both sets of examples, so will this book. 4 Here, I follow the term developed by Huang’s (1989) Generalized Control Theory, and use Pro as a generalized form for both pro and PRO. 5 All the examples in this chapter that are not accompanied by a specific source of quotation are adopted from the CCL database of Peking University (http://ccl.pku.edu.cn:8080/ccl_corpus/).

2.2 Essential Notions

13

U3: que xiang-bu-qilai daodi duifang shi shei, but unable to call to mind exactly the other side BE who U4: ta xunsu-de weiwei yi waitou zai Lala er-bian disheng wendao: Who’s this guy? He quickly turn the head aside ZAI Lala ear whisper: Who’s this guy? Lit. Liszt looked at this guy and found him so familiar,(he) though the might be some important manager, but it never occurred to him who exactly this guy was. Quickly, he turned his head. partly aside and whispered in Lala’s ear “Who’s this guy?”

The Cb of this discourse segment “Lisite” (Liszt) is continuous from U1 to U4 in the forms of overt proper name, pro form, and pronoun. Given that all Cfs must be listed within the Cf set, and that Cb is a special member of the Cf set, I tentatively demonstrate that a pro form also occupies a position in the Cf set, and that a pro could act as a Cb linking the preceding utterance with the following one. This demonstration needs further verification from both Chinese and other pro-drop languages, which I will leave for further discussion in Sect. 2.4.2. The last syntactic problem that the notion center confronts is whether or not all semantic entities are required to be a full-fledged syntactic constituent. Doubtlessly, all full syntactic constituents referring to semantic entities in an utterance are counted as center due to their capacity to behave as the Cb of the following utterance. However, it is not a privilege for syntactic constituents—possessive modifiers, as shown in the example below, also function as centers that maintain a continuous discourse segment. ii. Mrs. Reed looked up from her work; her eye settled on mine, her fingers at the same time suspended their nimble movements. (from Jane Eyre)

It is obvious that Mrs. Reed, her eye, and her fingers are noun phrases (NP) referring to different semantic entities; however, this segment is generally recognized as one with a continuous Cb, Mrs. Reed, and the possessive pronoun her in the second and third utterance is thus the Cb instead of the full-fledged NP constituents. How I wish this example were enough for the third question posed above, however, the relation between center and syntactic constituent is more complex than this discourse segment could illustrate. More data will be presented in this book in an effort to reflect this relation. Now, I would like to redefine the notion of center based on the above discussion. Firstly, given that an inferable semantic entity fails to act as the antecedent of the pronoun in the following utterance, they are all excluded from the Cf set. Secondly, since a pro functions as a linkage between its preceding and following utterances, it is better treated as center. Thirdly, not only the full-fledged NP constituents but also those possessive pronouns could serve as centers of certain utterances. Thus, I would define center as follows: DEFINITION of center: Center is a semantic entity that has its syntactic realization in an overt form or as a pro, but not necessarily as a full NP constituent.

14

2 A Refined Centering Theory

This definition will be adopted and tested in this book. As indicated above, these three questions have not been satisfactorily answered yet, and there is still room for improvement with regard to this definition.

2.2.2 Utterance No explicit definition or stipulation with respect to the notion of “utterance” is prescribed in the works of Joshi and Weinstein (1981) or Grosz et al. (1983, 1995). For a long time, “sentence” was taken as one unit of utterance in the literature, which was challenged for the first time by Kameyama (1998), who argues for a clausal treatment. Kameyama proposes that the attentional focus, i.e., the Cb, is updated after every tensed clause, but not after every sentence, and further classifies tensed clause into two types based on whether Cb is updated permanently. Utterances like coordinated clauses and main clauses permanently update Cb and thus are grouped as one type, while utterances like embedded clauses or subordinate clauses temporally update Cb and are treated as another type. Take Kameyama’s (1998) example, for instance: iii. S1: Her entrance in Scene 2 Act 1 brought some disconcerting applause even before she had sung a note. S2: Thereafter the audience waxed applause happy but discriminating operagoers reserved judgment as her singing showed signs of strain, her musicianship some questionable procedure, and her acting uncomfortable stylization. S3: As she gained composure during the second act her technical resourcefulness emerged stronger though she had already revealed a trill almost unprecedented in years of performances of Lucia. (Kameyama 1998:96–7)

Traditionally, Centering Theory analyzes this discourse segment as consisting of three utterances (= sentences), but Kameyama expanded it into 10 in her argument. CHAIN (Cb = Sutherland)

➀ Her (Sutherland’s) entrance in Scene 2 Act 1 brought some disconcerting applause

NULL

➂ Thereafter the audience waxed applause happy

➁ Even before she had sung a note ➃ But discriminating operagoers reserved judgment ESTABLISH (Cb = Sutherland)

➄ As her (Sutherland’s) singing showed signs of strain

CHAIN

➅ Her musicianship some questionable procedure ➆ And her acting uncomfortable stylization ➇ As she gained composure during the second act ➈ Her technical resourcefulness emerged stronger ➉ Though she had already revealed a trill almost unprecedented in years of performances of Lucia

2.2 Essential Notions

15

Focus on the sentence-oriented approach first. S2 in discourse segment (iii) obviously involves two different local foci, namely the audience and the discriminating operagoers connected with “but.” Such a change of attentional focus indicates a separation between two utterances, which was not noticed by Grosz et al. (1995) and thus would cause trouble in this definition of utterance. Other than this, S3 is much more complicated, although there are no punctuation spacers indicating separations between clauses. From a situational perspective, this sentence expresses three related events—she gained composure during the second act for one, her technical resourcefulness emerged stronger for another, and lastly she revealed a trill almost unprecedented in years of performances of Lucia. These three bounded events take place in different temporal and spatial locations with a strong correlation with each other, through which new information with regard to the local focus Sutherland are added, thus, they are better treated as different utterances with distinct temporal/spatial information. Turning to Kameyama’s clausal-oriented approach toward utterance, it is more factually informative since it notices the temporal and spatial differences with regard to the same local focus in S3 as well as the change of local focus within the same sentence of S2. Providing no empirical support, Kameyama’s hypothesis meets problems when confronting real data. Claiming that “untensed clauses are more grammatically integrated with superordinate clauses” (Kameyama 1998, 102), Kameyama only takes tensed clauses into consideration leaving nontensed ones unanalyzed; however, in real data, some nontensed clauses also contribute new temporal/spatial information concerning the local focus as shown in discourse segment (iv), in which case it is better to reconsider its status as an utterance. iv The Madrid government, seeking help from its European neighbors to finance a $100billion bailout of Spanish banks with toxic real estate loans, sold $2.6 billion in new bonds on Thursday. But with its weakened financial condition, Spain was forced to pay a higher interest rate than in past debt sales.(from voanews.com)

The underlined clause is a parenthetical gerundive that briefs the background of the event expressed in the main clause with regard to the attentional focus the Madrid government. Should this parenthesis be treated as an utterance? Given Kameyama’s definition of utterance, the answer to this question is no. However, attentional focus (or Cb), as demonstrated by Kameyama (1998), updates with tense and aspect in each utterance, which indicates that each utterance has its own aspectual and temporal properties. The gerundive clause “seeking help from its European neighbors to finance a $100-billion bailout of Spanish banks with toxic real estate loans” is temporally related to the reference time (RT) of the events expressed by the other utterances, while it reflects the aspectual viewpoint of the speaker, both of which update the temporal and aspectual information of the gerundive clause. Thus, it is better treated as an utterance as well. Turning back to Chinese, Kameyama’s definition of utterance will confront more problems. First, there has been a long-term debate concerning the existence of a distinction between finiteness and nonfiniteness in Chinese (cf. Huang 1984, 1987,

16

2 A Refined Centering Theory

1989; Li 1985, 1990, among others, who vote for a distinction analysis; Xu 1985, 1994; Hu et al. 2001, among others, who vote against a distinction analysis). Thus, the standard “tensed” is no longer adequate for the definition of Chinese6 utterance. In addition, Chinese prefers short clauses with more punctuation spacers than English, as shown in the following segment. The clause “shouyi yu lvyouye-de xunmeng fazhan” (Benefiting from the mushrooming development of the tourist industry), which is separated by a comma from its following clause, behaves similarly to the gerundive clause in (iv) as a briefing background of the following events. The temporal relation between this clause and its subsequent ones is that the reference time of this clause (RT1) precedes that of the following utterance (RT2)—RT1 < RT2, and the clause also delivers a perfective viewpoint of the speaker, both of which contribute temporal and aspectual information to the clause and update the information about the attentional focus “Xinjiang liang-zuo pianpi-de xiao cunzhuang” (two small villages in Xinjiang). Consequently, I argue that both the gerundive parenthesis in (iv) and the first clause in (2) should be treated as utterances given that they both update temporal and aspectual information of the center in question. 2)

U1: Shouyi yu lvyouye-de xunmeng fazhan, Benefit from tourist industry-DE mushroom development U2: Xinjiang liang-zuo pianpi-de xiao cunzhuang bei guojia minwei Xinjiang two-CL remote-DE small village BEI State Ethnic Affairs Commission liewei shaoshuminzu tese cunzhai baohu yu fazhan Shidian xiangmu cun, listed as minority group featured village protection and development pilot project U3: chengwei “guojia shaoshuminzu tese cunzhai”. become national minority group featured village Lit. Benefiting from the mushrooming development of the tourist industry, two small villages in Xinjiang have been listed as pilot project villages for the protection and development of characteristic villages inminority regions, and become“national characteristic villages in minority regions.”(from people.cn)(http://news.people.com.cn/)

So far, we have observed the insufficiencies of both the sentence approach and the tensed clausal approach. The former is overgeneralizing, which fails to present a thorough picture with respect to complex sentences, while the latter did not take nontensed clauses such as parenthesis in gerundive form that update temporal and aspectual information into consideration. In this regard, I would like to tentatively propose the following definition for utterance, and again, in what follows, more data from Chinese will be provided to test this definition.

6 Finiteness

is not subject to discussion in this book. I follow Xu (1985, 1994) and Hu et al. (2001) by admitting that finiteness is not part of the Chinese syntactic system. Nonetheless, the temporal relation among adjacent utterances as well as the interpretation of such a relation observed in tensed language, such as English, is also available in Chinese as will be discussed in Chap. 3. Tense versus nontense is a syntactic distinction, and the fact that Chinese is not a tensed language does not prevent it from having certain devices to express temporal relationships given that time is the key factor in eventuality.

2.2 Essential Notions

17

DEFINITION of utterance: A new utterance is triggered by either an update of Cb or an update of temporal/aspectual information with regard to the current Cb.

2.2.3 Discourse Segment As introduced in the previous section, utterances are Cb updating clauses, which are the basic units of a discourse. A bundle of semantically related utterances comprise a larger unit, namely a discourse segment, each of which is represented as part of a discourse model. Now is the time to ask “How large is this bundle?” and “To what extent are the utterances related to each other?” These two questions brought out the notion of “discourse segment,” which according to Passonneau and Litman (1993) is difficult to identify reliably. None of the current works on Centering Theory has ever provided an operative definition with respect to the segmentation of a discourse. Walker (1989) and Poesio et al. (2004) use heuristics by taking every paragraph as a separate discourse segment, except the first utterance of this segment has a pronoun as its subject or the argument features of the pronoun in question do not match any semantic entity in the Cf list of the utterance. (Poesio et al. 2004). Intuitively, I believe this definition respects the linguistic reality; however, is it possible to set several criteria that could actually trigger a restart of a discourse segment? Since the current study only focuses on three immediately adjacent utterances and will not extend to a relatively macro-perspective, I will but tentatively propose several possible factors that might be sensitive to discourse segmentation and leave it for further study to testify. Firstly, a change of discourse mode might trigger a resegmentation. Secondly, as suggested by Walker (1989) and Poesio et al. (2004), if all semantic entities in the current utterance are not presented previously, it might indicate the start of a new segment. Thirdly, and maybe the least possible, a change of temporal or spatial grounding could also indicate a segmental boundary. I will summarize these possibilities as [change of discourse mode], [change of Cf set], and [change of temporal/spatial grounding], and together with the heuristics, these three criteria also contribute to discourse segmentation.

2.3 Basic Constraints and Rules Three types of centers, namely forward-looking center (Cf ), backward-looking center (Cb), and preferred center (Cp), are introduced in the previous section. For each utterance Ui in a discourse segment D in general, it consists of one ordered Cf

18

2 A Refined Centering Theory

(Ui, D) set, within which one member serves as the Cb (Ui, D), and one as the Cp (Ui, D)—the member who ranks the highest in regard to discourse salience. Depending on these three types of centers, this utterance is connected to the other utterances in the discourse segment. Grosz et al. (1995) define the following set of constraints and rules for centers: Constraints: For each utterance Ui in a discourse segment D consisting of utterances U1……Um: 1. There is precisely one backward-looking center Cb (Ui, D), except for U17 ; 2. Every element of the forward-looking centers set, Cf (Ui, D), must be realized in Ui; 3. The center, Cb (Ui, D), is the highest-ranked element of Cf (Ui−1, D) that is realized in Ui.

Rules: For each Ui in a discourse segment D consisting of utterances U1……Um: 1. If some element of Cf (Ui−1, D) is realized as a pronoun in Ui, then so is Cb (Ui, D); 2. Transition states are ordered. The CONTINUOUS transition is preferred to the RETAIN transition, which is preferred to the SMOOTH SHIFT transition, which is preferred to the ROUGH SHIFT transition. In the three constraints above, Constraint 1 limits the number of Cb; Constraint 2 requires every element to be realized, which means every member of the Cf set is obliged to be presented as a certain form of reference item, such as a pronoun, zero anaphora, or noun phrase; Constraint 3 predicts Cb (Ui) according to the Cp (Ui−1), i.e., CpR 8 (Ui−1) = Cb (Ui). Turning to the two rules, Rule 1 is also recognized as “the pronoun rule,” which stipulates that if there is only one pronoun in Cf (Ui) that realizes a certain semantic entity in Cf (Ui−1), this pronoun must be Cb (Ui); and if there are more than 7 The lack of a backward-looking center for the first utterance of each discourse segment is attributed

to the fact that the backward-looking center of an utterance Ui must connect with the forward-looking centers in its immediate preceding utterance, Ui−1. Since the first utterance in a discourse segment never has such a “preceding” utterance, no Cb of any kind can be established. 8 The subscript R here indicates the highest-ranked element of Cf (Ui−1, D) that is realized in Ui according to Constraint 3. So if the highest-ranked element of Cf (Ui−1, D), i.e., Cp (Ui−1, D), is not realized in Ui, then we keep searching within the Cf set by following its ranking sequence until the one element within this set that is actually realized in the current Ui is found. So it is evident that the preferred center of the previous utterance, i.e., Cp (Ui−1, D), is not necessarily the backward-looking center of the current one—Cb (Ui, D). Thus, this book uses the subscript R to differentiate these two preferred centers.

2.3 Basic Constraints and Rules

19

Table 2.1 Cb transition states Cb (Ui ) = Cb (Ui−1 ) OR Cb (Ui−1 ) = [?]

Cb (Ui ) = Cb (Ui−1 )

Cb (Ui ) = Cp (Ui )

CONTINUATION

SMOOTH SHIFT

Cb (Ui ) = Cp (Ui )

RETAIN

ROUGH SHIFT

one pronoun in this situation, one of them must be Cb (Ui). Rule 2 focuses on the relation between discourse coherence and semantic entity salience in a discourse segment; the former concerns the relationship between one Cb (Ui, D) and the Cb of its previous utterance—Cb (Ui−1, D), and the latter the relationship between the backward-looking center and the preferred center within the same utterance. Detailed transition patterns are illustrated in Table 2.1. Following Rule 2, the transition states are ordered in sequence with regard to their contributions to the coherence of discourse, which is ranked as: CONTINUATION > RETAIN > SMOOTH SHIFT > ROUGH SHIFT. The combination of the constraints, rules, and transition states makes a set of testable predictions about which interpretation hearers prefer because it requires less processing effort. For instance, maximally coherent discourse segments are those that require less processing time, so a CONTINUATION transition is more preferred than a RETAIN transition, which in turn is preferred than the SHIFT ones, since that a CONTINUATION transition is easier to process than the others. Adopting Grosz et al. (1995:217) example, the application of these four types of transition following Rule 2 is illustrated below: v. U1: John has been having a lot of trouble arranging his vacation. U2: He cannot find anyone to take over his responsibilities. U3: He called up Mike yesterday to work out a plan. U4: Mike has annoyed him a lot recently. U5: He called John at 5 a.m. on Friday last week. U6: The housekeeper answered and said he was still sleeping. U1: John has been having a lot of trouble arranging his vacation. Cb: [?] Cf: {John} U2: He cannot find anyone to take over his responsibilities. Cb: [he=John] Cf: {John} CONTINUATION U3: He called up Mike yesterday to work out a plan. Cb: [he=John] Cf: {John, Mike} CONTINUATION

20

2 A Refined Centering Theory

U4: Mike has annoyed him a lot recently. Cb: [him=John] Cf: {Mike, John} RETAIN U5: He called John at 5 a.m. on Friday last week. Cb: [he=Mike] Cf: {Mike, John} SMOOTH SHIFT U6: The housekeeper answered and said he was still sleeping. Cb: [he=John] Cf: {the housekeeper, John} ROUGH SHIFT

As the very basic theoretical framework of Centering, these three constraints together with the two rules give only a very general, brief, and even ideal stipulation with regard to a given discourse segment. As further studies and data analyses show, neither the constraints nor the rules can perfectly account for or predict all the discourse facts, let alone the definitional vagueness of some terms as will be listed here. Firstly, the above-introduced Constraint 1 is also known as the strong version of Constraint 1 in contrast to the weak version, which claims that all utterances of a segment except for the first have at most one Cb (Walker et al. 1998). Nevertheless, as will be argued in Sect. 2.4.1, some discourse segments in Chinese indicate that there might be more than one backward-looking center within an utterance, which is termed “Cb branching” in this book. Being a special member of the Cf set, Cb represents the semantic entity that the utterance in question most centrally concerns. For some utterances, there exists exactly one such semantic entity, while for some others, there might be no such entity. Accepting these two possibilities and based on the report mode of discourse, I would like to argue for a third possibility, i.e., there could be more than one most centrally concerned semantic entity in a given utterance. As regulated in Constraint 2, every element in the Cf set of Ui must be realized in Ui. However, consensus on the definition of realization has not yet been reached. Semantic versus syntactic realization, overt versus covert realization, and direct versus indirect realization are three pairs of competing ways to recognize this concept, and they deserve further specification in an independent section. In Sect. 2.4.2, I would like to demonstrate that such realization can only be legislated in a syntactic and direct way. Supported by Chinese data, I will also show that elements in a certain Cf set could be either realized overtly or covertly owing to the fact that Chinese is a pro-drop language and it allows for zero anaphora. One important premise for Constraint 3 is that forward-looking centers are ranked on the basis of their salience in a certain utterance, and this ranking will affect the backward-looking center of its following utterance, i.e., CpR (Ui−1, D) = Cb (Ui, D). This constraint is the most fundamental mechanism in Centering Theory and is adopted together with Rule 2 in this book as the algorithm for data analysis. The reason that Constraint 3 and Rule 2 get so much attention here is that they both

2.3 Basic Constraints and Rules

21

stipulate the linking relation between two neighboring utterances. Taking Chinese discourse with bei utterance as the study object, one major task of this book is to investigate the contribution of bei in discourse linking and Cb preservation, so Constraint 3 receives a lot of emphasis for exactly this purpose. Another factor that makes Constraint 3 important is the indetermination of the determinative standard of Cf ranking. As proposed by the classic Centering Theory works from Kameyama (1985, 1986), Grosz et al. (1986, 1995), and Brennan et al. (1987), grammatical category is regarded as the key in determining the ranking order among Cfs. According to these studies, subjects are ranked more highly than objects, and direct objects still higher than indirect ones, i.e., SUBJECT > DIRECT OBJECT > INDIRECT OBJECT > OTHERS. Later, as pointed out by a number of typological studies (cf. Rambow 1993; Walker et al. 1994, 1998; Turan 1998; Strube and Hahn 1999, among others), the standards of Cf ranking might not be uniform among languages. Chapter 5 of this book presents a thorough review concerning this issue by taking Japanese, German, and Turkish into consideration, on the basis of which it will further probe the Cf -ranking standard that fits the Chinese linguistic fact. Now let us turn to the two rules of Centering Theory. Rule 1 is also recognized as “the pronoun rule,” which predicts that if any element in the Cf set is realized as a pronoun, so must be Cb. This prediction is proposed on the basis of English discourse analysis and does not take zero anaphora and the null element into account. As prodrop languages, Turkish, Japanese, and Italian prefer morphologically null elements to be realized as Cb (cf. Turan 1998 for Turkish; Walker et al. 1994 for Japanese; and Di Eugenio 1998 for Italian). Recalling the definition of center given in Sect. 2.2.1, which is repeated here for convenience, Chinese should be treated on a par with Turkish, Japanese, and Italian as a pro-drop language, and morphologically null elements in Chinese discourse are also preferred to behave as Cb. However, all these statements are nothing but theoretical assumptions that demand further data support. In Chap. 3, I would like to show, based on Chinese discourse with bei utterance, that morphologically null elements play an equally important role as pronouns in realizing and maintaining Cb. DEFINITION of center: Center is a semantic entity that has its syntactic realization in an overt form or as a pro, but not necessarily as a full NP constituent. Last but not least, the classification of transition states is also a long-standing controversial issue in Centering Theory literature. Rule 2 claims that transition states are ordered—the CONTINUOUS transition is preferred to the RETAIN transition, which is preferred to the SMOOTH SHIFT transition, which is preferred to the ROUGH SHIFT transition. Two parameters determine the ordering of transition states, i.e., the degree of discourse coherence and the degree of Cb salience. The degree of discourse coherence is embodied in the preservation of Cb—if the current Cb is maintained in the following utterance, these two neighboring utterances are

22

2 A Refined Centering Theory

regarded as having a high degree of discourse coherence; if the current Cb is not maintained, the degree of coherence is low. As for the degree of Cb salience, it is regulated that an utterance that recognizes its Cb as Cp is regarded as having a high degree of Cb salience and low otherwise. To put it in a more formalized expression, if Cb (Ui, D) = Cp (Ui, D), this Cb is endowed with a high degree of salience, while if Cb (Ui, D)= Cp (Ui, D), the salience degree of this Cb is low. Focusing on these two parameters, four possibilities are generated—[+ coherent, + salient], [+ coherent, -salient], [-coherent, + salient], and [-coherent, -salient], and these four possibilities correspond to the four transition states respectively, namely CONTINUATION, RETAIN, SMOOTH SHIFT, and ROUGH SHIFT. Subsequent studies make a further yet inconsistent refinement of such classification of transition states. For instance, Kameyama (1986) proposes a fifth type of transition state termed “Center Establishment” (EST), according to whom there is a process of establishing a center between an utterance without and an utterance with one of the other four transition states. However, this proposal seems to be redundant since Centering Theory has already recognized such a state as CONTINUATION, as was pointed out by Walker et al. (1994). Taking the Cp of the previous utterance into consideration, Strube and Hahn (1999) distinguish two types of transition pairs—cheap transition and expensive transition. A transition pair is cheap if the Cb of the current utterance matches the Cp of its preceding utterance, i.e., Cb (Ui) = Cp (Ui−1), whereas a transition pair is expensive if Cb (Ui)= Cp (Ui−1). At first blush, the cheap transition proposed by Strube and Hahn (1999) is virtually the regulation from Constraint 3, which compulsorily requires the Cb of the current utterance to be the highest-ranked element (Cp) of its preceding utterance that is realized in the current utterance. However, as we mentioned previously in footnote 8, Constraint 3 only takes into consideration the Cp that is actually realized in the current utterance. Thus, if the Cp in Ui−1 is not realized in Ui, we must check against the second salient Cf member until we find a semantic entity that is realized in the current Ui and recognize it as Cb. In contrast, the Cp in Strube and Hahn’s (1999) proposal is the unique highest-ranked Cf member no matter whether it is realized in the following utterance or not. To put it another way, Strube and Hahn regulate the Cb (Ui)–Cp (Ui−1) relation without wondering whether Cp (Ui−1) is realized in Ui or not. A similar operation can also be found in Hu and Pan (2001), as will be introduced and evaluated in Sect. 2.5. To sum up for now, as regards the three constraints, the number of Cb in each utterance, the identification of realization, and the ranking within the Cf set are three major questions awaiting a relatively satisfactory answer within the Centering Theory framework. In addition, the competition between pronoun and zero anaphora, as well as between discourse coherence and Cb salience, represents another two unsettled questions with respect to the two rules of the theory. These notorious problems will be addressed together in Sect. 2.4 in the hope of uncovering some more appropriate explanations. In Sect. 2.5, I would like to present Hu and Pan’s (2001) refinement of Centering Theory so as to weigh up the importance of two pairs of relations, namely {Cb (Ui), Cp (Ui)} and {Cb (Ui), Cp (Ui−1)}.

2.4 Some Notorious Problems

23

2.4 Some Notorious Problems 2.4.1 A Unique Cb Versus Cb Branching As stipulated in Constraint 1, for each utterance Ui in a discourse segment D consisting of utterances U1……Um, there is precisely one backward-looking center Cb (Ui, D), except for U1. U1 is thus treated as an initial utterance and its Cb as a variable that could further unify with the Cb assigned to the subsequent utterance (Walker et al. 1994). Adopting the Japanese discourse segment used in Walker et al. (1994) to illustrate this point: vi. U1: Taroo ga deeta o konpyuutaa ni utikondeimasita. Taroo SUBJ data OBJ computer in was-storing Taro was storing the data in a computer. Cb: [?] Cf: [Taroo, data] U2: 0 yatto hanbun yari-owarimasita. SUBJ finally half do-finished Finally (Taroo) was half finished. Cb: [Taroo] Cf: [Taroo] CONTINUATION (Walker, Iida, and Cote 1994:215-6)

Cb: [?] in the initial utterance waits for further unification with the semantic entity assigned to the subsequent Cb, and the use of a zero-form subject in U2 instantiates Taroo as this Cb. However, such stipulation is rejected by Brennan et al. (1987), who argue that at least two utterances are needed to “warm up” the discourse before Cb transition states can be calculated as instantiated by discourse segment (vii) below9 : vii. U1: Mary is happy. U2: Jane just gave her a book. U3: She loves to read. U1: Mary is happy. Cb:Nil. Cf:{Mary} ROUGH SHIFT U2: Jane just gave her a book. Cb:[Mary] Cf:{Jane, Mary} ROUGH SHIFT U3: She loves to read. Cb:[Mary] Cf:{Mary} CONTINUATION

9A

NIL Cb in example (vii) means that there is no linking to a previous utterance.

24

2 A Refined Centering Theory

Beaver (2000) argues against this “warming up” procedure given that it renders a fairly weak prediction about the anaphora resolution in the second utterance, and that such predictions on some occasions are against the speaker’s intuition. Intuitively, U1 of discourse segment (vii) is the beginning of a discourse segment, which should not be tagged as SHIFT or CONTINUATION; moreover, there is a clear linking between U1 and U2 indicated by the pronoun her, thus, it is better not analyzed as a ROUGH SHIFT. So we generally prefer the strong version of Constraint 1, i.e., there is precisely one backward-looking center—Cb (Ui, D) for each utterance, except for U1. Ideally, this stipulation can cover all discourse facts from all languages; however, the real discourse reveals much more complicated problems than can be addressed by this constraint. Through a close scrutiny of Chinese discourses with bei passives, one interesting group of discourse segments attracts my attention. 3) U1: Zhexie guanyuan zhong, bufen wei cong fuzhi kua bumen tiba, These officials among partially BE from deputy post inter-department promote U2: ru Yin QZ cong fagaiwei fu zhuren bei renming wei tongjiju juzhang, e.g.,Yin from NDRC deputy-director BEI appoint for Statistical Bureau minister U3: Tang Z. cong Jingxinwei fu zhuren bei tiba wei jinrongban zhuren. Tang from MIIT deputy-director BEI promoted to OFS director U4: Haiyou bufen guanyuan wei zai bumen zhi nei jiaoliu, and some official BE ZAI inter-department communication U5: ru yuan yuanlinju juzhang Han XG bei renmingwei guotuju juzhang, e.g., former BPW minister Han BEI appointed for LRB minister U6: yuan fangguanju juzhang Gao LW bei renming wei huanbaoju juzhang. former HAB minister Gao BEI appointed for EPA minister Lit.Among these officials, some of them got interdepartmental promotion from deputy posts. For instance, the former deputy director of NDRC Mr. Yin Q. is appointed for the Minister of Statistical Bureau; former deputy director of MIIT Mr.Tang is promoted to the director of Office of Financial Service. Some officials were exchanged inter-departmentally. For example, the former Minister of the Bureau of Parks and Woods—Mr. Han—is appointed as the Minister of Land and Resources Bureau, and the former Minister of House Administration Bureau is now the Ministerof EPA. (adoptedfrompeople.cn)(http://news.people.com.cn/)

2.4 Some Notorious Problems

25

4) U1: Ben zhousan, ben saiji de CBA zong juesai jiu jiang la-kai damu, This Wednesday this season DE CBA final is going to kick off U2: Beijing dui jiang zai zhuchang yingzhan Guangdong dui. Beijing Team will ZAI play host to Guangdong Team U3: Guangdong dui yijing xiuxi-le jin liangzhou, Guangdong Team already rest-LE nearly two weeks U4: zai tili-shang you-zhe juedui youshi. ZAI physical strength have-ZHE dominate U5: dan Beijing dui zuowei ben saiji de bancheng guanjun but Beijing Team as this season DE mid-season champion U6: bei kanzuoshi zui you xiwang tiaozhan huananhu tongzhi diwei de qiudui BEI regarded as the most promising challenge south-China tiger reign-DE team Lit. This Wednesday, the CBA final of this season is going to kick off. Beijing will host Guangdong. Having already rested for two weeks, Guang dong Team dominates in physical strength. However, as the mid-season champion, Beijing is the most promising team that might challenge the reign of the“South Chinatiger.” (from people.cn) (http://news.people.com.cn/)

Adopting the definition of utterance given in Sect. 2.2.2, a new utterance is triggered by either an update of Cb or an update of temporal/aspectual information with regard to the current Cb. Thus, there are six utterances in both discourse segment (3)10,11,12,13,14,15,16 and (4) as listed above. Nonetheless, let us focus on segment (3) first. There are two sum-part relations in this segment indicated by the expressions “bufen guanyuan” (some officials) and “haiyou bufen guanyuan”(some others). U2 and U3 are two specifications with regard to U1, whereas U5 and U6 are two instantiations of U4. In line with Constraint 1 of Centering Theory, each of these six utterances holds exactly one unique Cb, and none of these backward-looking centers maintain the same semantic entity. So, linearly speaking, the transition states from U1 to U6 are all SHIFTs as illustrated below:

10 NDRC

is acronym for National Development and Reform Commission. is acronym for Ministry of Industry and Information Technology. 12 OFS is acronym for Office of Financial Service. 13 BPW is acronym for Bureau of Parks and Woods. 14 LRB is acronym for Land and Resources Bureau. 15 HAB is acronym for House Administration Bureau. 16 EPA is acronym for Environmental Protection Agency. 11 MIIT

26

2 A Refined Centering Theory

3) U1: Zhexie guanyuan zhong, bufen wei cong fuzhi kua bumen tiba, Among these officials, some of them got interdepartmental promotion from deputy posts. Cb: [?] Cf: [bufen guanyuan (some officials)] U2: ru Yin QZ cong fagaiwei fuzhuren bei renmingwei tongjiju juzhang, For instance, the former deputy director of NDRC Mr. Yin Q. is appointed for the Minister of Statistical Bureau; Cb: [Yin QZ] Cf: [Yin QZ] SMOOTH-SHIFT U3: Tang Z cong jingxinwei fuzhuren bei tibawei jinrongban zhuren. former deputy director of MIIT Mr. Tang is promoted to the director of Office of Financial Service. Cb: [Tang Z] Cf: [Tang Z] SMOOTH-SHIFT

U4: Haiyou bufen guanyuan wei zai bumen zhijian jiaoliu, Some officials were exchanged inter-departmentally. Cb: [bufen guanyuan] Cf: [bufen guanyuan (some officials)] SMOOTH-SHIFT U5: ru yuan yuanlinju juzhang Han XG bei renmingwei guotuju juzhang, For example, the former Minister of the Bureau of Parks and Woods—Mr. Han— is appointed as the Minister of Land and Resources Bureau, Cb: [Han XG] Cf: [Han XG] SMOOTH-SHIFT U6: yuan fangguanju juzhang Gao LW bei renmingwei huanbaoju juzhang. the former Minister of House Administration Bureau is now the Minister of EPA. Cb: [Gao LW] Cf: [Gao LW] SMOOTH-SHIFT

However, intuitively there are close linking relations among these six utterances, especially between U1-3 and U4-6, which triggered us to consider the possibility of Cb branching. Considered differently, this is a two-tier branching discourse segment, in which the first tier lies in the parallel relation between U1 and U4, and the second tier in U2 and U3 as well as in U5 and U6, respectively. This hierarchical branching relation can be presented as follows:

2.4 Some Notorious Problems

27

3) U1: Zhexie guanyuan zhong, bufen wei cong fuzhi kua bumen tiba: U2: ru Yin QZ cong fagaiwei fuzhuren bei renmingwei tongjiju juzhang, U3: Tang Z cong jingxinwei fuzhuren bei tibawei jinrongban zhuren. Cb: [?] Cf: [x=bufen guanyuan(some officials)] Cb: [x1= Yin QZ] Cf: [Yin QZ]

Cb: [x2=Tang Z] Cf: [Tang Z]

U4: Haiyou bufen guanyuan wei zai bumen zhijian jiaoliu: U5: ru yuan yuanlinju juzhang Han XG bei renmingwei guotuju juzhang, U6: yuan fangguanju juzhang Gao LW bei renmingwei huanbaoju juzhang. Cb: [] Cf: [y=haiyou bufen guanyuan (some officials)] Cb: [y1= Han XG] Cf: [Han XG]

Cb: [y2=Gao LW] Cf: [Gao LW]

Thus these Cbs bear a hierarchical relation, which can be illustrated as follows: Yin QZ U2 Bufen U1 (Some) Zhexie guanyuan (Among these officials)

Tang Z U3 Haiyou bufen U4

Han XG U5

(some others)

Gao LW U6

Similarly, the Cbs in discourse segment (4) can be regarded as a bi-branching relation too: CBD zong juesai U1 (the CBA final)

Beijing dui U2,5,6(Team Beijing) Guangdong dui U3,4(Team Guangdong)

Cb branching is witnessed frequently in political news reports on official appointments as well as in sports news concerning two playing teams. If these branches are treated as independent utterances with unique Cbs, respectively, discourse coherence will be more than difficult to maintain due to the fact that all transition states are SHIFTs. However, recognizing these utterances hierarchically instead of linearly would, to a large extent, keep the backward-looking centers within a reasonably limited amount, which maintains the discourse coherence and in turn lessens the

28

2 A Refined Centering Theory

information load. Intuitive-friendly as this approach is, I propose redefining the stipulation of Constraint 1 as follows: Constraint 1 For each utterance Ui in a discourse segment D consisting of utterances U1…Um: There is precisely one backward-looking centerCb (Ui, D), except for U1, if only linear discourse relations are involved in D; The backward-looking centerCb (Ui, D) is subject to branching if a hierarchical discourse relation is involved in D.

2.4.2 Realization In Sect. 2.2.1, a tentative definition of center is given as repeated below. In this section, I would like to further verify this definition by providing support from Chinese discourse, and also to define the domain of realization so as to present a more rigorous Constraint 2. Miao (2003) points out that realization means that all the members in the Cf set of a given utterance must behave as a certain referential form, such as a pronoun, a zero anaphora, or a full noun phrase. As specified previously, an inferable semantic entity fails to act as the antecedent of the pronoun in the subsequent utterance, so it is excluded from the Cf set; in addition, a pro form behaves as a link between its preceding and subsequent utterances, thus, it is better analyzed as center. And also, both a full-fledged NP constituent and a possessive pronoun could serve as Cb of a certain utterance. Based on these three observations, I tentatively gave a definition with regard to center as follows: Definition of center: Center is a semantic entity that has its syntactic realization in an overt form or as a pro, but not necessarily as a full NP constituent. As regulated by Constraint 2, every element in the forward-looking centers set, Cf (Ui, D), must be realized in Ui. Due to the fact that both Cb and Cp are special members of the Cf set, this constraint could be rephrased as “every center of Ui must be realized in Ui.” Consider also Rule 1, which stipulates that if some element of Cf (Ui−1, D) is realized as a pronoun in Ui, then so is Cb (Ui, D). Gordon, Grosz, and Gillion (1993) propose a much stronger version of Rule 1 based on the fact that the semantic entities realized in the subject position take more time to process unless pronominalized, which is termed “repeated-name penalty” (RNP). Based on this penalty, Gordon, Grosz, and Gillion further propose a strong version of Rule 1,

2.4 Some Notorious Problems

29

which stipulates that the Cb should always be pronominalized. Given this version of Rule 1, we can generate the following postulation: If a center is realized in Ui−1, and it is also realized in Ui but not any other centers of Ui−1, then it should be pronominalized. This postulation causes a serious problem for treating semantically inferable entities as centers. As pointed out in Sect. 2.3, consensus on the definition of realization can hardly be reached, and semantic versus syntactic realization is one pair of competing ways of recognizing this concept. Is a semantically inferable entity eligible to be a center? Or does a center necessarily occupy a syntactic position in the utterance it belongs to? In consideration of the postulation above, let us examine the discourse segments below. viii. a. U1: We took a taxi back home last night. U2: Unluckily, the driver does not speak Chinese. b. U1: We took a taxi back home last night. U2: ??? Unluckily, he does not speak Chinese. ix. a. U1: Li Li qitu cong damen zoujin, Lily try to from gate enter U2: keshi juda-de mensuo dangzhu-le ta-de qulu. but huge gate lock stop-LE her way. b. U1: Li Li qitu cong damen zoujin, Lily try to from gate enter U2: ??? keshi (ta) dangzhu-le ta-de qulu. but (it) stop-LE her way. Lit. Lily tried to walk through the gate again, but the huge gate lock stopped her.

The driver in (viii. a) and the “mensuo” (gate lock) in (ix. a) are both semantically inferable entities. Suppose that they are both realized in U1 of each discourse segment, respectively; they are predicted to be pronominalized if they are also realized in U2. However, the pronominalization of either case would generate counterintuitive sentences. Thus, I would like to choose syntactic realization in this pair, and further demonstrate that any realized semantic entity is a legitimated antecedent of the subsequent pronoun. The semantic versus syntactic realization is basically the same notion as the direct versus indirect realization as termed by Poesio et al. (2004), according to whom, direct realization means that for each discourse entity there is one corresponding noun phrase in the utterance that refers to it, whereas indirect realization means that when one of the noun phrases is an associative reference to a certain discourse entity in the utterance. In the examples above, a taxi in U1 is regarded as the associative reference of U2 in (viii. a), and “damen” (the gate) in U1 is the associative reference of U2 in (ix. a). Following the above demonstration, neither of them is recognized as an element in Cf (U2, D).

30

2 A Refined Centering Theory

Another pair of competing ways of recognizing realization is overt versus covert. Three empty categories are taken into consideration—trace, PRO, and pro. Focusing on trace and PRO first, given the fact that all the A-movement traces must be bound by a co-indexed constituent within their governing domain, and that a PRO must be controlled by an overt subject/object in its control domain, it is always possible to locate an overt constituent in the same sentence referring to the same referent with a trace or a PRO as exemplified below. a. [TP [NP the studentj [TP the person saw tj ]] came]. trace b. Olga persuaded Katiei [PROi to give up that crazy plan]. PRO In sentence (a), trace t j co-indexes with the overt noun phrase “the student j ” within the same sentence, thus, the distinction between covert and overt realization does not affect the recognization of centers. The case is the same in sentence (b)—since both PROi and its controller “Katiei ” belong to the same TP, it is easy to distinguish the center. Now we come to pro. As demonstrated via Chinese discourse segment (1) in 2.2.1 repeated below, a pro form also occupies a position in the Cf set and it could act as a Cb linking the preceding utterance with the following one. 1) U1: Lisite kan zhe zhexie-ren youxie yanshu, Liszt looked at this guy and found him so familiar, U2: pro juji shi mouwei zhongyao-de jingli, (he) thought he might be some important manager, U3: pro que xiang bu qilai daodi duifang shi shui, but it never occurred to him who exactly this guy was. U4: ta xunsu-de weiwei yi-waitou zai La La erbian disheng wendao: Who’s this guy? Quickly, he turned his head partly to one side and whispered in Lala’s ear“Who’s this guy?”

The Cb of this segment “Lisite” (Liszt) is maintained from U1 to U4 in the forms of overt proper name, pro form, and pronoun. Recalling that Cb is a special member of the partially ordered Cf set, the pro form in U3 should occupy a position in the Cf set, which functions as Cb and maintains the coherence of the current discourse. A similar phenomenon is also observed in other pro-drop languages such as Japanese and Italian (cf. Walker et al. 1994; Di Eugenio 1990, 1998, among others). Below we find two examples with regard to these two languages, in both of which a pro form behaves as the backward-looking center and in turn contributes to Cb CONTINUATION. x. Japanese—Walker, Iida, and Cote (1994:194) a.Taroo ga kooen o sanpositeimasita. Taroo SUBJ park in walking-was Lit. Taroo was taking a walk in the park. b.0 Ziroo o hunsui no mae de mitukemasita SUBJ Ziroo OBJ fountain of front in found Lit. (Taroo) found Ziroo in front of the fountain.

2.4 Some Notorious Problems

xi. Italian—Di Eugenio (1998:117) a.Mariai voleva andare al mare. Maria wanted to go to the seaside b.0i Telefono’a Giovanni. (Shei) phoned to Giovanni c.0i Si arrabbio’ perche’ 0i non loj trovo’a (Shei) self got angry because (shei) not himj found at

31

casa. home

In the Japanese case, the pro form that refers to “Taroo” acts as the backwardlooking center as well as the subject of utterance (b), which renders a CONTINUATION transition from utterance (a) to (b). Similarly, in the Italian case, the pro form referring to Maria bears this function in both utterance (b) and (c). Considering the examples from Chinese, Japanese, and Italian, each of these pro forms acts as the backward-looking center in the utterance of the discourse segment. This fully proves that a pro form occupies a certain position within the Cf set (and this position is preferred as the most salient one). Thus, besides an overt realization as illuminated by discourses in most languages, the linguistic facts from pro-drop languages also support a covert realization via an empty pro form of center. To summarize what we have so far observed in this section, Constraint 2 of Centering Theory can be further restricted as follows: Constraint 2 For each utterance Ui in a discourse segment D consisting of utterances U1…Um: Every element of the forward-looking centers set, Cf (Ui, D), must be syntactically and directly realized in Ui either overtly or covertly.

2.4.3 The Role of Constraint 3 Constraint 3 regulates that the backward-looking center—Cb (Ui, D)—is the highestranked element of the forward-looking centers that is realized in Ui—CpR (Ui−1, D). One essential premise for this regulation is that forward-looking centers are ranked on the basis of their degree of salience in a certain utterance, and this ranking affects the backward-looking center of its subsequent utterance. As has been pointed out, not in every case is the highest-ranked Cf member in a certain utterance, i.e., the Cp, realized in the subsequent utterance, and only the one that is actually realized in the subsequent utterance is considered in Constraint 3. Thus, I have provided a way to differentiate Cp from the Cp that is realized in its following utterance, i.e., this book adopts a subscripted R to make such a distinction: Cp (Ui−1, D) is considered as the one and only preferred center (Cp) of a certain utterance, while CpR (Ui−1, D)

32

2 A Refined Centering Theory

Graph 2.1 Generating transition states via Constraint 3

is the element that is involved in Constraint 3, i.e., the highest-ranked element of Cf (Ui−1, D) that is realized in Ui. Such treatment helps to differentiate the Cb transition states proposed by Grosz, Joshi, and Weinstein (1995) from the approach of Strube and Hahn (1999) as well as that of Hu and Pan (2001). Grosz et al. (1995) take Constraint 3 as a premise, which claims that Cb (Ui, D) = CpR (Ui−1, D), and further predicts the Cb transition states via the relation between Cb (Ui) and Cp (Ui); in contrast, both Strube and Hahn (1999) and Hu and Pan (2001) take the relation between Cb (Ui, D) and Cp (Ui−1, D) as a parameter to predict the Cb transition state, regardless of the relation between Cb (Ui) and Cp (Ui). A comparison between these two approaches has already been presented in Sect. 2.3 and will not be repeated here. Turning back to Constraint 3, there are two possibilities concerning the relation between Cp (Ui−1, D) and CpR (Ui−1, D), i.e., Cp (Ui−1, D) = CpR (Ui−1, D) and Cp (Ui−1, D)= CpR (Ui−1, D). Concentrating on the first possibility and taking the relation between Cp (Ui−1) and Cp (Ui) into consideration, two more possibilities can be received—Cp (Ui−1) = Cp (Ui) and Cp (Ui−1)= Cp (Ui). Similarly, as regards the second possibility and also the relation between Cp (Ui−1) and Cp (Ui), another two possibilities would be CpR (Ui−1) = Cp (Ui) and CpR (Ui−1)= Cp (Ui). This complication can be analyzed as the graph of equation shown in Graph 2.1. Now suppose that Eq. Cb (Ui−1) = Cp (Ui−1). This graph predicts precisely the four Cb transition states stipulated in Rule 2. Take Constraint 3 + Step one (a) + Step two (a), a CONTINUATION state will be generated; Constraint 3 + Step one (a) + Step two (b) is a RETAIN state; Constraint 3 + Step one (b) + Step two (c) will present a SMOOTH SHIFT state, and finally Constraint 3 + Step one (b) + Step two (d) will present a ROUGH SHIFT state. So far we have seen that Constraint 3 precisely predicts Rule 2 of Centering Theory, which indicates a close relation between these two regulations. As stated in Sect. 2.3, this constraint is regarded as the most fundamental mechanism in Centering Theory and will be adopted together with Rule 2 in this book as the algorithm for data calculation and analysis. I have also pointed out that the reason why Constraint 3 and Rule 2 get so much attention here is because they both stipulate the linking relation between two neighboring utterances. The actual contributions of Constraint 1 and 2 to discourse analysis are very restricted. Constraint 1 only regulates the number of backward-looking center, i.e., the speaker’s attentional focus is restricted to no more than one semantic entity as he/she outputs one utterance. This is proved to be questionable in Sect. 2.4.1 by data from Chinese. As for Constraint 2, it only emphasizes that all semantic entities that

2.4 Some Notorious Problems

33

are involved in an utterance must be realized directly in the syntactic structure of the utterance, which is a preparation of the semantic entities for functioning as linkage among utterances so as to play a role in discourse coherence. As regards the two rules of Centering Theory, they are better treated as tendencies or preferences rather than regulations, since the data analyses in the following chapters show that the pronoun rule is not irreversible, and Rule 2 has already been proved to be predictable via Constraint 3. Thus, I would like to take Constraint 3 as the key of the whole Centering Theory framework, which has a major effect on discourse coherence. In what follows, I will further consider the function of Constraint 3 together with its relation to Rule 2 so as to develop the very basic analytical tool that will be adopted in the subsequent data analyses.

2.4.4 Discourse Coherence Versus Semantic Entity Salience As mentioned in Sect. 2.3, there are two parameters that determine the ordering of Cb transition states, i.e., the degree of discourse coherence and the degree of Cb salience. The degree of coherence in certain discourse is embodied in the CONTINUATION of Cb—if the current Cb is maintained in the following utterance, these two neighboring utterances are regarded as having a high degree of discourse coherence; if it is not, the degree is low. As for the degree of Cb salience, it stipulates that an utterance that recognizes its Cb as Cp is regarded as having a high degree of Cb salience and low otherwise. In other words, if Cb (Ui, D) = Cp (Ui, D) in a given utterance, this Cb is endowed with a high degree of salience, while if Cb (Ui, D)= Cp (Ui, D), the degree of salience of this Cb is low. We have also generated four possibilities in Sect. 2.3, i.e., [+ coherent, + salient], [+ coherent, -salient], [-coherent, + salient], and [-coherent, -salient]. These four possibilities are correspond to the four transition states respectively, namely CONTINUATION, RETAIN, and SMOOTH and ROUGH SHIFT. Step one in Graph 2.1 focuses on the coherence of certain discourse by examining whether its Cb is the same as its Cp, whereas Step two takes both discourse coherence and Cb salience into consideration. Incorporating the two parameters into Graph 2.1, for the combination (a–a)17 it is [+ coherent, +salient], while for (a–b) it is [+ coherent, -salient]; as for the combination (b–c), it is [-coherent, +salient], and for (b–d) it is [-coherent, -salient]. Apparently, the (a–a) combination is the preferred one due to its preservation of discourse coherence, whereas the (b–d) combination is the least preferred since it fails to maintain the discourse coherence. However, the relative merits of (a–b) and (b–c) are hard to judge, and the choice between these two combinations with regard to preference lies in the decision of which parameter is more decisive. If the degree of discourse coherence is considered more important than the degree of Cb salience, the RETAIN transition state is preferable to SMOOTH SHIFT as in discourse segment 17 That

is, Step one (a) + Step two (a).

34

2 A Refined Centering Theory

(xii); however, if it is the other way round, SMOOTH SHIFT is more favorable than RETAIN transition as shown in segment (xiii). xii. U1: Former Liberian leader Charles Taylor was sentenced on Wednesday to 50 years in prison for aiding and abetting war crimes in Sierra Leone. U2: Hundreds of people turned out at a courthouse in Sierra Leone’s capital, Freetown, to watch as Taylor received his sentencing. xiii. U1: The study involved more than 45,000 women in Denmark and was published online in the Archives of General Psychiatry. U2: Researchers say the parasite infects about one in three people worldwide, U3: but usually causes few or no symptoms. (from voanews.com)

In discourse segment (xii), the preferred center of U1 is “former Liberian leader Charles Taylor,” which is also realized in its following utterance but not as the preferred center, which makes this transition a RETAIN one. Looking at discourse segment (xiii), the preferred center of U1 is “the study,” which is not realized in the subsequent utterance at all. Moreover, the new Cb of U2—researchers—occupies the most salient position in this utterance, which renders this transition a SMOOTH SHIFT. In Chap. 3, data analyses concerning the Chinese bei utterance will also take the competing relation between these two parameters into consideration. Supposing that the preferred transition state is inclined to be adopted more frequently, the frequency of adopting these two transition states will be calculated so as to answer the question we posed above, i.e.: Which parameter plays a decisive role, the degree of discourse coherence or the degree of Cb salience?

2.5 Hu and Pan (2001) Revisited On the basis of Grosz, Joshi, and Weinstein’s (1995) framework, Hu and Pan (2001) introduced the concept of discourse segment topic (DST) into Centering Theory. The difference between Cb and DST is that the former belongs to the utterance, while the latter belongs to the discourse segment. A DST is consistent in a discourse segment once identified, while Cb may change from utterance to utterance within a discourse segment. Based on this distinction between these two concepts, Cb transition states are modified by Hu and Pan as follows (Table 2.2(1) and 2.2(2)). Take one discourse segment for instance: Table 2.2(1) Cb transition states 1—Hu and Pan (2001) Cb (Ui) = Cb (Ui−1)OR Cb (Ui) = [?]

Cb (Ui) = Cb (Ui−1)

Cb (Ui) = Cp (Ui−1)

CONTINUATION

SMOOTH SHIFT

Cb(Ui) = Cp(Ui−1)

RETAIN

ROUGH SHIFT

2.5 Hu and Pan (2001) Revisited

35

Table 2.2(2) Cb transition states 2—Hu and Pan (2001) Cb(Ui−1) = [?] ∧some NP in Cf (Ui) Cb(Ui−1) = [?]∧some NP in Cf (Ui) = = some NP in Cf (Ui−1) some NP in Cf (Ui−1) Cb(Ui) = [?] SMOOTH SHIFT

NULL-TRANSITION

xiv. U1: Lily is having birthday. U2: Celine plans to buy her an iPhone. U3: She told her before that iPhone X is very expensive. U4: She hopes Lily will love the present. U1: Lily is having birthday. Cb: [?] Cf: [Lily] SUBJ U2: Celine plans to buy her an iPhone. Cb: [?] Cf: [Celine, Lily, an iPhone] NULL-TRANSITION SUBJ OBJ1 OBJ2 DST: [Lily] U3: She told her before that iPhone X is very expensive. 1 Cb1: [Celine] Cf1: [Celine, Lily, iPhone X] CONTINUE SUBJ1 OBJ SUBJ2 DST: [Lily] 2 Cb2: [Lily] Cf2: [Lily, Celine, iPhone X] RETAIN SUBJ1 OBJ SUBJ2 DST: [Lily] U4: She hopes Lily will love the present. Cb: [Celine] Cf: [Celine, Lily] SUBJ OBJ If [Celine] is chosen, it is CONTINUE; DST: [Celine] If [Lily] is chosen, it is ROUGH-SHIFT. DST: [Lily]

As introduced previously, there is a certain interaction between Constraint 3 and Rule 2 of Centering Theory. Traditionally, from Grosz et al. (1983, 1995) point of view, the relation between the current Cb and the preceding Cp is regulated via Constraint 3, i.e., “The backward-looking center, Cb (Ui, D), is the highest-ranked element of Cf (Ui−1, D) that is realized in Ui.” This regulation only takes the Cp (Ui−1) that is realized in Ui into consideration, leaving those unrealized ones aside. Thus, if the Cp in Ui−1 is not realized in Ui, we must check against the second salient Cf member until we can find a semantic entity that is actually realized in the current Ui and recognize it as the Cb. In contrast, the Cp in Hu and Pan’s (2001) proposal is the unique highest-ranked Cf (Ui−1) member no matter whether it is realized in the following utterance or not. As in Strube and Hahn’s (1999) proposal, Hu and

36

2 A Refined Centering Theory

Table 2.3 Integrated relation among Cb (Ui), Cp (Ui), and Cp (Ui−1) 1

Cb (Ui) = Cp (Ui)

Cb (Ui) = Cp (Ui−1)

Cp (Ui) = Cp (Ui−1)

2

Cb (Ui) = Cp (Ui)

Cb (Ui)= Cp (Ui−1)

Cp (Ui)= Cp (Ui−1)

3

Cb (Ui)= Cp (Ui)

Cb (Ui) = Cp (Ui−1)

Cp (Ui)= Cp (Ui−1)

4

Cb (Ui)= Cp (Ui)

Cb (Ui)= Cp (Ui−1)

Cp (Ui) = Cp (Ui−1)

5

Cb (Ui)= Cp (Ui)

Cb (Ui)= Cp (Ui−1)

Cp (Ui)= Cp (Ui−1)

Pan (2001) put Cb (Ui) and Cp (Ui−1) into comparison regardless of whether Cp (Ui−1) is realized in Ui or not. Here comes one question with regard to these two approaches: How can we distinguish Cb CONTINUATION from the other transition states? Comparing these two Cb transition states, we will find that Grosz, Joshi, and Weinstein’s proposal differentiates CONTINUATION from RETAIN and SMOOTH SHIFT from ROUGH SHIFT on the basis of the relation between Cb and Cp of the current utterance, while Hu and Pan’s refinement, as well as that of Strube and Hahn, makes such a distinction based upon the relation between the current Cb and the Cp of the previous utterance. Which version reveals the reality of discourse? Integrating these two versions, there are five possibilities with regard to the relation among Cb (Ui), Cp (Ui), and Cp (Ui−1) as listed above (Table 2.3). Luckily, on the premise of a strict obedience to the pronoun rule (Rule 1) and the Cf -ranking hierarchy,18 we have found appropriate English discourse segments to exemplify these five possibilities. Using a modified Susan-Betsy example from Grosz et al. (1995), the following five discourse segments correspond to each of the five situations in Table 2.3. A.{ Cb (Ui)=Cp (Ui); Cb (Ui)=Cp (Ui-1); Cp (Ui)=Cp (Ui-1)} a)Susan gave Betsy a pet hamster. b)She reminded her that such hamsters were quite shy. c) She asked Betsy whether she liked the gift. Cb3=Cp3=Cp2=Susan B.{ Cb (Ui)=Cp (Ui); Cb (Ui) Cp (Ui-1); Cp (Ui) Cp (Ui-1)} a)Susan gave Betsy a pet hamster. b)She reminded her that such hamsters were quite shy. c) Daniel also prepared a gift. Cb3=Daniel, Cp3=Daniel (SUBJ), Cp2= Susan C.{Cb (Ui) Cp (Ui); Cb (Ui)=Cp (Ui-1); Cp (Ui) Cp (Ui-1)} a)Susan gave Betsy a pet hamster. b)She reminded her that such hamsters were quite shy. c) Betsy told her that she really liked the gift. Cb3=her=Susan (pronoun rule), Cp3=Betsy (SUBJ), Cp2=she=Susan 18 I

tentatively adopt Grosz, Joshi, and Weinstein’s (1995) definition and regulation on Rule 1 and the Cf ranking hierarchy. Following them, Rule 1 regulates that if some element of Cf (Ui−1) is realized as a pronoun in Ui then so is Cb (Ui); and the Cf ranking is set on the basis of their grammatical function, i.e., SUBJ > DIR. OBJ > INDIR. OBJ > OTHERS.

2.5 Hu and Pan (2001) Revisited

37

D.{Cb (Ui) Cp (Ui); Cb (Ui) Cp (Ui-1); Cp (Ui)=Cp (Ui-1)} a)Susan gave Betsy a pet hamster. b)She reminded her that such hamsters were quite shy. c) Susan asked her whether she liked the gift. Cb3=her=Betsy (pronoun rule), Cp3=Susan (SUBJ), Cp2=she=Susan E.{Cb (Ui) Cp (Ui); Cb (Ui) Cp (Ui-1); Cp (Ui) Cp (Ui-1)} a)Susan gave Betsy a pet hamster. b)She reminded her that such hamsters were quite shy. c) Daniel also bought her a gift. Cb3=her=Betsy (pronoun rule), Cp3=Daniel (SUBJ), Cp2=she=Susan

Focusing on utterances 2 and 3, these two approaches will result in different transition states as illustrated in Table (2.4). Notice that RETAIN is missing if Hu and Pan’s (2001) approach is adopted. For the sake of integration, I am adding one more example to incorporate this transition into the whole picture. F.{Cb (Ui-1) Cp (Ui-1); Cb (Ui)=Cb (Ui-1); Cb (Ui) Cp (Ui-1)} a)Susan gave Betsy a pet hamster. b)Betsy told her that she really liked the gift. c)Susan was very glad that she had chosen the right gift.

This table reveals some discrepancies between these two approaches. Generally speaking, Hu and Pan’s (2001) operation seems to be stricter than Grosz, Joshi, and Weinstein’s (1995). For instance, Hu and Pan analyze the relation between U2 and U3 in discourse segment (B) as ROUGH SHIFT, while it is SMOOTH SHIFT in Grosz, Joshi, and Weinstein’s story; the case in discourse segments (C)/(F) is similar to this. However, strictness is not a decisive precondition for which approach to adopt; a detailed scrutiny concerning both approaches is required. Given the three reasons I provide below, I move for a Grosz, Joshi, and Weinstein approach instead of Hu and Pan’s. Firstly, despite the differences demonstrated above, Hu and Pan’s treatment of the relation between the current Cb and the preceding Cp still somehow overlaps with the regulation of Constraint 3. We have pointed out that Constraint 3 only takes the Cp (Ui−1) that is realized in Ui into consideration, leaving those unrealized ones aside, whereas Hu and Pan (2001) put Cb (Ui) and Cp (Ui−1) into comparison regardless Table 2.4 Transition states focusing on U2 → U3

Hu and Pan’s (2001) approach

Grosz et al. (1995) approach

(A)

CONTINUATION

CONTINUATION

(B)

ROUGH SHIFT

SMOOTH SHIFT

(C)

SMOOTH SHIFT

RETAIN

(D)

ROUGH SHIFT

ROUGH SHIFT

(E)

ROUGH SHIFT

ROUGH SHIFT

(F)

RETAIN

CONTINUATION

38

2 A Refined Centering Theory

of whether Cp (Ui−1) is realized in Ui or not. Nevertheless, under the circumstance that the very Cp of Ui−1 is actually realized in Ui (which happens in most cases), what stipulated by Hu and Pan is no more than a replication of Constraint 3. Secondly, the Cb transition states are decided by two parameters as mentioned above—the degree of discourse coherence and the degree of Cb salience. The latter regulates that an utterance that recognizes its Cb as Cp is regarded as having a high degree of Cb salience and low otherwise. To put it in a more formalized way, if Cb (Ui, D) = Cp (Ui, D), this Cb is endowed with a high degree of salience, while if Cb (Ui, D)= Cp (Ui, D), the degree of salience of this Cb is low. There is a division of labor between these two parameters at work. The parameter of discourse coherence sticks to the relation between two neighboring utterances, while the parameter of Cb salience focuses on the salience hierarchy among semantic entities within the current utterance. From this perspective, angling toward the relation between Cb (Ui) and Cp (Ui−1) cannot encompass the end of this parameter. Lastly, one by-effect of Hu and Pan’s approach is that one more pair of relations needs to be addressed, i.e., {Cb (Ui−1), Cp (Ui−1)}. Adopting Grosz, Joshi, and Weinstein’s operation, only the relations between Cb and its previous Cb, and the current Cb and the current Cp, are concerned—the relation between the preceding Cp and Cb does not influence the transition state; however, a comparison between Cb (Ui) and Cp (Ui−1), as well as between Cb (Ui) and Cb (Ui−1), will inevitably drag in another pair of relations, i.e., {Cb(Ui−1) and Cp (Ui−1)}. In fact, this pair of relations is exactly what the degree of salience concerns and it is briefly and precisely expressed in Grosz, Joshi, and Weinstein’s framework. Thus, Hu and Pan’s approach examined here is relatively circuitous, which might consume more effort if applied to the natural language process. In conclusion, based on the premise of a strict obedience of Constraint 3, I prefer Grosz, Joshi, and Weinstein’s (1995) approach toward the classification of Cb transition states over Hu and Pan’s (2001) treatment due to the simplicity and preciseness of the former.

2.6 The Application of Centering Theory in Natural Language Processing The most popular application for Centering Theory in the past has been anaphora resolution and natural language generation. Unlike the existing centering studies, this book devotes itself to issues like the contribution of special sentence patterns in Cb transition and the Cf -ranking criteria in discourse of Chinese as promised in Chap. 1. Nonetheless, the use of zero anaphora in Chinese will also be touched on in this book while it tests the pronoun rule of Centering Theory. So, as the last part of Chap. 2, this section briefly reviews previous studies concerning anaphoric resolution without further proposing any possible research issues.

2.6 The Application of Centering Theory in Natural Language …

39

2.6.1 Anaphoric Resolution—Pronoun Production Versus Pronoun Interpretation Rohde and Kehler (2014) differentiate pronoun production from pronoun interpretation, and claimed that these two notions are two aspects of the pronoun issue. On the one hand, the speaker uses pronouns to refer to referents that she/he considers to be salient to the hearer, while on the other hand, the hearer interprets pronouns based on what she/he regards as salient. They further demonstrate that the interpretation of pronouns is affected by two types of biases, namely pronoun production bias and contextually driven pragmatic biases; however, the pronoun production that is driven by grammatical and/or information-structural factors is not affected by pronoun interpretation biases. These two notions are driven by different factors and should not be confused when pronoun issues are dealt with. Rohde and Kehler (2014) also point out that Grosz, Joshi, and Weinstein’s (1995) claims of Centering Theory on the relevance of topicality are in actuality “production-oriented,” and thus do not affect the interpretation of pronoun. As mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, Centering Theory takes as its core the relation between local coherence and semantic entity salience, which makes it inevitably take natural language production as its study object. The data studied in this book also focus on the production of pronouns—no self-made utterances or discourse segments are presented due to the subjective preference/bias from the author—since they are naturally produced language, and do not address the hearer/reader’s comprehension. According to the context, hearers/readers can resolve what exactly a certain pronoun that is produced refers to and then find the pattern of such production on the basis of Centering Theory. However, this whole process of pronoun interpretation (or anaphoric resolution) is not interested in the interpretation of a pronoun since it is hearer-oriented. Thus, it is treated as a ramification of the relation between pronominalization and the choice of Cb. In what follows, only three approaches with regard to this issue will be presented and evaluated without further attention or application.

2.6.2 Brennan, Friedman, and Pollard’s (1987) Approach The pronoun rule of Centering Theory formulates that if some element of Cf (Ui−1, D) is realized as a pronoun in Ui, then so is Cb(Ui, D). This rule stipulates the relationship between pronominalization and backward-looking center, which is one focus of Centering Theory studies. Brennan et al. (1987) first proposed a pronounbinding algorithm based on two criteria: whether or not the Cb is the same as Ui−1, and whether or not this semantic entity coincides with the Cp of Ui. This algorithm consists of three steps: First generate all possible {Cb, Cf } combinations, then filter combinations by contra-indices and centering rules, and lastly rank the remaining combinations by transitions. Take example (xv), for instance:

40

2 A Refined Centering Theory

xv. Ui+1: Lily teaches at Fudan University on Linguistics. Ui+2: She is Lucas’s supervisor. Ui+3: She promised to give him a book. Ui+4: He is meeting her tomorrow. Ui+1:Lily teaches at Fudan University on Linguistics. Cb: [Lily] Cf: {Lily, Fudan University, Linguistics} CONTINUATION Ui+2: She is Lucas’s supervisor. Cb: [Lily] Cf: ([Lily: A1], Lucas) She=Lily, him=Lucas CONTINUATION

Ui+3: She promised to give him a book. Cb: [Lily: A1] Cf: ([Lily: A2][Lucas: A3][book: X1]) She=Lily, him=Lucas CONTINUATION Ui+4: He is meeting her tomorrow. Cb: [Lily: A2] Cf: ([Lucas: A4][Lily: A5]) He=Lucas, her=Lily RETAIN

Take Ui + 3 to illustrate the algorithm: First, by generating all possible {Cb, Cf } combinations, we can get three possible pairs: (A1, A2), (A1, A3), and (A1, X1). Second, filtering combinations by contraindices, we can exclude (A1, X1). And finally, to rank all remaining possible combinations, we still have (A1, A2) and (A1, A3). In this case, the highest-ranked proposal passed all the filters, i.e., (A1, A2), which renders the utterance a CONTINUATION transition state. However, this is not always the case, as has been shown in Ui + 4, in which the second-highest-ranked proposal—(A2, A5)—passed all the filters, and the utterance has a RETENTION transition relation with its previous one. Brennan, Friedman, and Pollard’s algorithm do not take efficiency as its priority— they admit that their design of the calculating algorithm focuses more on the conceptual clarity than on the processing efficiency. Another problem that can be seen from the example given above is that the algorithm only focuses on the possible (Cb, Cf ) relations within one utterance and ignores the incremental resolution possibilities of pronouns as was pointed out by Kehler (1997). So Strube (1998) and Tetreault (1999, 2001) developed two incremental algorithms for the resolution of pronouns.

2.6.3 Strube’s (1998) Approach The salience list (S-list for short) developed by Strube (1998) consists of elements from both the current and previous utterances, which are ranked according to their informational status and then by the surface order. The S-list differentiates three types of information sets based on Prince’s (1981) familiarity scale:

2.6 The Application of Centering Theory in Natural Language …

41

a. Hearer-old discourse entities (OLD): consists of evoked and unused entities (E and U); b. Mediated discourse entities (MED): consists of inferables and anchored brandnew discourse intra-sentential entities (BN); c. Hearer-new discourse entities (NEW): consists of brand-new entities (BN). There are several concepts that need to be defined before introducing the mechanism of the S-list: ➀. Evoked entities (E): all co-referring expressions including anaphoras, all kinds of pronouns, proper names that have been mentioned, and appositives; ➁. Unused entities (U): a text introduces a proper name via a relative clause or an appositive that relates the proper name to the hears’ knowledge. If this relation can be established, the corresponding discourse entity will be evoked, otherwise, the proper name will be treated as unused. ➂. Inferables: The entities that introduced into the text has an indirect link with the hearers’ knowledge, for instance, the introduction of “poultry” might evoke indirectly “quail, pigeon, throstle,” etc. ➃. Anchored brand-new entities (BN): some entity that has an already-mentioned, or OLD, entity as its anchor. Note that the concepts above are closely tied up with a totality of all nominal expressions, from pronoun and anaphora to proper names and indefinites. Ranking all these entities as OLD > MED > NEW, the anaphora resolution is simply a lookup in the S-list. Based on this familiarity ranking and the definitions of these concepts, Strube developed a pronoun resolution algorithm as follows: 1. If a referring expression is encountered, (a) If it is a pronoun, test the elements of the S-list in the given order until the test succeeds; (b) Update the S-list; the position of the referring expression under consideration is determined by the S-list ranking criteria, which are used as an insertion algorithm. 2. If the analysis of utterance U is finished, remove all discourse entities from the S-list that are not realized in U. For instance:

42

2 A Refined Centering Theory

xvi. U1: Smith drives a Honda. U2: He drives very fast. U3: A professional racing driver races him every weekend. U4: He drives to Santa Cruz. U4’: He can easily beat him. U1

Smith drives a Honda. S: [SMITHU: Smith, HONDABN: Honda] U2 He drives very fast. S: [SMITHE: he] U3 A professional racing driver races him every weekend. S: [SMITHE: him, DRIVERBN: Driver] U4 He drives to Santa Cruz. S: [SMITHE: he, SANTA CRUZU: Santa Cruz] U4’ He can easily beat him. S: [SMITHE: he, DRIVERE: him] N.B. the subscript U indicates an unused entity, BN a brand-new entity, and E an evoked entity.

The advantage of Strube’s approach over that of Brennan et al. (1987) is evident from the example above: Following Brennan et al. (1987), the Cf ranking depends on grammatical roles, which makes the brand-new entity DRIVER rank higher than SMITH in U3, so the transition pattern from U2 to U3 would be RETAIN rather than CONTINUATION, whereas in Strube’s algorithm, the evoked entity “SMITH” always ranks the highest, which means the transition from U2 to U4/U4’ is a continuing CONTINUATION. However, whether this kind of ranking fits the intuition of a native English speaker is not mentioned in Strube’s work and needs further confirmation, since my understanding is that the “he” in both U4 and U4’ does not exclude the possibility of referring to the “DRIVER,” which is clearly mapped out from Strube’s algorithm.

2.6.4 Tetreault’s (1999, 2001) Approach Strube (1998) takes informational status and the left-right linear order of discourse entities as factors that determine the pronoun resolution; another left-right linear approach is from Tetreault’s (1999, 2001) Left-Right Centering Algorithm (LRC for short). Tetreault supports an “immediate resolution” toward pronoun, which argues that when a listener hears a pronoun, she will try to resolve it immediately—that is, to find the nearest possible antecedent; if new information demonstrates that the original choice is incorrect, the listener will go back and find the correct one. Enlightened by such a psychological foundation, Tetreault created a three-step algorithm for pronoun resolution: 1. Preprocessing—from the previous utterance Cb(Ui−1) and Cf (Ui−1) are available. 2. Process utterance—parse and extract incrementally from Un all references to discourse entities. For each pronoun:

2.6 The Application of Centering Theory in Natural Language …

43

(a) Search for an antecedent intra-sententially in Cf -partial (Ui) that meets feature and binding constraints. If one is found, proceed to the next pronoun within the utterance. Or else go to (b). (b) Search for an antecedent inter-sententially in Cf (Ui−1) that meets feature and binding constraints. 3. Create Cf —create Cf list of Ui by ranking discourse entities of Ui according to grammatical function. The implementation used in this algorithm used a left-toright breadth-first walk of the parse tree to approximate sorting by grammatical function. The preference for searching for an intra-sentential antecedent before the intersentential one is motivated by the fact that large sentences are not broken up into clauses as was proposed by Kameyama (1998), which turns out to be very pragmatic for naturally produced discourse. Besides differentiating this preference, the LRC does not contribute many new solutions to the ranking of salience of Cf or the pronoun resolution, since both grammatical function and linear left-to-right order have already been proposed by many researches before. However, Tetreault claims that the LRC approach makes the Cb and Cf of previous utterance accessible for the determination of a pronoun’s referential property, and fares better than Strube’s S-list in data analysis based on the New York Times Corpus, while on the other hand, it fares worse in fictional texts. Compare these three algorithms introduced here: The approach from Brennan et al. (1987) works only for the purpose of explanation and not prediction, and only for a static discourse and not an incremental one; Tetreault’s approach relies on the grammatical function and the linear left-to-right order, which turned out to be unreliable for many languages in the follow-up studies; the approach from Strube (1998) takes all types of nominal expressions into consideration with regard to their saliency ranking in the Cf list, which should be the most operative one among these three. However, as pointed out by da Silva et al. (2010), Centering Theory is not specifically designed for pronominal resolution; the fact that pronouns can be resolved is simply a side effect of the constraints and rules. So the so-called pronoun resolution is only a tendency rather than an “unshakable” principle. Due to this fact, algorithms like Brennan et al. (1987) approach, Strube’s S-list, and Tetreault’s LRC need further customizations in order to handle concrete issues of pronominal resolution from different languages. Data from this book will show that anaphora resolution in Chinese is also related to the definition of “topic,” the standard of Cf ranking, and a consistent norm in annotating corpora as indicated in Duan and Jiang (2010).

44

2 A Refined Centering Theory

2.7 Interim Summary On the basis of a thorough literature review, this chapter further develops Centering Theory—the theoretical framework of data analysis in this book. In line with the Centering Theory framework developed by Grosz, Joshi, and Weinstein (1983, 1995), I redefined two crucial notions based on the discoursal facts from both English and Chinese as repeated below: Definition of center: Center is a semantic entity that has its syntactic realization in an overt form or as a pro, but not necessarily as a full NP constituent. Definition of utterance: A new utterance is triggered by either an update of Cb or an update of temporal/aspectual information with regard to the current Cb. This chapter also provides a series of modifications and developments of the substantial constraints and rules of Centering Theory as summarized below: For each utterance Ui in a discourse segment D consisting of utterances U1…Um: Constraint 1: • There is precisely one backward-looking center Cb(Ui, D), except for U1, if only linear discourse relations are involved in D; • The backward-looking center Cb(Ui, D) is subject to branching if a hierarchical discourse relation is involved in D. Constraint 2: • Every element of the forward-looking centers set, Cf (Ui, D), must be syntactically and directly realized in Ui either overtly or covertly. Constraint 3: • The backward-looking center Cb (Ui, D) is the highest-ranked element of Cf (Ui−1, D) that is realized in Ui, and this highest-ranked element is annotated as CpR (Ui−1, D), thus, Cb (Ui, D) = CpR (Ui−1, D). As for the two rules of Centering Theory, I will tentatively treat both of them as tendencies/preferences rather than regulations. In the next chapter, these rules are subject to further testing. As regards the pronoun rules, Rule 1 does not specify the preferential relation between pronoun and zero anaphora since the traditional works only take English as a data source. In Chap. 3, a thorough comparison between the percentage of the adoption of pronouns and that of zero anaphora will be presented

2.7 Interim Summary

45

so as to answer this question. It has been mentioned that the relative contribution of RETAIN and SMOOTH SHIFT to discourse is hard to judge, and the choice between these two transition states lies in the decision of which parameter is more decisive— the degree of discourse coherence or the degree of Cb salience. This is another task that will be considered in Chap. 3.

References Beaver, D. (2000). Centering and the optimization of discourse. Stanford, CA: Manuscript Stanford University. Beaver, D. (2004). The optimization of discourse anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy, 27(1), 3–56. Brennan, S.E., Marilyn W.F., and Carl J. P. (1987). A centering approach to pronouns. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 155–162). Da Silva, F.J.V., Carvalho, A.M.B.R., and Roman, N.T. (2010). A comparative analysis of centeringbased algorithms for pronoun resolution in Portuguese. In Proceedings of Advances in Artificial Intelligence–IBERAMIA 2010 (pp. 336–345). Springer. Di Eugenio, B. (1990). Centering theory and the italian pronominal system. In COLING90: Proc. 13th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Helsinki (pp. 270–275). Di Eugenio, B. (1998). Centering in Italian. In M. A. Walker, A. K. Joshi, and E. F. Prince (Eds.), Centering theory in discourse (Chap. 7, pp. 115–138). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Duan, M., Xu Y., and Fu X. (2009). Qianzhan zhongxin de paixu dui zhidai xiaojie de yingxiang— yi-xiang xiangxin lilun canshuhua shizheng yanjiu 前瞻中心的排序對指代消解的影響——一 項向心理論參數化實證研究 [Effects of Centering Parameter Setting of Cf.ranking on Chinese Anaphora Resolution]. Waiguoyu 外國語. Journal of Foreign Languages, 2009(32:3), 20–27. Duan, M. and Ping, J. (2010). An empirical study of centering in chinese anaphoric resolution. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Computational Intelligence, IEEE (pp. 373–377). Gordon, P. C., Grosz, B. J., and Gillion, L. A. (1993). Pronouns, names, and the centering of attention in discourse. Cognitive Science, 17, 311–348. Grosz, B., Joshi, A., Weinstein, S. (1983). Providing a unified account of definite noun phrases in discourse. In 21st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: proceedings of the conference: 15–17 June 1983, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, ed. Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 44–50). Morristown, N.J.: Association for Computational Linguistics. Grosz, B.J., Joshi, A., and Weinstein, S. (1986). Towards a computational theory of discourse interpretation. Unpublished manuscript. Grosz, B., Joshi, A. K., and Weinstein, S. (1995). Centering: A framework for modeling the local coherence of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 21(2), 203–225. Hardt, D. (1996). Centering in dynamic semantics. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (vol. 1, pp. 519–524). Copenhagen, Denmark, August. Hardt, D. (1999). Dynamic interpretation of verb phrase ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy, 22(2), 187–221. Hardt, D. (2003). Sloppy identity, Binding, and Centering. In Proceedings of SALT 13. Ithaca: CLC Publications. Hardt, D. (2004). Dynamic centering. In S. Harabagiu and D. Farwell (Eds.), Proceedings from Reference Resolution and its Applications. ACL. Heim, I. (1982). The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases, PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts.

46

2 A Refined Centering Theory

Hu, J. and Pan H. (2001). Processing local coherence of discourse in centering theory. In Proceedings of the 15th Pacific Asia Conference in Language, Information and Computation. Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong. Citeseer, 2001. Hu, J., Pan, H., and Xu L. (2001). Is there a Finite versus Nonfinite Distinction in Chinese? Linguistics, 39 (6):1117–1148. Huang, C. T. J. (1984). On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry, 15, 531–574. Huang, C. T. J. (1987). Remarks on empty categories. Linguistic Inquiry, 18, 321–337. Huang, C. T. J. (1989). Pro-drop in Chinese: A generalized control theory. In The Null Subject Parameter (Ed.), Osvaldo Jaeggli and Kenneth Safir (pp. 185–214). Dordrecht: Kluwer. Joshi, A. and Weinstein, S. (1981). Control of inference: Role of some aspects of discourse structure—Centering. In Proceedings of International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vancouver, Canada, pp. 385–387. Kameyama, M. (1985). Zero Anaphora: The Case of Japanese, Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University. Kameyama, M. (1986). A Property-sharing Constraints in Centering. In Proceedings of the 24the Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, New York, NY, pp. 200–206. Kameyama, M. (1998). Intrasentential Centering: A Case Study. In M. Walker, A. Joshi, and E. Prince (Eds.), Centering Theory in Discourse (pp. 89–112). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Kehler, A. (1997). Current theories of centering for pronoun interpretation: A critical evaluation. Computational Linguistics, 23(3), 467–475. Li, Y.-H.A. (1985). Abstract case in Chinese. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California. Li, Y.-H. A. (1990). Order and Constituency in Mandarin Chinese. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Miao, X. (苗興偉), P2003). Yupian xiangxin lilun shuping 語篇向心理論述評 [A survey of Centering Theory in discourse]. Dangdai Yuyanxue 當代語言學 [Contemporary Linguistics] 2003.2:149–157 Miltsakaki, E. (2001). Centering in Greek. In Proceedings of the 15th International Symposium on Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, Thessaloniki. Partee, B. (1989). Binding implicit variables in quantified contexts. In C. Wiltshire, B. Music, and R. Graczyk (Eds.), CLS 25: Papers from the Twenty Fifth Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 342–365). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Passonneau, R. J., and Litman, D. (1993). Feasibility of automated discourse segmentation. In Proceedings of 31st Annual Meeting of the ACL, Columbus, OH, pp. 148–155. Poesio, M., et al. (2004). Centering: A parametric theory and its instantiations. Computational Linguistics, 30, 309–363. Prince, E. (1981). Topicalization, Focus-Movement, and Yiddish-Movement: A Pragmatic Differentiation. In et al, D. A. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 249–264. Rambow, O. (1993). Pragmatics aspects of scrambling and topicalization in German. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Centering Theory in Naturally-Occurring Discourse. Institute for Research in Cognitive Science, Philadelphia. Rohde, H., and Kehler, A. (2014). Grammatical and information-structural influences on pronoun production. Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience, 29, 912–927. Strawson, P. F. 1964. Intention and convention in speech acts. Philosophical Review, LXXIII, 439– 460. Strube, M. (1998). Never look back: An alternative to centering. In Proceedings of COLING-ACL, pp. 1251–1257. Montreal. Strube, M., and Hahn, U. (1999). Functional centering–Grounding referential coherence in information structure. Computational Linguistics, 25(3), 309–344. Tetreault, J.R. (1999). Analysis of syntax-based pronoun resolution methods. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 602–605. Tetreault, J. R. (2001). A corpus-based evaluation of centering and pronoun resolution. Computational Linguistics, 27(4), 507–520.

References

47

Turan, Ü. (1998). Ranking forward-looking centers in Turkish: Universal and language-specific properties. In M.A. Walker, A. K. Joshi, and E. F. Prince, eds., Centering Theory in Discourse. Oxford University Press, Oxford, chapter 8, pages 139–160. Walker, M. A. (1989). Evaluating discourse processing algorithms. Proceedings ACL-89 (pp. 251– 261). British Columbia, Canad, June: Vancouver. Walker, M.A. (1993). Initial contexts and shifting centers. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Centering, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Walker, M. A., Iida, M., and Cote, S. (1994). Japanese discourse and the process of centering. Computational Linguistics, 20(2), 193–232. Walker, M. A., Joshi, A. K., and Prince, E. F. (Eds.). (1998). Centering Theory in Discourse. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Wang, D. (2004). Zero anaphora resolution in Chinese—a Centering-based research. Modern Foreign Language, 4, 350–359. Wlodarczyk, A., and Wlodarczyk, H. (2006a). Subject in the Meta-Informative Centering Theory. Études cognitive/Studia kognitywne VII, pp. 7–23. Wlodarczyk, A., and Wlodarczyk, H. (2006b). Focus in the Meta-Informative Centering Theory. La Focalisation dang les langues: Collection Sémantiques, L’Harmattan. Paris. Wlodarczyk, A., and Wlodarczyk, H. (2008a). The pragmatic validation of utterances. Études cognitive/Studia kognitywne VIII, 117–128. Wlodarczyk, A., and Wlodarczyk, H. (2008b). Agents, roles and other things we talk about: Associative Semantics and Meta-informative Centering Theory. Intercultural Pragmatics., 5(3), 345–365. Wlodarczyk, A., and Wlodarczyk, H. (2011). Subjecthood and Topicality are both Pragmatic Issues. An International Workshop on Linguistics of BA and the 11th Korea-Japan Workshop on Linguistics and Language Processing. Waseda University 2011/12/10–11. Xu, L. (1985). Towards a lexical-thematic theory of control. Linguistic Review, 5, 345–376. Xu, L. (1994). Phenomena in Chinese grammar related to empty categories. Zhongguo Yuwen, 5, 321–329. Xu, Y. (許余龍). (2008). Xiangxinlilun de canshuhua yanjiu 向心理論的參數化研究 [A parametric approach to Centering Theory]. Dangdai Yuyanxue 當代語言學 [Contemporary Linguistics] 2008.3:225–236.

Chapter 3

A Centering Analysis of Discourse with Chinese Bei Passive

Abstract This chapter scrutinizes the Cb transition states concerning bei utterance in narrative discourse of Chinese. A detailed illustration of the transition state combinations is rendered, based on which different patterns of Cb transition are discovered. Judging from the patterns and the amount of instances that belong to each transition state, it is obvious that Cb CONTINUATION is preferred, and within this pattern, the subject of bei utterance plays the key role in maintaining the Cb from its current utterance to the next. It is thus proposed that one function of bei utterance in Chinese discourse is to preserve the Cb, so as to maintain discourse coherence. This chapter also implements a quantitative study concerning voice alternation by rewriting all bei utterances into the active voice. Via the rewriting, it is found that compared to the active voice, the bei utterances that are originally adopted in these discourse segments functioned much better in maintaining discourse coherence. On the basis of discourse analysis, this chapter further provides evidence to falsify the structure separation approach toward long versus short bei passives. Keywords Centering Theory · Passive bei · Discourse coherence · Function of bei · Long versus short passives

3.1 A General Data Presentation—Discourse with Chinese Bei Passive Starting from a general data description, this chapter implements a thorough analysis concerning the following aspects: a. The contribution of bei utterance to discourse coherence with a comparison to the Givón (1983) tradition; Partial results of the presented work in this section have been published in Wuyun and Pan (烏云賽娜, 潘海華) (2014a) 漢語被字句與回指中心過渡關係的研究 [A study on the influence of Chinese passives on center transitions in discourse], 語言暨語言學 [Language and Linguistics] 15(2): 265–293; and Wuyun and Pan (2014b) The inter-sentential function of Mandarin bei passive, Chinese Language and Discourse 5(2): 252–280.

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 S. Wuyun, Where Centering Meets Chinese Discourse, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8666-8_3

49

50

3 A Centering Analysis of Discourse with Chinese Bei Passive

b. A scrutiny of the discoursal behavior of long and short bei passive, as well as the light it may shed on the syntactic analysis toward the bei passive construction; c. A test of the proposed definition and development of Centering Theory in Chap. 2. Adopting the Centering Theory introduced and developed in Chap. 2, all discourse segments containing bei utterance are to be classified according to the Cb transition states between bei utterance and its preceding one, as well as that between bei utterance and its subsequent one. Thirteen Cb transition state combinations are witnessed by narrative discourse segment with bei utterance as illustrated in Table 3.1. The combinations CON + CON/CON + RETAIN/CON + SHIFT…represent combinations of Cb transition states between bei utterance and its preceding one and that between bei utterance and its following one. In what follows, each Cb transition state combination type will be endowed with an example1 for further illustration. Moreover, a brief expounding with respect to the application of Centering Theory on these discourse segments and how the Cb transition states are calculated will also be presented. (1) U1: Wo you “An ban” fenpei qu-le ge gongchang, I by Work Office for Placement of Ex-Military assign a factory U2: shiyongqi wei man jiu bei chao-le youyu. Before passing probationary period already BEI fired U3: Wo bao-zhe dang’an hui-dao “An ban”, ... I hold file come back to Work Office for Placement of Ex-Military Lit. I was assigned to a factory by the Work Office for Placement of Ex-Military, and got fired even before passing the probation. Holding my files, I came back to the Work Office for Placement of Ex-Military, ……(CON+CON) U1: Wo you “Anban” fenpei qu-le ge gongchang, Cb:[?] Cf:{woCp, “Anban” gongchang} I Work Office for Placement of Ex-Military factory U2: shiyongqi wei man jiu bei chao-le youyu. Cb:[Ø=wo] Cf:{(wo)Cp (gongchang)} CONTINUATION I factory U3: Wo bao-zhe dang’an hui-dao “Anban”. Cb:[wo] Cf:{woCp, dang’an “Anban”} CONTINUATION I file Work Office for Placement of Ex-Military

1 The

long versus short distinction will not be concerned until Sect. 3.3, and examples presented here might either be long passive or short passive.

70

49.65

Short

Sum

Perc.

Ø

3.55

5

4

1

RETAIN

7.8

11

3

8

8.5

12

2

10

SHIFT

1.4

2

0

2

RETAIN

21(14.9%)

1.4

2

1

1

CON

RETAIN

141 (79:62 considering long versus short passive)

98(69.5%)

30

Long

Total

CON

40

Ubei → Ubei+1

CON

Ubei-1 → Ubei

Table 3.1 Transition states concerning bei utterance

12.1

17

10

7

SHIFT

0.7

1

1

0

RETAIN

11(7.8%)

5.7

8

4

4

CON

SHIFT

1.4

2

2

0

SHIFT

5(3.5%)

2.8

4

0

4

CON

Ø

0.7

1

0

1

RETAIN

6(4.3%)

4.3

6

4

2

Cb Branching

3.1 A General Data Presentation—Discourse with Chinese Bei Passive 51

52

3 A Centering Analysis of Discourse with Chinese Bei Passive

(2) U1: Zhidao houlai yi-ge nvzi tingjian ziwen, Until later one-CL girl by a sword commit suicide U2: wo cai xiang-qi zheren jiu shi Jingjing, I remember this girl is Jingjing U3: ke ta yijing si-le, but she already died U4: bei ren tuo-xiaqu. BEI people drag down Lit. It did not occur to me that this girl was Jingjing until she committed suicide with a sword, however, she’s already dead, and being dragged down by someone.(CON+Ø) U1: Zhidao houlai yi-ge nvzi tingjian ziwen, Cb:[?] Cf:{yi-ge nvziCp} One-CL girl U2: wo cai xiang-qi zheren jiu shi Jingjing, Cb:[Jingjing] Cf:{woCp JingjingCpR} RETAIN I Jingjing U3: ke ta yijing si-le, Cb:[ta=Jingjing] Cf:{taCp} CONTINUATION she

U4: bei ren tuo-xiaqu. Cb:[Ø=Jingjing] Cf:{(Jingjing)Cp ren} CONTINUATION Jingjing people

(3) U1: Women ti-zhe kuzi ta-zhe xie, We pull pants wearing shoes U2: xiang yi-dui fulu bei ya-zhe chuan-guo xixirangrang-de Wangfujing dajie, like a team of captives BEI guarded pass through teeming Wangfujing Street U3: henduo chengnianren zhuzu haoqi-de kan women. many adults stop curiously look at us Lit. Pulling on our pants and dowdily wearing our shoes, we were marched through the teeming Wangfujing Street like a team of captives. All the pedestrians stopped and looked at us curiously. (CON+RETAIN) U1: Women ti-zhe kuzi ta-zhe xie, Cb:[?] Cf:{WomenCp, kuzi, xie} We pants shoes

3.1 A General Data Presentation—Discourse with Chinese Bei Passive

53

U2: xiang yi-dui fulu bei ya-zhe chuan-guo xixirangrang-de Wangfujing dajie, Cb:[Ø=women] Cf:{(women)Cp (minbing) Wangfujing dajie} CONTINUATION We (militia) Wangfujing Street U3: henduo chengnianren zhuzu haoqi-de kan women. Cb:[women] Cf:{henduo chengnianrenCp, women} RETAIN Many adults we

(4) U1: Tongxue he laoshi dou zhuyi-dao-le wo-de lian se cangbai, Classmates and teacher all notice-LE my face color pale U2:suoyi dui wo congcong zou-chu jiaoshi bing wu chayi, so toward I buzzing out classroom not surprised U3: laoshi shenzhi hai wen wo yao-bu-yao zao ge tongxue pei-zhe dao xiaoyishi, teacher even ask me if find a classmate accompany to school clinic U4: bei wo jujue-le, BEI I refused U5: wo yi-ju hua dou shuo bu chulai. I a word even speak no out Lit. Both my classmates and the teacher noticed that I went as white as a sheet, so they showed no surprise when I buzzed out of the classroom. The teacher even asked me if I needed any company to the school clinic, and I refused. I could not even utter a word. (CON+SHIFT)

54

3 A Centering Analysis of Discourse with Chinese Bei Passive

U1: Tongxue he laoshi dou zhuyi-dao-le wo-de lian se cangbai, Cb:[?] Cf:{tongxue he laoshiCp, wo} Classmates and teacher I U2:suoyi dui wo congcong zou-chu jiaoshi bing wu chayi, Cb:[Ø=tongxue he laoshi] Cf:{(tongxue he laoshi)Cp, wo, jiaoshi} CONTINUATION Classmates and teacher I classroom U3: laoshi shenzhi hai wen wo yao-bu-yao zao ge tongxue pei-zhe dao xiaoyishi, Cb:[laoshi] Cf:{laoshiCp, wo, tongxue, xiaoyishi} CONTINUATION teacher I classmate school clinic U4: bei wo jujue-le, Cb:[Ø=laoshi] Cf:{(laoshi)Cp, wo} CONTINUATION Teacher I U5: wo yi-ju hua dou shuo bu chulai. Cb:[wo] Cf:{woCp} SMOOTH SHIFT I

(5) U1: Shangban-shi ouyu Guan Pingshan, On the way to work meet across Guan Pingshan U2: Ta jici xiang tong wo tantan dou bei wo jujue-le. he several times want to with me have a talk all BEI me refused-LE U3: Yitian bangwan, wo baiwuliaolai bian qu fujin-de yi-ge hu, ...... one evening I bored and go nearby-DE one-CL lake Lit. I came across Guan P.S on my way to work, he always tried to talk to me but I refused him every time. One evening, I was really in a negligent mood, so I went to the lake nearby... (RETAIN+ CON)

3.1 A General Data Presentation—Discourse with Chinese Bei Passive

55

U1: Shangban-shi ouyu Guan Pingshan, Cb:[?] Cf:{(wo)Cp, Guan Pingshan} I Guan Pingshan U2: Ta jici xiang tong wo tantan dou bei wo jujue-le. Cb:[wo] Cf:{taCp, wo} RETAIN He I U3: Yitian bangwan, wo baiwuliaolai bian qu fujin-de yi-ge hu, ...... Cb:[wo] Cf:{woCp, fujin-de yi-ge hu} CONTINUATION I nearby-DE one-CL lake

(6) U1: Tamen haoxiang zai deng ren, shizhong zai zhuo-pang baochi-zhe yi-ge kongwei, They seems ZAI wait someone always ZAI table-besides keep-ZHE a-CL seat U2: henduo xiang yao zai na-zhang kongwei-shang jiuzuo-de ren dou bei tamen xiejue. Many people who wanted to sit there all BEI them declined U3: Wo zai yi-ge keyi qingxi-de kandao fasheng-de yiqie-de weizishang zuo-xia. I ZAI one-CL can clearly see happened-DE everything-DE seat sit down Lit. It seemed that they were waiting for someone, since a seat was being kept by their table and they turned away everyone who wanted to sit there. I took a seat at a remote table with a clear vision. (RETAIN+ RETAIN) U1: Tamen haoxiang zai deng ren, shizhong zai zhuo-pang baochi-zhe yi-ge kongwei, Cb:[?] Cf:{tamenCp, yi-ge kongwei} They one-CL seat U2: henduo xiang yao zai na-zhang kongwei-shang jiuzuo-de ren dou bei tamen xiejue. Cb:[tamen] Cf:{henduo xiang yao zai na-zhang kongwei-shang jiuzuo-de renCp, tamen} RETAIN Many people who wanted to sit there they

U3: Wo zai yi-ge keyi qingxi-de kandao fasheng-de yiqie-de weizishang zuo-xia. Cb:[(tamen)] yiqie-de weizi} RETAIN Cf:{woCp,yi-ge keyi qingxi-de kandao fasheng-de I one-CL can clearly see happened-DE everything-DE seat

56

3 A Centering Analysis of Discourse with Chinese Bei Passive

(7) U1: Ta ye-li chang zuo emeng, She at night always have nightmare U2: Wo jingchang bei ta-de chouchu he shenyin nongxing, I always BEI her twitch and moan wake up U3: pinming yao ta, ... like hell shake her up Lit. She constantly has nightmares, and I am always woken up by her twitching and moaning, and have to shake her like hell,……(RETAIN+ SHIFT)

U1: Ta ye-li chang zuo emeng, Cb:[?] Cf:{taCp, emeng} She nightmare U2: Wo jingchang bei ta-de chouchu he shenyin nongxing, Cb:[ta] Cf:{woCp,ta-de chouchu he shenyin} RETAIN I her twitch and moan U3: pinming yao ta, ... Cb:[(wo)] Cf:{(wo)Cp, ta} SMOOTH SHIFT I her

(8) U1: Tamen dou zai nuli-de xiang-qian, jianding buyi erqie leguan. They all ZAI industriously move on steadfast and hopeful U2: Dangnian, women shi zuowei zui-youxiu-de qingnian bei songru budui-de, in those years, we were the best youth BEI sent to army U3: rujin que cheng-le shenghuo-de chidaozhe, ... now instead become-LE life-DE latecomer Lit. They all move forward with their own lives and routines industriously—steadfast and hopeful. In those years, we were sent to the army as the flowers of youth, but today we actually end up as the latecomers of life……(SHIFT+ CON)

3.1 A General Data Presentation—Discourse with Chinese Bei Passive

U1: Tamen dou zai nuli-de

xiang-qian, jianding buyi erqie leguan.

Cb:[?] Cf:{tamenCp} They U2: Dangnian, women shi zuowei zui-youxiu-de qingnian bei songru budui-de, Cb:[women] Cf:{womenCp, budui}SMOOTH SHIFT We army U3: rujin que cheng-le shenghuo-de chidaozhe, ... Cb:[(women)] Cf:{(women)Cp, shenghuo-de chidaozhe} CONTINUATION We life-DE latecomer

(9) U1: Wo hui-dao yuan-li, ... ...wo qingqing tao yaoshi kai-men, I return the hospital I lightly take out keys open door U2: men bei fansuo-shang-le. The door BEI locked on the inside U3: Wo qiaomen, ...... I knock at the door Lit. I got back to the hospital,……I took out the keys to open the door. However, the door was locked on the inside, so I knocked at the door,……(SHIFT+ RETAIN)

U1: Wo hui-dao yuan-li, ... ...wo qingqing tao yaoshi kai-men, Cb:[wo] Cf:{woCp, yaoshi, men} CONTINUATION I key door U2: men bei fansuo-shang-le. Cb:[men] Cf:{menCp, (Du Mei)} SMOOTH SHIFT Door (Du Mei) U3: Wo qiaomen, ...... Cb:[men] Cf:{woCp, men} RETAIN I door

57

58

3 A Centering Analysis of Discourse with Chinese Bei Passive

(10) U1: Deng shi zui-xian xi-mie de, Light is first go out-DE U2: jiezhe yiqie dou bei qieduan-le. next everything all bei cut off-LE U3: Wo xian shi yiwei tingdian, dan wo zou-dao chuang-qian wang wai kan, ....... I first think power cut but I go to the window look out Lit. First it was the light, and then everything was cut off. I thought it was a power cut at first, however, I went to the window and looked out,……(SHIFT+ SHIFT)

U1: Deng shi zui-xian xi-mie de, Cb:[?] Cf:{dengCp} light U2: jiezhe yiqie dou bei qieduan-le. Cb:[yiqie] Cf:{yiqieCp, Ø} SMOOTH SHIFT Everything U3: Wo xian shi yiwei tingdian, dan wo zou-dao chuang-qian wang wai kan, ....... Cb:[wo] Cf:{woCp} SMOOTH SHIFT I

(11) U1: Qingchen, wo bei yi-zhi shou tui-xing, Morning I BEI a-CL hand nudge U2: faxian hu-shang youmi-zhe ruyan rusha de wu, ...... find on the lake filled with smoke-like tulle-like-DE fog Lit. In the morning, I was nudged up, and found the lake perfumed with dreamy fog,……(Ø+CON) U1: Qingchen, wo bei yi-zhi shou tui-xing, Cb:[?] Cf:{woCp, yi-zhi shou} I one-CL hand U2: faxian hu-shang youmi-zhe ruyan rusha de wu, ...... Cb:[(wo)] Cf:{(wo)Cp, hu, ruyan rusha-de wu}CONTINUATION I lake smoke-like tulle-like-DE fog

3.1 A General Data Presentation—Discourse with Chinese Bei Passive

59

(12) U1: Ya Hong bei jingcha dai-zou hou, Ya Hong BEI policeman arrest afterward U2: jinguan wo guji ta bu da hui qianlian-dao women, ...... although I estimate she not likely entangle we Lit. After Ya Hong was arrested by the policeman, although I thought she would not implicate us,……(Ø+ RETAIN) U1: Ya Hong bei jingcha dai-zou hou, Cb:[?] Cf:{Ya HongCp, jingcha} Ya Hong policeman U2: jinguan wo guji ta bu da hui qianlian-dao women, ...... Cb:[ta=Ya Hong] Cf:{woCp, ta, women} RETAIN I she we

(13) U1: Tamen ceng zai tong yi-suo daxue-de butong xi nianshu, They used to at same one-CL university-DE different departments study U2: zhurengong-de danxiangsi yizhi wei bei na-wei guniang ticha, The hero-DE unrequired love never BEI that-CL girl beware of U3: ta shenzhi dou bu renshi zhurengong. She even all not know the hero Lit. They used to go to the same university but in different departments. The girl never turned into the unrequited love of the hero, she didn’t even know him.(Cb branching) Cb:[?] Cf:{x=tamen

tong yi-suo

daxue-de

butong

xi }

They same one-CL university-DE different departments Cb:[x1=zhurengong] Cf:{zhurengong-de danxiangsi, na-wei guniang} The hero-DE unrequired love that-CL girl Branching Cb:[x2=ta=na-wei guniang] Cf:{ta, zhurengong} She the hero

The discourse segments together with their respective centering data structures present a general picture of the Cb transition state combination types. A glance at the data brings several impressions into our mind: Firstly, for all the discourse segments I examined, the combination of CON + CON is significantly preferred over all the other transition states (49.5%); secondly, there are 98 (69.5%) discourse segments

60

3 A Centering Analysis of Discourse with Chinese Bei Passive

in which bei utterance bears a CONTINUATION relation with its preceding utterance. Considering the relation between bei utterance and its subsequent utterance, 84 (59.6%) of the discourse segments witnessed a CONTINUATION transition; thirdly, the long versus short proportion is 79:62, which is not significantly different as will be shown in a minute. The three points brought out above indicate that bei utterance plays an immensely important role in discourse coherence, which will be further specified in Sect. 3.2. In addition, the contribution and function of the long and short bei passive is another interesting topic for this chapter (Sect. 3.3).

3.2 The Contribution of Bei Utterance to Discourse Coherence 3.2.1 A Scrutiny on Each Cb Transition State A detailed illustration of each Cb transition state will be given in this subsection, based on which different patterns of Cb transition will be presented. It surprises us that the pattern for the Cb transition state combination between bei utterance and its preceding/following utterance renders a paramount uniformity among all instances of each combination. Both the subject of bei utterance and the object of bei (or bei object) feature significantly in Cb transition as well as in discourse coherence preservation. Furthermore, this subsection also draws attention to the presentational forms—overt noun phrase, pronominal, and zero anaphora to be specific—of backward-looking center (Cb) compared to the other semantic entities, so as to test the pronoun rule introduced in Chap. 2. 1. CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION/Ø and Ø + CONTINUATION transitions For each transition state combination illustration, I would like to take the referential form of Cb (or Cp if the utterance under question is the initial one of the discourse segment), that of the subject of bei utterance and the object of bei, as well as that of the subsequent Cb into consideration. Owing to the fact that CONTINUATION + Ø and Ø + CONTINUATION transition states are but different windowings of CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION—the former deals with discourse segments that end with a bei utterance while the latter starts with one—they are discussed together here. For the CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION combination as shown in example (1) and repeated below for convenience, it observes a transition pattern of A…, A bei B…, A…, i.e., the subject of bei utterance maintains that of its preceding utterance and passes it to the subject of its subsequent utterance.

3.2 The Contribution of Bei Utterance to Discourse Coherence

61

(1) U1: Wo you “Anban” fenpei qu-le ge gongchang, Cb:[?] gongchang} Cf:{woCp, “Anban” I Work Office for Placement of Ex-Military factory U2: shiyongqi wei man jiu bei chao-le youyu. Cb:[Ø=wo] Cf:{(wo)Cp (gongchang)} CONTINUATION I factory U3: Wo bao-zhe dang’an hui-dao “Anban”. Cb:[wo] Cf:{woCp, dang’an “Anban”} CONTINUATION I file Work Office for Placement of Ex-Military

In the example above, the bei utterance maintains the subject of Ubei-1 , i.e., “wo”(I), and preserves it for Ubei+1 . First of all, the A…, A bei B…, A… pattern is quite predictable given the principles and regulations of CONTINUATION. To be a CONTINUATION transition, two neighboring utterances are required to satisfy the following three equations: ➀ Cb(Ui) = C p R (Ui - 1)

(3.1)

➁ Cb(Ui) = Cb(Ui - 1) OR Cb(Ui - 1) = [?]

(3.2)

➂ Cb(Ui) = C p(Ui)

(3.3)

Following these equations, all CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION pattern segments are expected to have such behavior, i.e., A = Cb (Ubei-1 ) = Cb (Ubei ) = Cp (Ubei ), and also A = Cb (Ubei ) = Cb (Ubei+1 ) = Cp (Ubei+1 ). Putting aside the transition pattern, let us concentrate on the referential form of A and B. The tables below present a thorough picture concerning the referential choice of Cb and that of the bei object within the CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION combination.

62

(1)

3 A Centering Analysis of Discourse with Chinese Bei Passive

U1: Wo you “Anban” fenpei qu-le ge gongchang, I was assigned to a factory by the Work Office for Placement of Ex-Military, U2: shiyongqi wei man jiu bei chao-le youyu. and got fired even before passing the probation. U3: Wo bao-zhe dang’an huidao “Anban”, …… Holding my files, I came back to the Work Office for Placement of ExMilitary,……

(zero anaphora + zero anaphora) (Table 3.2(1)) (14) U1: Ta guoqu-de jiaju dou bu-yao-le, He threw away all the old furniture, U2: Ø bei women jian-le huilai, So (they) were all brought back home by us. U3: dou shi xie bashi niandai chu-de shimao jiaju, …… (They) are all modem staff of the early 1980s,……(zero anaphora + pronoun) (Table 3.2(2)) Table 3.2(1) Referential relation among Cbs in CON + CON combination No.

Transition states

Referential form of Cbbei-1

Referential form of Cbbei

BEI

Referential form of bei object

Referential form of Cbbei+1

1.

CON + CON

01

01

Bei

02

01

2.

CON + CON

01

01

Bei

02

01

3.

CON + CON

01

01

Bei

02

01

4.

CON + CON

Pronoun1

01

Bei

02

01

5.

CON + CON

Pronoun1

01

Bei

02

01

6.

CON + CON

Pronoun1

01

Bei

02

01

7.

CON + CON

Pronoun1

01

Bei

02

01

8.

CON + CON

Pronoun1

01

Bei

02

01

9.

CON + CON

01

01

Bei

02

Pronoun1

10.

CON + CON

01

01

Bei

02

Pronoun1

11.

CON + CON

Pronoun1

01

Bei

02

Pronoun1

12.

CON + CON

Pronoun1

01

Bei

02

Pronoun1

13.

CON + CON

Pronoun1

01

Bei

02

Pronoun1

14.

CON + CON

Overt1

01

Bei

02

Pronoun1

15.

CON + CON

Overt1

01

Bei

02

01

Sum1

15/70

— Fifteen adopt zero anaphora for both the Cb and the object of bei

3.2 The Contribution of Bei Utterance to Discourse Coherence

63

Table 3.2(2) Referential relation among Cbs in CON + CON combination No.

Transition states

Referential form of Cbbei-1

Referential form of Cbbei

BEI

Referential form of bei object

Referential form of Cbbei+1

1.

CON + CON

Overt1

01

Bei

Pronoun2

01

2.

CON + CON

Pronoun1

01

Bei

Pronoun2

Pronoun1

3.

CON + CON

Pronoun1

01

Bei

Pronoun2

Pronoun1

4.

CON + CON

Pronoun1

01

Bei

Pronoun2

Pronoun1

5.

CON + CON

01

01

Bei

Pronoun2

Pronoun1

Sum2

5/70

— Five choose zero anaphora as the Cb and pronoun as the bei object

(15) U1: Wo gang chu loumen, I just stepped out of the door. U2: Ø bei gaoya shuiqiang she-chu yi-shu shuizhu za-le ge manlian hua, (I) was hit in the face by a jet of water from the water cannon, U3: jiaoxia yi-hua bian zuo dishang-le. One slip,(I) fell on the floor. (zero anaphora + overt NP) (Table 3.2(3)) (16) U1: …… meng ye meizuo yi-ge. ……I didn’t even have an dream. U2: Dier tian zaochen wo bei ren tongxing, The next morning, I was woken up by someone. U3: yi zheng yan kanjian Du Mei shuiyanxingsong zhan-zai wo chuang-qian, …… When I opened my eyes, I saw Du Mei stood at my bed, looking sleepy. (pronoun + overt NP) (Table 3.2(4)) (17) U1: ……ye shi dahurenjia shuchu. ……she was a daughter of her father’s concubines, but was still from a rich family. U2: Dangshi wo nainai bei Cai E de yi-ge gemen’r shuan-le, Back then, my grandma was cheated by one good friend of Cai E’s U3: shang-tou-le xin …… and got really hurt,……(overt NP + overt NP) (Table 3.2(5))

64

3 A Centering Analysis of Discourse with Chinese Bei Passive

Table 3.2(3) Referential relation among Cbs in CON + CON combination No.

Transition states

Referential form of Cbbei-1

Referential form of Cbbei

BEI

Referential form of bei object

Referential form of Cbbei+1

1.

CON + CON

01

01

Bei

Overt2

Pronoun1

2.

CON + CON

01

01

Bei

Overt2

Pronoun1

3.

CON + CON

01

01

Bei

Overt2

Pronoun1

4.

CON + CON

01

01

Bei

Overt2

Pronoun1

5.

CON + CON

Pronoun1

01

Bei

Overt2

01

6.

CON + CON

Pronoun1

01

Bei

Overt2

01

7.

CON + CON

Pronoun1

01

Bei

Overt2

01

8.

CON + CON

Pronoun1

01

Bei

Overt2

01

9.

CON + CON

01

01

Bei

Overt2

01

10.

CON + CON

01

01

Bei

Overt2

01

11.

CON + CON

01

01

Bei

Overt2

01

12.

CON + CON

Pronoun1

01

Bei

Overt2

Pronoun1

13.

CON + CON

Pronoun1

01

Bei

Overt2

Pronoun1

14.

CON + CON

Pronoun1

01

Bei

Overt2

Pronoun1

15.

CON + CON

Pronoun1

01

Bei

Overt2

Pronoun1

16.

CON + CON

Pronoun1

01

Bei

Overt2

Pronoun1

17.

CON + CON

Pronoun1

01

Bei

Overt2

Pronoun1

18.

CON + CON

Pronoun1

01

Bei

Overt2

Overt1

19.

CON + CON

Overt1

01

Bei

Overt2

01

20.

CON + CON

Overt1

01

Bei

Overt2

01

21.

CON + CON

Overt1

01

Bei

Overt2

01

22.

CON + CON

Overt1

01

Bei

Overt2

01

Sum3

22/70

— Twenty-two employ zero anaphora for Cb and an overt NP for the bei object

Table 3.2(4) Referential relation among Cbs in CON + CON combination No.

Transition states

Referential form of Cbbei-1

Referential form of Cbbei

BEI

Referential form of bei object

Referential form of Cbbei+1

1.

CON + CON

Pronoun1

Pronoun1

Bei

Overt2

Pronoun1

2.

CON + CON

Pronoun1

Pronoun1

Bei

Overt2

Pronoun1

3.

CON + CON

Pronoun1

Pronoun1

Bei

Overt2

Pronoun1

4.

CON + CON

Pronoun1

Pronoun1

Bei

Overt2

Pronoun1

5.

CON + CON

01

Pronoun1

Bei

Overt2

01

6.

CON + CON

01

Pronoun1

Bei

Overt2

01

7.

CON + CON

01

Pronoun1

Bei

Overt2

01

8.

CON + CON

01

Pronoun1

Bei

Overt2

Pronoun1

9.

CON + CON

Overt1

Pronoun1

Bei

Overt2

Pronoun1

Sum4

9/70

— Nine make use of pronouns for Cbs and overt NP for the bei object and

3.2 The Contribution of Bei Utterance to Discourse Coherence

65

Table 3.2(5) Referential relation among Cbs in CON + CON combination No.

Transition states

Referential form of Cbbei-1

Referential form of Cbbei

BEI

Referential form of bei object

Referential form of Cbbei+1

1.

CON + CON

Overt1

Overt1

Bei

Overt2

01

2.

CON + CON

Overt1

Overt1

Bei

Overt2

01

3.

CON + CON

Overt1

Overt1

Bei

Overt2

Overt1

4.

CON + CON

01

Overt1

Bei

Overt2

01

Sum5

4/70

— Four of them put to use overt NP for both Cb and the object of bei

(18) U1: Natian jiehun-de xinlang xinniang men shou-dao longzhong-de liyu. The grooms and brides that day were received with ceremonious courtesy. U2: Tamen quan bei Ø qingdao-le zhuxitai-shang, They were all invited to the rostrum in pairs, U3: yi duidui zhan-cheng yi-pai, …… and stood in a row…… (pronoun + zero anaphora) (Table 3.2(6))

Table 3.2(6) Referential relation among Cbs in CON + CON combination No.

Transition states

Referential form of Cbbei-1

Referential form of Cbbei

BEI

Referential form of bei object

Referential form of Cbbei+1

1.

CON + CON

Overt1

Pronoun1

Bei

02

01

2.

CON + CON

Overt1

Pronoun1

Bei

02

01

3.

CON + CON

Overt1

Pronoun1

Bei

02

01

4.

CON + CON

Pronoun1

Pronoun1

Bei

02

01

5.

CON + CON

Pronoun1

Pronoun1

Bei

02

01

6.

CON + CON

Pronoun1

Pronoun1

Bei

02

01

7.

CON + CON

Pronoun1

Pronoun1

Bei

02

01

8.

CON + CON

Pronoun1

Pronoun1

Bei

02

01

9.

CON + CON

01

Pronoun1

Bei

02

01

10.

CON + CON

01

Pronoun1

Bei

02

01

11.

CON + CON

01

Pronoun1

Bei

02

01

12.

CON + CON

01

Pronoun1

Bei

02

01

13.

CON + CON

01

Pronoun1

Bei

02

Overt1

14.

CON + CON

01

Pronoun1

Bei

02

Pronoun1

15.

CON + CON

01

Pronoun1

Bei

01

Pronoun1

Sum6

15/70

— Fifteen violate the pronoun rule by using the pronoun form for Cb and zero anaphora for the object of bei, which will be further discussed in detail

66

3 A Centering Analysis of Discourse with Chinese Bei Passive

For the first five circumstances, the pronoun rule of Centering Theory is perfectly verified. According to Rule 1 of Centering Theory, for each Ui in a discourse segment D consisting of utterances U1……Um, if some element of Cf (Ui-1, D) is realized as a pronoun in Ui, then so is Cb (Ui, D). Previous studies by Turan (1998), Walker et al. (1994), and Di Eugenio (1998) took morphologically null elements into consideration and proposed that pro-drop languages prefer morphologically null elements to be realized as Cb. I would like to term this development with respect to the zero-anaphora rule tentatively to distinguish it from the original version. Among 70 CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION transition states, 55 discourse segments supported the zero-anaphora rule. As for the other 15 segments, they actually do not present a violation of the rule. Li and Thompson (1981) mention that compared to zero anaphora, pronominal anaphora like “women/nimen” (we/you) are preferred when it is necessary to empathize the referent to the speaker or the hearer; thus, if we are under a context that does not need to specify what is referred to, the pronoun can be omitted. Note that only the “pronoun + zero anaphora” form is observed and not “overt NP + zero anaphora,” and that the pronominal form might be preferred over zero anaphora under certain contexts; the zero-anaphora rule seems to be compatible with the pronoun rule, but the former is more a default for a pro-drop language, while the latter needs further contextual requirement. Thus, close scrutiny of the CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION transition state verifies the zero-anaphora rule of Centering Theory and also reveals an A…, A bei B…, A… pattern of this transition state combination. Via this pattern, the discourse coherence is maintained to the greatest degree. The fact that nearly half the discourse segments adopt this pattern indicates that bei utterance, long or short, has the function of continuing discourse Cb so as to preserve discourse coherence. This point will be further discussed in Sect. 3.2.2. Now let us move on to the next transition state combination. 2. CONTINUATION + RETAIN/Ø + RETAIN transitions This transition state combination presents a pattern of A…, A bei B…, B/C…A. To be more specific, the Cb of the utterance preceding a bei utterance (or the Cp if the utterance is the initial one) is also the Cb and Cp of the bei utterance; its Cb status will be retained for its subsequent utterance but no longer as the Cp of it. Take example (3) as an illustration.

3.2 The Contribution of Bei Utterance to Discourse Coherence

67

(3) U1: Women ti-zhe kuzi ta-zhe xie, Cb:[?] Cf:{WomenCp, kuzi, xie} We pants shoes U2: xiang yi-dui fulu bei ya-zhe chuan-guo xixirangrang-de Wangfujing dajie, Cb:[Ø=women] Cf:{(women)Cp (minbing) Wangfujing dajie} CONTINUATION We (militia) Wangfujing Street U3: henduo chengnianren zhuzu haoqi-de kan women. Cb:[women] Cf:{henduo chengnianrenCp, women} RETAIN Many adults we

As the Cp of Ubei-1 , the pronoun “women” (we) is preserved as Cb-Cp of Ubei ; however, the preferred center in Ubei+1 is altered to be the subject “henduo chengnianren” (many adults) with a RETENTION of the Cb status of “women”. Again, the A…, A bei B…, B/C…A pattern is also predictable via the principles and regulations from Centering Theory: ➀ Cb(Ui) = C p R (Ui - 1)

(3.4)

➁ Cb(Ui) = Cb(Ui - 1)OR Cb(Ui - 1) = [?]

(3.5)

➂ Cb(Ui) = C p(Ui)

(3.6)

In line with these there equations, if Eq. A = CpR (Ubei-1 ) = Cb (Ubei-1 ) = Cb (Ubei ) and Eq. A = Cb (Ubei+1 ) = Cp (Ubei+1 ), we are expecting a CONTINUATION + RETAIN transition state. It does not surprise us that the Cb is maintained and retained, what astonishes us is the behavior of the bei object in its subsequent utterance. As indicated in the pattern above, the subject of Ubei+1 could be either the object of bei or a brand-new semantic entity. Focusing on the last column of Table 3.3, it can be seen that in as many as eight examples (out of 11), the subject of Ubei+1 is served by the previously newly introduced object of bei. Example (19) will illustrate how this works.

68

3 A Centering Analysis of Discourse with Chinese Bei Passive

Table 3.3 Referential relation among Cbs in CON + RETAIN combination No.

Transition states

Referential form of Cbbei-1

Referential form of Cbbei

BEI

Referential form of bei object

Referential form of Cbbei+1

1.

CON + RETAIN

Overt1

01

bei

02

Overt3 …pronoun1

2.

CON + RETAIN

Pronoun1

01

bei

02

Overt3 …pronoun1

3.

CON + RETAIN

01

01

bei

Overt2

Overt3 …pronoun1

4.

CON + RETAIN

01

01

bei

Pronoun2

02 …pronoun1

5.

CON + RETAIN

01

01

bei

Overt2

Overt2 …pronoun1

6.

CON + RETAIN

Pronoun1

01

bei

Overt2

Overt2 …overt1

7.

CON + RETAIN

Overt1

01

bei

Overt2

Overt2 …pronoun1

8.

CON + RETAIN

01

01

bei

Overt2

Overt2 …overt1

9.

CON + RETAIN

Pronoun1

01

bei

Overt2

Overt2 …pronoun1

10.

CON + RETAIN

Pronoun1

Pronoun1

bei

Overt2

Overt2 …pronoun1

11.

CON + RETAIN

Pronoun1

Pronoun1

bei

02

Overt2 …pronoun1

Sum

11

(19) U1: Yi-ge cong Beijing pao-dao Xianggang kai gongsi de ren huilai-hou, One_CL from Beijing go to Hong Kong start company DE man come back Cb:[?] Cf:{Yi-ge One_CL

cong Beijing pao-dao Xianggang kai gongsi from Beijing go to

de ren}

Hong Kong start company DE man

U2:yitian yeli chengche bei xunluo-de jingcha jiezhu, one night take a car BEI patrolling policeman stop Cb:[yi-ge cong Beijing pao-dao Xianggang kai gongsi de ren] Cf:{Yi-ge

cong Beijing pao-dao Xianggang kai

One_CL from Beijing go to

gongsi

de ren}

Hong Kong start company DE man CONTINUATION

U3: jingcha wen ta shi gan shenme de, ...... Policeman ask him BE do what-DE Cb:[ta=yi-ge cong Beijing pao-dao Xianggang kai gongsi de ren] Cf:{jingcha, yi-ge cong Beijing pao-dao Xianggang kai gongsi de ren} RETAIN policeman Lit. A man who started a business in Hong Kong came back to Beijing and took a ride one night. He got stopped by a patrolling policeman who asked him what he did for a living.

In this discourse segment, the new semantic entity “xunluo-de jingcha” (patrolling policeman) is introduced by the object of bei in Ubei and further serves as the subject and the new preferred center of Ubei+1 . Based on this observation, I would like to

3.2 The Contribution of Bei Utterance to Discourse Coherence

69

postulate that one discourse function of bei utterance is introducing a new semantic entity and preparing for further Cb SHIFT. Of course, in this situation, this function is fulfilled by the object of bei; whether the bei utterance and the bei object bear the same discourse function is still subject to further testing. Now we move forward to the referential relation between Cb and the non-Cb semantic entities. Concentrating on the referential relation between the subject of bei and the bei object, all but one of the utterances followed the zero-anaphora rule. And the same is true with the relation between the subject of Ubei+1 and its object. For those two violators, the Cbs are in a pronoun form while the non-Cb entities are zero anaphors. This again brings us back to Li and Thompson (1981): Contextual factors may force the speaker to adopt a pronominal form and the zero-anaphora rule does not conflict with the pronoun rule. One last word about this transition combination is that it presents an A…, A bei B…, B/C…A pattern, via which Cb is maintained and retained. This pattern is still coherence-friendly since no new Cb is involved; however, as have pointed out, the new discourse entity introduced by the object of bei is on its way to becoming the preferred center of the subsequent utterance—this might be a preparation for a SHIFT of Cb. As will be shown in the next combination type, if the original Cb fails to retain its status, such a SHIFT does happen, and the new Cb is exactly the object of bei. 3. CONTINUATION + SHIFT transition The CONTINUATION + SHIFT transition state witnesses a pattern of A…, A bei B…, B/C…. This means that the Cb of the utterance preceding a bei utterance (or the Cp if the utterance is the initial one) is also the Cb and Cp of bei utterance; however, it is no longer the Cb or the Cp of Ubei+1 . I would like to adopt a more typical example than (4) to illustrate this: (20) U1: Du Mei Du Mei U2: bei wo BEI I U3: (Ø=wo) (Ø=I)

ba baozhi yisiliangban, xiachuang jiu pao, BA newspaper tear in half jump out of bed and run yi-ba haozhu, grab shengsejuli-de chong ta hou, ... sternly yield at her

Lit. Having torn the newspaper in half, Du Mei jumped out of the bed and ran. I grabbed her and yielded at her sternly,……

“Du Mei”—the heroine of this novel—is the Cb of Ubei-1 as well as that of Ubei . However, the object of bei introduces “wo”(I) into the discourse segment and recognizes it as the new Cb-Cp of the subsequent utterance. This perfectly illustrates the pattern of A…, A bei B…, B… talked about above. Nevertheless, this is not the whole picture of this pattern, as in three segments out of 12, as shown in Table 3.4, the Cb SHIFT is not fulfilled by the object of bei, but by some other semantic entity that is introduced in Ubei+1 in situ. Take (21), for instance:

70

3 A Centering Analysis of Discourse with Chinese Bei Passive

(21) U1: Wo zhan-zai chemen pang, I stand ZAI car door beside U2: reng bei yan xun-de lianlian kesou. still BEI smoke make keep coughing U3: Shi Ba baiwuliaolai-de yi-zhe che men. Shi Ba idly lean against-ZHE car door Lit. Although I was standing by the car door, the smoke still made me cough. Shi Ba leaned against the car door idly.

All other parameters being equal, the new backward-looking center is not served by the object of bei, but by a newly introduced semantic entity “Shi Ba”(Shi Ba) from Ubei+1 itself. This is the pattern of A…, A bei B…, C…. It must be pointed out that since the pattern of A…, A bei B…, B… makes up 75% of this transition state, I believe this is a preferred pattern to A…, A bei B…, C…. In addition, this pattern proves my postulation on the discourse function of bei object, i.e., it prepares for the subsequent utterance a new backward-looking center. As for the referential relation between Cb and other Cf members, all discourse segments of this type are in line with the zero-anaphora rule as shown in Table 3.4. Note that for pattern A…, A bei B…, C…, all new Cbs are presented as overt NPs; this is completely predictable since they are brand-new semantic entities for the discourse segments in question; however, as for the A…, A bei B…, B… pattern, since the new Cb has already been mentioned in Ubei , it prefers a nonovert form due to its high ranking in familiarity status (cf. Prince 1981; Ariel 1990, among others). Once again, this pattern is a necessary consequence of two sets of centering equations:

Table 3.4 Referential relation among Cbs in CON + SHIFT combination No.

Transition states

Referential form of Cbbei-1

Referential form of Cbbei

BEI

Referential form of bei object

Referential form of Cbbei+1

1.

CON + SHIFT

Pronoun1

01

bei

02

Overt2

2.

CON + SHIFT

Pronoun1

01

bei

Pronoun2

02

3.

CON + SHIFT

Overt1

01

bei

Pronoun2

02

4.

CON + SHIFT

Overt1

01

bei

Pronoun2

Pronoun2

5.

CON + SHIFT

01

01

bei

Pronoun2

Pronoun2

6.

CON + SHIFT

01

01

bei

Overt2

02

7.

CON + SHIFT

Pronoun1

01

bei

Overt2

Pronoun2

8.

CON + SHIFT

Pronoun1

Pronoun1

bei

Overt2

Overt2

9.

CON + SHIFT

01

Overt1

bei

Overt2

Overt2

10.

CON + SHIFT

Pronoun1

01

bei

Overt2

Overt3

11.

CON + SHIFT

Pronoun1

01

bei

Overt2

Overt3

12.

CON + SHIFT

01

01

bei

02

Overt3

Sum

12

3.2 The Contribution of Bei Utterance to Discourse Coherence Set one

71

Set two

➀Cb (Ui ) = CpR (Ui -1) (3.1)

➀Cb (Ui ) = CpR (Ui-1 ) (3.1)

➁Cb (Ui ) = Cb (Ui-1 ) OR Cb (Ui-1 ) = [?] (3.2)

➁Cb (Ui) = Cb (Ui-1) (3.5)

➂Cb (Ui ) = Cp (Ui ) (3.3)

➂Cb (Ui ) = Cp (Ui ) (3.3)

Set one predicts a Cb CONTINUATION from Ubei-1 to Ubei , and set two forces a SHIFT from the original Cb to a new one. A discourse segment of this type is not as coherent as the previous two types, since a Cb SHIFT takes place. However, it is legitimate to ask whether it is the case that the more coherent a discourse is, the better it performs. 4. RETAIN + CONTINUATION/RETAIN/SHIFT transition Putting these three transition states together is due to the fact that for all of them, the RETENTION of the backward-looking center relies on the object of bei. The transition pattern for each type is: RETAIN + CONTINUATION

A…, B bei A…, A…

RETAIN + RETAIN

A…, B bei A…, C…A…

RETAIN + SMOOTH SHIFT

A…, B bei A…, B…

RETAIN + ROUGH SHIFT

A…, B bei A…, A/C…B

(5) U1: Shangban-shi ouyu Guan Pingshan, On the way to work meet across Guan Pingshan U2: Ta jici xiang tong wo tantan dou bei wo jujue-le. he several times want to with me have a talk all BEI me refused-LE U3: Yitian bangwan, wo baiwuliaolai bian qu fujin-de yi-ge hu, ...... one evening I bored and go nearby-DE one-CL lake Lit. I came across Guan P.S on my way to work, he always tried to talk to me but I refused him every time. One evening, I was really in a negligent mood, so I went to the lake nearby...(RETAIN+ CON) (6) U1: Tamen haoxiang zai deng ren, shizhong zai zhuo-pang baochi-zhe yi-ge kongwei, They seems ZAI wait someone always ZAI table-besides keep-ZHE a-CL seat U2: henduo xiang yao zai na-zhang kongwei-shang jiuzuo-de ren dou bei tamen xiejue. Many people who wanted to sit there all BEI them declined U3: Wo zai yi-ge keyi qingxi-de kandao fasheng-de yiqie-de weizishang zuo-xia. I ZAI one-CL can clearly see happened-DE everything-DE seat sit down Lit. It seemed that they were waiting for someone, since a seat was being kept by their table and they turned away everyone who wanted to sit there. I took a seat at a remote table with a clear vision. (RETAIN+ RETAIN)

In example (5), the Cb of Ubei-1 is “wo” (I); next it is retained by the object of bei in Ubei , and gets back to the Cp position in Ubei+1 . In example (6) however, Cb

72

3 A Centering Analysis of Discourse with Chinese Bei Passive

“tamen”(they) is retained as bei object in Ubei , and further retained via a prepositional phrase “li tamen henyuan” (far away from them). Here, the newly introduced subject of Ubei and subject of Ubei+1 did not cause any SHIFT of Cb but definitely drew the attentional focus out of the retained Cb. So far, we have only observed a preservation of Cb by the object of bei without any SHIFT of center. Interestingly, what is observed here is quite different from the postulation I proposed on the basis of CONTINUATION + SHIFT. I have proposed that the discourse function of bei object is to prepare for the subsequent utterance a new backward-looking center. However, in the RETAIN + CONTINUATION and RETAIN + RETAIN type, it seems that the discourse function of bei is to maintain the original Cb. So did I make a wrong postulation? I do not think so. On the surface, the object of bei retains the Cb; however, unlike CONTINUATION, it transfers the Cb to a secondary position in the Cf set, which gives us a hint that there might be a SHIFT of Cb. So I hold my previous postulation, and further propose that the bei object that retains the Cb is calculated to make room for a new semantic entity, which prepares for a possible Cb SHIFT. This is verified by the pattern of the RETAIN + SHIFT combination. (7) U1: Ta ye-li chang zuo emeng, She at night always have nightmare U2: Wo jingchang bei ta-de chouchu he shenyin nongxing, I always BEI her twitch and moan wake up U3: pinming yao ta, ... like hell shake her up Lit. She constantly has nightmares, and I am always woken up by her twitching and moaning, and have to shake her like hell,……(RETAIN+ SHIFT)

(22) RETAIN+ ROUGH SHIFT U1: dan zhe funnu shi zhendui ta fuqin-de. But this anger BE aimed at her father-DE U2: Ta fuqin binbinyouli-de jieru bei ta shiwei yi-zhong bujinqingli-de ganshe. her father politely-DE interpose BEI she treat as one-CL unreasonable-DE intervene U3: Ta yizhi chong ta fuqin jiaorang, ......(RETAIN+ ROUGH SHIFT) she always towards her father yield Lit.…however, the anger was aimed at her father. She always regarded her father’s polite interpose as some an unreasonable intervention and kept yielding at him,…

In example (7), the Cb of Ubei-1 is transferred to the bei object position as retained Cb; meanwhile a new discourse entity “wo” (I) is introduced via the subject as well as the Cp of Ubei . It is this newly introduced subject that serves as the new Cb in Ubei+1 . Thus, by retaining the original Cb as bei object, the utterance introduces another semantic entity so as to prepare for a Cb SHIFT. In actuality, the RETENTION of Cb is but temporary. Tables 3.5, 3.6 and 3.7 show that there are only four RETAIN + CONTINUATION/RETAIN-type instances, but 17 RETAIN + SHIFT instances.

3.2 The Contribution of Bei Utterance to Discourse Coherence

73

Table 3.5 Referential relation among Cbs in RETAIN + CON combination No.

Transition states

Referential form Referential of Cbbei-1 form of Cbbei

BEI

Referential form of bei object

Referential form of Cbbei+1

1.

RETAIN + CON

Overt1

Pronoun2

bei

01

Overt1

2.

RETAIN + CON

01 …overt2

Pronoun2

bei

Pronoun1

Pronoun1

Sum

2

Table 3.6 Referential relation among Cbs in RETAIN + RETAIN combination No.

Transition states

Referential form of Cbbei-1

Referential form of Cbbei

BEI

Referential form of bei obj.

Referential form of Cbbei+1

1.

RETAIN + RETAIN

01 …pronoun2

02

bei

Pronoun1

Overt3 …pronoun1

2.

RETAIN + RETAIN

Pronoun1

Overt2

bei

Pronoun1

Overt3 …pronoun1

Sum

2

This overwhelming majority of RETAIN + SHIFT verifies my postulation again. Now I would like to turn to the referential relation with respect to these three transition state types. Most bei utterances followed the zero-anaphora rule with only three exceptions, one from RETAIN + RETAIN and two from RETAIN + SHIFT. With regard to the RETAIN + RETAIN instance, it involves a weighing between zero anaphora and pronominal form as has been mentioned above and will not be repeated here. As for the two RETAIN + SHIFT instances, they cause real trouble for the zero-anaphora rule. (23) U1: Qita jingcha chong-guolai, Other policeman rush over U2: ...... wo ye bei liang-ge jingcha sisi niuzhu gebo dai kao, I also BEI two_CL policeman steadily grab arm clap handcuffs U3: teng-de lian dou chouchu-le. Hurt-DE face even twitch-LE Lit. All the other policemen rushed over,……I was grabbed by two policemen and was flattened. It hurt so much that my face started to twitch. (24) U1: yumu doudong-zhe U2: wo bei yu jiao-de zhangbukai kou, U3: zheng bu-kai yan. Rain tremble-ZHE I BEI rain pour- LE cannot open mouth cannot open eye Lit. The rain was hammering down. I could not open my mouth or my eyes in the downpour.

74

3 A Centering Analysis of Discourse with Chinese Bei Passive

Table 3.7 Referential relation among Cbs in RETAIN + SHIFT combination No.

Transition states

Referential form Referential of Cbbei-1 form of Cbbei

BEI

Referential form of bei object

Referential form of Cbbei+1

1.

RETAIN + SMOOTH SHIFT

01

Pronoun2

bei

01

Pronoun2

2.

RETAIN + SMOOTH SHIFT

Pronoun1

Pronoun2

bei

01

Pronoun2

3.

RETAIN + SMOOTH SHIFT

Pronoun1

Overt2

bei

01

Pronoun2

4.

RETAIN + SMOOTH SHIFT

Overt1

Overt2

bei

01

02

5.

RETAIN + SMOOTH SHIFT

Overt1

Overt2

bei

01

02

6.

RETAIN + SMOOTH SHIFT

01

Overt2

bei

01

02

7.

RETAIN + SMOOTH SHIFT

Pronoun1

Overt2

bei

01

Pronoun2

8.

RETAIN + SMOOTH SHIFT

Overt1 …overt2

Overt2

bei

01

02

9.

RETAIN + SMOOTH SHIFT

01

Overt2

bei

01

Overt3

10.

RETAIN + SMOOTH SHIFT

01

Pronoun2

bei

Pronoun1

Overt2

11.

RETAIN + SMOOTH SHIFT

Pronoun1

Pronoun2

bei

Pronoun1

02

12.

RETAIN + SMOOTH SHIFT

Pronoun1

Overt2

bei

Overt1

02

13.

RETAIN + SMOOTH SHIFT

01

Overt2

bei

Overt1

02

14.

RETAIN + SMOOTH SHIFT

01

Pronoun2

bei

Overt1

02

(continued)

3.2 The Contribution of Bei Utterance to Discourse Coherence

75

Table 3.7 (continued) No.

Transition states

Referential form Referential of Cbbei-1 form of Cbbei

BEI

Referential form of bei object

Referential form of Cbbei+1

15.

RETAIN + SMOOTH SHIFT

Overt1

Pronoun2

bei

Overt1

02

16.

RETAIN + ROUGH SHIFT

01

Overt2

bei

Pronoun1

Pronoun1 …overt2

17.

RETAIN + ROUGH SHIFT

Pronoun1

Overt2

bei

01

Overt3 …overt2

Sum

17

One possible idea is that the retained Cbs of both cases are not exactly the Cbs in previous utterances. The object of bei in (23) is actually a subset of Cb (Ubei-1 ), i.e., “liangge jingcha”⊂ “qita jingcha” (two policemen ⊂ all the other policemen), and “yu”⊂ “yumu” (rain fall ⊂ curtain of rain). From this perspective, it might be necessary for the retained Cb to present itself as an overt form. Nevertheless, these two instances still cannot be theoretically self-consistent with the zero-anaphora rule, so it is reasonable to question the compulsory force of this rule. As mentioned in Chap. 2, the two rules of Centering Theory are not as compulsory as the three constraints in implementation, they are but a tendency and could be violated occasionally. However, since there are only two violators, the rule is still legitimate. Another observation from Tables 3.5, 3.6 and 3.7 is that the object of bei retains the Cb in either overt form or as a zero anaphora. Among these 21 instances, 11 of them adopted a zero form of bei object. This demonstrates that a bei object, overt or covert, may serve as a habitat for a retained Cb, which makes it possible for further CONTINUATION, RETENTION, or SHIFT of Cb. This observation is of the essence for our discussion on the syntactic structure of a bei sentence. As defined in Chap. 2, center is a semantic entity that has its syntactic realization in an overt form or as a pro. This definition, together with the behavior observed here, indicates a possible unified analysis on the syntactic structure of the so-termed “long and short passive” of Chinese. I will leave it here for now and revisit it in Sect. 3.3. As a closure for this part, four sets of equations will be presented to illustrate their decisive role in resolving the pattern of each transition state combination.

76

3 A Centering Analysis of Discourse with Chinese Bei Passive

Set one: Cb (Ui ) = CpR (Ui-1 ) (3.1) Cb (Ui ) = Cb (Ui-1 )OR Cb (Ui-1 ) = [?] (3.2) Cb (Ui ) = Cp (Ui ) (3.4) Set two:

Set three:

Set four:

Cb (Ui ) = CpR (Ui-1 ) (3.1)

Cb (Ui ) = CpR (Ui-1 ) (3.1)

Cb (Ui ) = CpR (Ui-1 ) (3.1)

Cb(Ui ) = Cb (Ui-1 )OR Cb (Ui-1 ) = [?] (3.2)

Cb (Ui ) = Cb (Ui-1 )OR Cb (Ui-1 ) = [?] (3.2)

Cb (Ui ) = Cb (Ui-1 ) (3.5)

Cb(Ui ) = Cp(Ui ) (3.3)

Cb(Ui ) = Cp(Ui ) (3.4)

Cb (Ui ) = Cp (Ui ) (3.3)

Complying with Eq. set one → Eq. set two, a transition state of RETAIN + CONTINUATION is easily predicted; Eq. set one → Eq. set three is for RETAIN + RETAIN; and Eq. set one → Eq. set four for RETAIN + SHIFT. However, the behavior of bei object as well as the transition patterns is not quite predictable via these equations, and that is why this detailed data description is called for. 5. SHIFT + CONTINUATION/RETAIN/SHIFT transition This group of transition states has only 11 instances and none of them is as interesting as the last group. Starting with a Cb SHIFT, the backward-looking center of Ubei of this group is not the same as that of Ubei-1 (or Cp of Ubei-1 if it is the initial utterance). Thus, I could anticipate the relation pattern between Ubei-1 and Ubei to be A…, B bei C…. As for the second transition state in the combination, they all follow the principles as well as regulations I adopted from Centering Theory. SHIFT + CONTINUATION

A…, B bei C…, B…

SHIFT + RETAIN

A…, B bei C…, A…B…

SHIFT + SHIFT

A…, B bei C…, D…

(8) SHIFT+CONTINUATION U1: Tamen dou zai nuli-de xiang-qian, jianding buyi erqie leguan. They all ZAI industriously move on steadfast and hopeful U2: Dangnian, women shi zuowei zui-youxiu-de qingnian bei songru budui-de, in those years, we were the best youth BEI sent to army U3: rujin que cheng-le shenghuo-de chidaozhe, ... now instead become-LE life-DE latecomer Lit. They all move forward with their own lives and routines industriously—steadfast and hopeful. In those years, we were sent to the army as the flowers of youth, but today we actually end up as the latecomers of life……

3.2 The Contribution of Bei Utterance to Discourse Coherence

77

(9) SHIFT+RETAIN U1: Wo hui-dao yuan-li, ... ...wo qingqing tao yaoshi kai-men, I return the hospital I lightly take out keys open door U2: men bei fansuo-shang-le. The door BEI locked on the inside U3: Wo qiaomen, ...... I knock at the door Lit. I got back to the hospital,……I took out the keys to open the door. However, the door was locked on the inside, so I knocked at the door,……(SHIFT+ RETAIN) (10) SHIFT+SHIFT U1: Deng shi zui-xian xi-mie de, Light is first go out-DE U2: jiezhe yiqie dou bei qieduan-le. next everything all BEI cut off-LE U3: Wo xian shi yiwei tingdian, dan wo zou-dao chuang-qian wang wai kan, ....... I first think power cut but I go to the window look out Lit. First it was the light, and then everything was cut off. I thought it was a power cut at first, however, I went to the window and looked out,……(SHIFT+ SHIFT)

In example (8), the Cb of Ubei-1 is “tamen” (they), which fails to maintain or retain its Cb status in Ubei . A new semantic entity “women”(we) is introduced via the subject of bei and starts to serve as the new Cb of Ubei and also Ubei+1 . It presents a pattern of A…, B bei C…, B… as I have predicted. In example (9), the Cb of Ubei-1 lost its battle with the object of Ubei-1 in serving as the Cb of Ubei , so the Cb of Ubei is shifted to the previous object “men”(door). However, this Cb failed to maintain its Cp status in Ubei+1 but degraded to be the object of Ubei+1 as a retained Cb. Thus, the pattern of this transition state combination is A…, B bei C…, A…B…. It should be noted that the subject of Ubei-1 is the same as that of Ubei+1 . Theoretically, this is not necessarily the case, and even if the subject of Ubei+1 adopts a different semantic entity, this pattern is not affected. However, due to the fact that there is only one instance of this combination, I would like to tentatively leave this pattern this way. Interested parties may seek further support by taking more data into consideration. As for example (10), none of the three utterances of this discourse segment share any semantic entities. Nevertheless, they are still about the same topic frame, i.e., power cut. In Ubei-1 , the Cb is “deng” (light), and it shifts to “yiqie” (everything) in Ubei . Judging from the context, “yiqie” refers to all electronic devices other than light, so both Cbs are within the topic frame of this segment but as different aspects. In Ubei+1 , the Cb shifts to “wo” (I) together with a bringing out of the topic “power cut”, again, a Cb SHIFT within one same topic frame. And thus, it presents a pattern of A…, B bei C…, D…, in which each utterance contains a semantic entity that has a connection with other utterances. This group presents a less interesting transition state pattern, because only the subject of bei utterance is involved in Cb transition and not the object of bei. And since

78

3 A Centering Analysis of Discourse with Chinese Bei Passive

Cb SHIFT happens in all of these cases, it contributes little to discourse coherence. However, as will be pointed out in the interim summary, an overall observation of all nine transition state combinations will reveal something deeper that has not been noticed yet and a SHIFT transition always promises good news. In regard to the referential relation between Cb and non-Cb semantic entities, this group renders more violation against the zero-anaphora rule (Table 3.8). No violation is observed in the SHIFT + RETAIN or SHIFT + SHIFT combination. However, four out of eight SHIFT + CONTINUATION instances violate the rule, among which two of them concern the relation between pronoun and zero anaphora and this will be ignored like all previous similar instances. Now there are two serious violators here. Table 3.8 Referential relation among Cbs in SHIFT-related combinations No.

Transition Referential form of Referential BEI Referential Referential form of states Cbbei-1 form of form of bei Cbbei+1 Cbbei object

1.

SHIFT + CON

01

Pronoun2

bei

Overt3

Pronoun2

2.

SHIFT + CON

Overt1

Overt2

bei

Overt3

Overt2

3.

SHIFT + CON

Overt1

Overt2

bei

Overt3

02

4.

SHIFT + CON

01

Pronoun2

bei

03

02

5.

SHIFT + CON

01

Pronoun2

bei

03

02

6.

SHIFT + CON

01

Overt2

bei

03

02

7.

SHIFT + CON

Overt1

Overt2

bei

03

02

Pronoun1 …overt2

Overt2

bei

03

Pronoun1 …overt2

Sum 8 8.

SHIFT + RETAIN

Sum 1 9.

SHIFT + SHIFT

Pronoun1 …, Overt2 …Pronoun1

Pronoun1

bei

02

Pronoun2 …pronoun1

10.

SHIFT + SHIFT

Overt1

Overt2

bei

03

Overt4

Sum 2

3.2 The Contribution of Bei Utterance to Discourse Coherence

79

(25) U1: Na-ge guniang shi chengwuzhang, shou-le ge chufen. That_CL girl be Purser get-LE CL punishment U2: Amei ye bei Ø pi-le yidun, Amei also BEI Ø criticized U3: hai cha-chu yixie bu qu canting chifan...de shiqing. also find out some not go to canteen eat…DE things Lit. That girl is the Purser, so she was given one punishment. Amei was also criticized. They also found that some of her actions violated the rules such as not dining in the canteen, etc.

(26) U1: Na-wei jiangjun bei chiduo-le yiqie mingxian, That_CL general BEI deprive-LE all titles U2: Xu Liyu de fuqin ye bei Ø quxiao-le junguan daiyu, Xu Liyu DE father also BEI Ø withdraw-LE officer privilege U3: you cheng-le yi-ge siji,...... again become-LE a_CL driver Lit. They deprived that general of all his titles, and also withdrew from Xu Liyu’s father his officer privilege. He became a driver again,……

In these two instances, the backward-looking center is in its overt form—“Amei” (Amei) and “Xu Liyu de fuqin” (Xu Liyu’s father)—while the objects of bei are presented as zero anaphors. Here I would like to provide one possible explanation for this violation. Note that the agents of “bei piping/bei quxiao” (BEI criticized/BEI withdrawn) are both superiors to the Cbs, who are without the knowledge of the speaker or cannot be specified by the speaker. Thus, one reason for the ellipsis of bei object is “does not know or cannot say” as proposed by the traditional passive construction researches like Lü (1980) and Li (1994). Again, as I admitted previously, these two instances—together with the other two from RETAIN + SHIFT—cannot theoretically be self-consistent with the zeroanaphora rule, and it is reasonable to question the compulsory force of this rule. Hence, I would like to propose that the zero-anaphora rule is legitimate in most cases but can still be violated occasionally, and it is better treated as a tendency than a compulsory principle. Before moving on to Cb branching, Centering Theory equations that determine this group of patterns are given below:

80

3 A Centering Analysis of Discourse with Chinese Bei Passive

Set one: Cb (Ui ) = CpR (Ui-1 ) (3.1) Cb (Ui ) = Cp (Ui ) (3.3) Cb (Ui ) = Cb (Ui-1 ) (3.5) Set two:

Set three:

Set four:

Cb (Ui ) = CpR (Ui-1 ) (3.1)

Cb (Ui ) = CpR (Ui-1 ) (3.1)

Cb (Ui ) = CpR (Ui-1 ) (3.1)

Cb(Ui ) = Cb(Ui-1 ) OR Cb(Ui-1 ) Cb(Ui ) = Cb(Ui-1 ) OR Cb(Ui-1 ) Cb(Ui ) = Cb(Ui-1 ) (3.5) = [?] (3.2) = [?] (3.2) Cb(Ui ) = Cp(Ui ) (3.3)

Cb(Ui ) = Cp(Ui ) (3.4)

Cb(Ui ) = Cp(Ui ) (3.3)

In line with Eq. set one → Eq. set two, a transition state of SHIFT + CONTINUATION is easily predicted; Eq. set one → Eq. set three is for SHIFT + RETAIN; and Eq. set one → Eq. set four for SHIFT + SHIFT. 6. Cb branching As illustrated via report discourse segment (3–4) in Chap. 2 (repeated below for convenience), Chinese allows a branching of Cb under a hierarchical discourse relation. (27) Example (3) from Chap. 2: U1: Zhexie guanyuan zhong, bufen wei cong fuzhi kua bumen tiba: U2: ru Yin QZ cong fagaiwei fuzhuren bei renmingwei tongjiju juzhang, U3: Tang Z cong jingxinwei fuzhuren bei tibawei jinrongban zhuren. U4: Haiyou bufen guanyuan wei zai bumen zhijian jiaoliu: U5: ru yuan yuanlinju juzhang Han XG bei renmingwei guotuju juzhang, U6: yuan fangguanju juzhang Gao LW bei renmingwei huanbaoju juzhang. Lit. Among these officials, some of them got interdepartmental promotion from deputy posts. For instance, the former deputy director of NDRC Mr. Yin Q. is appointed for the Minister of Statistical Bureau; former deputy director of MIIT Mr. Tang is promoted to the director of Office of Financial Service. Some officials were exchanged inter-departmentally. For example, the former Minister of the Bureau of Parks and Woods—Mr. Han—is appointed as the Minister of Land and Resources Bureau, and the former Minister of House Administration Bureau is now the Minister of EPA. (adopted from people.cn) (http://news.people.com.cn/). (28) Example (4) from Chap. 2: U1: Ben zhousan, ben saiji de CBA zong juesai jiu jiang la-kai damu, U2: Beijing dui jiang zai zhuchang yingzhan Guangdong dui. U3: Guangdong dui yijing xiuxi-le jin liangzhou, U4: zai tili-shang you-zhe juedui youshi. U5: dan Beijing dui zuowei ben saiji de bancheng guanjun U6: bei kanzuoshi zui you xiwang tiaozhan huananhu tongzhi diwei de qiudui

3.2 The Contribution of Bei Utterance to Discourse Coherence

81

Lit. This Wednesday, the CBA final of this season is going to kick off. Beijing will host Guangdong. Having already rested for two weeks, Guangdong Team dominates in physical strength. However, as the mid-season champion, Beijing is the most promising team that might challenge the reign of the “South China tiger.” (from people.cn) (http://news.people.com.cn/). Technically, the two examples from Chap. 2 are of report mode; however, this phenomenon is not unique to report mode. In the 141 narrative discourse segments I studied, there are six instances that allow Cb branching with a pattern of X (x1, x2)…, x1 bei…, x2…, or X (x1, x2)…, x1 bei x2…, x2…x1… as illustrated via (29) and (13). (29) Pattern I: X (x1,x2)…,x1 bei…,x2… U1: Wo he ta zai yutian-de jietu xingzou, I and she at rainy day-DE street walk U2: ......wode xie, kutui dou bei lin-tou-le, my shoes trousers all BEI wetted-LE U3: tade xiaotui he chiluo-de jiaoya yedou shilulu-de, ....... her leg and naked feet also wet-DE Lit. She and I walked in the rain,……my shoes and my trousers all got wet in the rain, so did her legs and her naked feet. (13) Pattern II: X (x1,x2)…,x1 bei x2…,x2…x1… U1: Tamen ceng zai tong yisuo daxue-de butong xi nianshu, They used to at same university different departments study U2: zhurengong-de danxiangsi yizhi wei bei nawei guniang ticha, The hero’s unrequired love never BEI that girl become aware of U3: ta shenzhi dou bu renshi zhurengong. She even not know the hero Lit. They used to go to the same university but in different departments. The girl never turned into the requited love of the hero, she didn’t even know him. (Cbbranching)

In contrast to pattern I, pattern II as shown in (13) presents a reciprocal relation between the two branches “Zhurengong” (the hero) and “na-wei guniang” (that girl). In all of the three relevant utterances, both x1 and x2 are presented but with different grammatical roles. This category could be regarded as an extension of Cb CONTINUATION, since both x1 and x2 belong to a larger set X, and this X is maintained/continued in the following utterances via its different set member. As for the referential relation between branched Cbs and non-Cb entities, this category behaves quite the same as CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION too—the zero-anaphora rule and pronoun rule are both witnessed as shown in Table 3.9. 7. Interim summary To sum up, ten patterns concerning 13 different transition state combinations are presented above and listed below (Table 3.10). Judging from the numbers for each transition pattern, it is obvious that Cb CONTINUATION is the preferred one, and within this pattern, the subject of bei

82

3 A Centering Analysis of Discourse with Chinese Bei Passive

Table 3.9 Referential relation among Cbs of Cb branching No.

Transition states

Referential form of Cbbei-1

Referential BEI Referential Referential form form of form of bei of Cbbei+1 Cbbei object

1.

Cb …pronoun1 +Overt2 Branching

Pronoun1

bei

03

Overt2

2.

Cb Pronoun1 …Pronoun2 Branching

Pronoun1

bei

03

Pronoun2

3.

Cb Pronoun(1+2) Branching

Overt1

bei

Overt3

Overt2

4.

Cb Pronoun1 … pronoun2 02 Branching

bei

Overt3

Pronoun1

5.

Cb Pronoun(1+2) Branching

Overt1

bei

Overt2

Pronoun2 …overt1

6.

Cb Pronoun1 Branching

Pronoun2

bei

Pronoun1

Overt2a …overt2b

Sum 6

Table 3.10 A summary of transition patterns concerning bei utterance Transition state combination

Pattern of transition

No.

CON + CON/CON + Ø/Ø + CON

Ubei-1 Ubei Ubei+1: (A……), A bei B… (A……) 79

CON/Ø + RETAIN

Ubei-1 Ubei Ubei+1: (A……), A bei B… C…A… 12

CON + SHIFT

Ubei-1 Ubei Ubei+1 A……, A bei B… B…… OR A……, A bei B… C……

12

RETAIN + CON

Ubei-1 Ubei Ubei+1: A……, B bei A… A……

2

RETAIN + RETAIN

Ubei-1 Ubei Ubei+1: A……, B bei A… C…A…

2

RETAIN + SHIFT

Ubei-1 Ubei Ubei+1: A……, B bei A… B……OR A……, B bei A… A/C…B…

12

SHIFT + CON

Ubei-1 Ubei Ubei+1: A……, B bei C… B……

8

SHIFT + RETAIN

Ubei-1 Ubei Ubei+1: A……, B bei C… A…B…

1

SHIFT + SHIFT

Ubei-1 Ubei Ubei+1: A……, B bei C… D……

2

Cb Branching

Ubei-1 Ubei Ubei+1 X (x1 ,x2 ) x1 bei y…x2 ……OR X (x1 , x2 ) x1 bei x2 … x2 …x1 …

6

utterance plays the key role in continuing the backward-looking center from the current utterance to the next. Based on this observation, I proposed that one discourse function of bei utterance is to preserve the Cb, so as to maintain discourse coherence. I also proposed that it might be possible to separate the discourse function of bei utterance from that of bei object. The CONTINUATION + SHIFT transition pattern shows that the object position of bei utterance prepares for a Cb SHIFT

3.2 The Contribution of Bei Utterance to Discourse Coherence

83

Table 3.11 Cb transition states (reappearing Table 2.1 of Chap. 2) Cb (Ui) = Cb (Ui-1) OR Cb (Ui-1) = [?]

Cb (Ui) = Cb (Ui-1)

Cb (Ui) = Cp (Ui)

CONTINUATION

SMOOTH SHIFT

Cb (Ui) = Cp (Ui)

RETAIN

ROUGH SHIFT

by introducing a new discourse entity. Furthermore, the RETAIN + CONTINUATION/RETAIN/SHIFT patterns present the RETENTION of the original Cb at the bei-object position, but such RETENTION is always accompanied by a SHIFT of Cb in its subsequent utterance (17/21). Thus, I claim that the function of the object of bei is either to introduce a new possible Cb or to RETAIN the original Cb so as to make room for a new one at the subject position. Another interesting phenomenon that attracts my attention is that different transition states seem to prefer different subsequent states. To be more specific, a CONTINUATION transition tends to be followed by another CONTINUATION one (70/93); a RETAIN transition is more likely to have a SHIFT attendant (17/21); and a SHIFT transition prefers a CONTINUATION as its subsequent state (8/11). Hence, to me that RETENTION is never a piece of good news for discourse coherence since it always promises a SHIFT of Cb. As has been emphasized plenty of times, these transition patterns are predictable through the principles of Cb transition state calculation of Centering Theory as illustrated in Table 2.1 (reappearing as Table 3.11 above) at the very beginning of this chapter and repeated above. Different combinations of these equations will end up with different discourse patterns, so it is legitimate to claim that Centering Theory is capable of predicting the discoursal presentational patterns based on its constraints and regulations. The last point to mention is that 137 out of 141 discourse segments support the zero-anaphora rule and the pronoun rule, and I admit that occasionally discourse information might force the speaker to choose a pronominal form over zero anaphor as the backward-looking center in light of Li and Thompson (1981). Rarely but possibly, an overt NP form is sometimes adopted (four out of 141) as a Cb when another semantic entity in the utterance is realized via zero anaphora. Therefore, the zero-anaphora rule and the pronoun rule are better regarded as a strong tendency instead of a compulsory regulation.

3.2.2 The Discourse Function of Bei Utterances As proposed in the previous section, bei utterance bears a pivotal weight in intersentential connection. The Cb transition patterns would change significantly if the bei passive construction is replaced by a SVO word order or a disposal ba construction. In this subsection, I will prove this claim by rewriting all the bei utterances from the previously analyzed data to the corresponding SVO or ba construction. Such

84

3 A Centering Analysis of Discourse with Chinese Bei Passive

rewriting results in a couple of subtle changes concerning Cb transition which affect discourse coherence greatly. Based on this quantitative analysis, the next subsection will make a comparison between the centering approach toward discourse analysis and the traditional Givón’s (1983) approach. In the previous section, I have proposed that one discourse function of bei utterance is to preserve the Cb, so as to maintain discourse coherence. In this section, I will provide further evidence to support this proposal. By rewriting all bei utterances that have been analyzed into their corresponding active voice, the following changes of transition states are observed: Firstly, the former CON + CON transition pattern is changed to RETAIN + CON (66/70) or even RETAIN + ROUGH SHIFT (4/70); (1) CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION → RETAIN + CONTINUATION Wo (I) you “Anban” fenpei qu-le ge gongchang, shiyongqi wei man, Ø(=I) jiu bei chao-le youyu (meaning: I was fired), wo (I) bao-zhe dang’an huidao “Anban”,...... → Wo (I) you “Anban” fenpei qu-le ge gongchang, shiyongqi wei man, tamen (they) jiu chao-le wo (meaning: they fired me), wo (I) bao-zhe dang’an huidao “Anban”,......

(30) CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION→ RETAIN + ROUGH SHIFT Ta (she) lengxiao, yang shou yu zai da, shou (her hand) b ei Pan Youjun zhua -zhu (meanng: her hand was caught by Pan Youjun). Ta (she) hong-zhe yanjing dui wo he Pan Youjun you ti you yao......→ Ta (she) lengxiao, yang shou yu zai da, Pan Youjun zhua-zhu ta-de shou (her hand) (meaning: Pan Youjun caught her hand). Ta (she) hong-zhe yanjing dui wo he Pan Youjun you ti you yao......

Secondly, the former CON + RETAIN transition state now presents a RETAIN + RETAIN (4/11) or RETAIN + SMOOTH SHIFT (7/11);

3.2 The Contribution of Bei Utterance to Discourse Coherence

85

(3) CONTINUATION + RETAIN → RETAIN + RETAIN Women (we) ti-zhe kuzi ta-zhe xie, Ø(=we) xiang yi-dui fulu bei ya-zhe chuan-guo xixrangrang-de Wangfujing dajia (meanng: we were guarded through the Wangfujing Street), henduo chengnianren (many adults) zhuzu haoqi-de kan women (we).→ Women (we) ti-zhe kuzi ta-zhe xie, tamen (they) ya-zhe women (we) chuan-guo xixrangrang-de Wangfujing dajia (meaning: they guarded us through the teeming Wangfujing Street), henduo chengnianren (many adults) zhuzu haoqi-de kan women (we). (31) CONTINUATION + RETAIN → RETAIN + SMOOTH SHIFT Ta (he) shanglai niu wo gebo, Ø(=he) bei wo yixia shuaikai (meaning: he was jerked away by me), Ø(=I) zheng gao ta (he): ...... → Ta (he) shanglai niu wo gebo, wo (I) yixia shuaikai ta (he) (meaning: I jerked him away), Ø(=I) zheng gao ta (he): ......

Thirdly, all instances of a CON + SMOOTH SHIFT transition pattern become RETAIN + SMOOTH SHIFT (12/12); (20) CONTINUATION + SMOOTH SHIFT → RETAIN + SMOOTH SHIFT Du Mei ba baozhi yisiliangban, Ø(=Du Mei) xia chuang jiu pao, Ø(=Du Mei) bei wo (I) yi-ba hao-zhu (meaning: Du mei was grabbed by me), Ø(=I) shengsejuli-de chong ta(she=Du Mei) hou, ...... → Du Mei ba baozhi yisiliangban, Ø(=Du Mei) xia chuang jiu pao, wo (I) yi-ba hao-zhu ta (she=Dumei) (meaning: I grabbed Du Mei), Ø(=I) shengsejuli-de chong ta(she=Du Mei) hou, ......

Fourthly, all SHIFT + CON instances are now SHIFT + SHIFT (8/8), while SHIFT + RETAIN and SHIFT + SHIFT remain the same. (32) SHIFT + CONTINUATION → SHIFT + SHIFT Ta (she=La La) chao-qi dianhua xiang he Zhou Liang yueding tanhua shijian, Zhou Liang suiran zuijin bei La La hongzha-de (meaning: Zhou Liang has been constantly picked on by La La) Ø(=Zhou Liang) duoshao qianxu-le xie, dan ta zhongjiu shi yi-ge, ......→ Ta (she=La La) chao-qi dianhua xiang he Zhou LIang yueding tanhua shijian, suiran zuijin La La hongzha-de Zhou Liang (meaning: La La has constantly picked on Zhou Liang) Ø(=Zhou Liang) duoshao qianxu-le xie, dan ta zhongjiu shi yi-ge, ......

86

3 A Centering Analysis of Discourse with Chinese Bei Passive

Nonetheless, the good news is that all segments that originally start with a RETAIN transition now begin with a CONTINUATION (21 in total). 5)

RETAIN + CONTINUATION → CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION Shangban shi Ø(=I) ouyu Guan Pingshan, ta (he) jici xiang tong wo tantan dou bei wo jujue-le (he has been refused by me for several times ). Yitian bangwan, wo (I) shizai baiwuliaolai ......→ Shangban shi Ø(=I) ouyu Guan Pingshan, ta (he) jici xiang tong wo tantan wo dou jujue-le ta (I have refused him for several times). Yitian bangwan, wo (I) shizai baiwuliaolai ......

6) RETAIN + RETAIN → CONTINUATION + RETAIN Tamen (they) haoxiang zai dengren, henduo zouguoqu xiangyao zai na-zhang kongwei shang jiuzuo-de ren (many people who wanted to sit there) dou bei tamen (they) xiejue (meaning: everyone who wanted to sit there was declined by them). Wo (I) zai yi=ge li tamen (they) hen yuan dan keyi qingxi-de kan-dao na zhuo-shang fasheng-de yiqie-de weizi-shang zuo-xia. → Tamen (they) haoxiang zai dengren, tamen (they) xiejue-le henduo zouguoqu xiangyao zai na-zhang kongwei shang jiuzuo-de ren (meaning: they declined everyone who wanted to sit there). Wo (I) zai yi=ge li tamen (they) hen yuan dan keyi qingxi-de kan-dao na zhuo-shang fasheng-de yiqie-de weizi-shang zuo-xia. 23) RETAIN + SHIFT → CONTINUATION + SHIFT Qita jingcha (other policemen) chong-guolai, wo (I) ye bei liang-ge jingcha (two policeman) sisi niu-zhu geobo daikao (meaning: I was steadily grabbed by two policemen and was ironed), Ø(=I) teng-de lian dou chouchu-le. → Qita jingcha (other policemen) chong-guolai, liang-ge jingcha (two policemen) sisi niu-zhu wo-de geobo gei wo daikao (meaning: two policemen grabbed me steadily and ironed me), Ø(=I) teng-de lian dou chouchu-le.

Table 3.12 presents a clear picture of the consequences of such changes. Compare Table 3.12 with Table 3.1, it is found that column one of CONTINUATION transition and column two of RETAIN transition interchanged their locations. To be more specific, the transition states that originally started with CONTINUATION was 69.5% and those started with RETAIN was 14.9% as shown in Table 3.1; however, the situation is reversed after re-written. The transition state that initiated via RETAIN now is 69.6% and those begin with a CONTINUATION now drops

Total

2.1

Perc.

0

141

21(14.8%)

3

Sum

2.1

3

10.6

15 2.8

4

RETAIN

98(69.6%)

46.8

66

RETAIN

SHIFT

CON

RETAIN

CON

Ø

CON

Table 3.12 New transition states of rewritten data

3.5

5

Ø 16.3

23

SHIFT

SHIFT

0.7

1

RETAIN

11(7.8%)

0

0

CON

7.1

10

SHIFT

Ø

5(3.5%)

2.8

4

CON

0.7

1

SHIFT

6(4.3%)

4.3

6

Branching

3.2 The Contribution of Bei Utterance to Discourse Coherence 87

88

3 A Centering Analysis of Discourse with Chinese Bei Passive

to 14.8%. By taking a centering perspective, it is easy to judge that such rewriting prohibits Cb preservation and decreases discourse coherence.2 Hence, compared to their active voice, the bei utterances originally adopted in the discourse segments function much better in maintaining discourse coherence. The comparison between active and passive voice also supports Thompson (1987), who argues that under the circumstance that the patient is more related than the agent to the theme of the current discourse, a passive voice is preferred over an active one, which indicates that such a comparison must be conducted within the same contextual environment. According to this rewriting experiment, it is observed that certain contexts favor a passive expression, whereas the active counterpart might jeopardize Cb CONTINUATION. Such an observation would be easily overlooked if independent samples of active and passive clauses were adopted.

3.2.3 A Comparison with Givón’s (1983) Tradition The inter-sentential function of bei passive is now clear from a centering perspective. A discoursal analysis of Chinese bei passive construction is not pioneered by this study, however. Generally, previous studies on passive bei are conducted on a sentential level, but there is still a small number of studies that are discourse oriented, for instance, Xing (1990), Myhill and Xing (1994), and Liu (2011). To scrutinize the contribution of bei passive to the topic continuity of the discourse they appear in, these three studies examined two parameters concerning bei passive by following a Givón tradition, namely referential distance (RD) and topic persistence (TP). Givón (1983) differentiates three major aspects of discourse continuity, i.e., thematic continuity, action continuity, and participants (topics) continuity, with the last the most concrete one. Further, there are several factors that may affect the identification of the topic (or leitmotif ) of certain discourse, these are: the length of its absence from the register, potential interference from other topics, the availability of its semantic information as well as its thematic information, among which the first two factors are more concrete and measurable. Focusing on the length of a topic’s absence from the register, and the potential interference from other topics, Givón develops two tests, i.e., the well-known RD and TP. Referential distance (RD) assesses the “gap” between the previous occurrence in the discourse of a referent/topic and its current occurrence in a clause. Such gap is measured by the number of clauses to the left and the minimal value is 1 clause, i.e., the current topic is also the immediately preceding topic. As for topic persistence (TP), it makes the assumption that more important discourse topics appear more frequently in the register and this is measured in terms of the number of clauses to 2 What is observed

in the transition states involving bei utterance conforms to discourse with active utterances. Based on a similar study concerning the discourse function of Chinese ba utterance, it is noticed that 73.57% of discourse segments bear a CONTINUATION transition state from Uba-1 to Uba , and 15.03% a RETAIN transition state. This demonstrates that bei utterances have much the same function as active ba utterances when discourse coherence is considered.

3.2 The Contribution of Bei Utterance to Discourse Coherence

89

the right. The minimal value of TP is zero, which signifies the lowest persistence of certain topic. Based on these two tests, Xing (1990) claims that Chinese long and short passives have agents of relatively low topicality and patients of relatively high topicality. Following this line, Myhill and Xing (1994) conducted a language comparison study concerning Biblical Hebrew, English, and Chinese, in which Hebrew is the language that is translated from and English and Chinese are the languages translated into. The study shows that active voice in Hebrew and English could be translated into Chinese as bei passives when it involves violent verbs. This indicates that affectedness is more apt to be expressed as bei construction in Chinese. Liu (2011) conducts a comparison study between the bei passive and its active counterpart. She argues that the bei passive is more likely to be chosen if it is adversative, has a non-thematic agent, a thematic patient, and a shorter RD for the patient. TP, however, does not play a significant role in the choice between active and passive. Fundamentally, the Givón tradition has its merit in analyzing discourse relations. Firstly, it provides a quantitative tool to measure the degree of referent continuity; and secondly, it takes into consideration both clauses to the left and to the right, which renders a more thorough picture concerning discourse continuity. Nonetheless, it is insufficient in several senses. First of all, RD is too vague to reveal the continuity condition—since only distance is measured, no topic change is revealed. So the value assignment basically cannot tell how discourse coherence is achieved or how discourse incoherence takes place. If there is a long RD, it also neglects what happens within the intervening clauses that contain no antecedent. Secondly, this approach adopts a frequency measurement for TP without considering the relationship between the many occurrences of the same referent. For example, these occurrences may be related to each other with different grammatical functions, though using a subject in all the clauses produces the most coherent discourse and using other functions produces less coherent discourse. From this perspective, one can say that the high frequency of referents is not sufficient to differentiate the different degrees of discourse coherence, their different grammatical functions in the clauses are very important in judging the degree of discourse coherence. In Xing (1990), Myhill and Xing (1994), and Liu (2011), RD and TP are used to examine topic continuity between the bei passive and its preceding and subsequent sentences by incorporating a large range of sentences in the contextual environment. However, as claimed at the very beginning of this book, I believe that a study of discourse continuity is better conducted in a clause-by-clause manner so as to provide a more reliable and comprehensive picture of the concrete status of information flow. In addition, neither RD nor TP differentiates the grammatical role or sentential position of the topic, which is not sophisticated enough for the study of discourse coherence, as pointed out earlier. Since the Centering Theory approach concerns itself with the Cb transition states from clause to clause, it fares better in presenting a more precise view of the inter-sentential function of the Chinese bei passive construction. Theoretically, both Givón’s tradition and Centering Theory take the utterances preceding and following the passive bei into account, but with crucial differences.

90

3 A Centering Analysis of Discourse with Chinese Bei Passive

As has been emphasized in several occasions, Centering Theory adopts an utteranceby-utterance manner of discourse presentation which unfurls every detail of discourse continuity from different aspects, such as the grammatical position and the prominence status of the Cb (or the topic). On the other hand, the Givón’s tradition measures topic continuity based on referential distance (RD) and topic persistence (TP), which is considered insufficient in several ways. Firstly, the RD and TP parameters do not differentiate CONTINUATION from RETAIN, i.e., they neglect the grammatical position of the topic or its salience status in the sentence. In other words, the Givón tradition only requires the topic to make its appearance in the sentence without paying attention to its syntactic status such as being subject, object, etc. Take example (30) to illustrate this: (30) CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION → RETAIN + ROUGH SHIFT Ta (she) lengxiao, yang shou yu zai da, shou (her hand) bei Pan Youjun zhua-zhu (meaning: her hand was caught by Pan Youjun). Ta (she) hong-zhe yanjing dui wo he Pan Youjun you ti you yao......→ Ta (she) lengxiao, yang shou yu zai da, Pan Youjun zhua-zhu ta-de shou (her hand) (meaning: Pan Youjun caught her hand). Ta (she) hong-zhe yanjing dui wo he Pan Youjun you ti you yao......

In the original bei instance, both RD and TP are assigned to 1, since the topic “ta” (she) appears in both Ubei and Ubei-1 as well as in Ubei+1 . In the active case, the same value is assigned to RD and TP for the same reason. However, such an assignment ignores the change in the syntactic position of the topic. In the active counterpart, the topic is placed at a secondary position, i.e., the object position of the sentence. As discussed previously, such degradation is adopted for introducing a more salient semantic entity so as to prepare for a SHIFT of Cb, which leads to a change from CONTINUATION to RETAIN. Since Cb CONTINUATION and RETAIN contribute differently to discourse coherence, apparently, the Givón tradition cannot differentiate CONTINUATION from RETAIN, and is thus considered insufficient in characterizing the different degrees of discourse coherence. Recalling Liu’s (2011) claim regarding the role of TP, I would say that the insignificance of TP in the choice between active and passive in her study is also due to the weakness in the Givón tradition. Furthermore, since only the distance and frequency with respect to the topic occurrence is measured, it is still left unknown HOW discourse coherence/incoherence is achieved. In fact, the term “non-continuity” has relatively complex presentations in forms of SMOOTH SHIFT or ROUGH SHIFT—neither of them could be detected via RD or TP. Given a long distance between the occurrence of a discourse referent and its second occurrence, what good could such “non-continuity” do to discourse coherence?

3.2 The Contribution of Bei Utterance to Discourse Coherence

91

Let us suppose that there is a discourse segment whose RD = 5, TP = 2 (taking a range of 10 clauses to the left and to the right, respectively). It means there is a fiveclause gap between the previous occurrence of a referent and its current occurrence, and this referent appears twice in the following clauses. Under this circumstance, is the Givón’s tradition still a tool of measuring discourse coherence or is it only about discourse relatedness? The five-clause gap jeopardizes the topic continuity for sure, and it is better not to regard such discourse segment as continuous any more. Without continuity, there can be no discourse coherence to speak of—especially when there is no clue of what happened within these five clauses. Furthermore, since there is no continued discourse referent within these five adjacent clauses, and the value of RD only indicates a relation between Un and Un+5 , the RD parameter (analogous to TP) fails in describing the manner of the information flow from Un to Un+5 . What it does describe is the extent to which the discourse referents are related. Thus, what Givón’s two parameters concerned is the degree of relatedness of the discourse instead of the discourse coherence. Centering Theory, on the contrary, concentrates on the way how information flow is maintained and interrupted. It provides a precise calculating system to reveal step by step the way how each backward-looking center is continued, retained, or shifted. Compared to the Givón’s tradition, centering is the more appropriate analytical tool for revealing the status of discourse coherence. Thus, I propose that Givón’s tradition is a measurement for discourse relatedness, while Centering Theory is an efficacious tool in describing discourse coherence.

3.3 A Reflection of the Syntactic Analysis Toward Long Versus Short Bei Passive 3.3.1 An Introduction to the Long Versus Short Passive Debate There are two opposite views on the relation between long and short passive constructions. The traditional idea on passives claims that short passives and long passives are in essence one construction; the former is a result of omitting the agent from the latter (Lü 1980; Li 1994). The other holds that they are two different constructions; the short passives are base-generated as having only one argument instead of being the elliptical form of long passives as proposed by Huang (1999), Tang (2004, 2008), and Xiong (2003), among others. The term “long/short passive” is quite misleading, since some short passives are even longer and more complex than the long ones as I examine the real discourse data; for instance, Huran juede jianbang bei Ø zhongzhong-de pai-le yi-xia3 is a short passive; however, because of the adverb 3 Huran

juede jianbang bei zhongzhong-de pai-le yi-xia. Suddenly feel shoulder BEI vigorously-DE slap-LE one-CL.

92

3 A Centering Analysis of Discourse with Chinese Bei Passive

that modifies the VP, this sentence could be longer in length than some long passives like Tianliang shi, Ø bei naozhong jiao-xing4 . So here I would like to use passive (A) to refer to the long passives that contain an agent, and passive (ø) to indicate the passive has no overt agent, i.e., the short passive. In the next subsection, I would like to provide a discourse-oriented approach based on Centering Theory to support the traditional viewpoint and further propose that the short passive construction (or passive (ø)) is an elliptical form of the long passive construction (or passive (A)) for the purpose of maximizing the fluency of the information flow. A uniform syntactic structure will also be provided at the end of this section.

3.3.2 What Can Discourse Analysis Tell Us About Syntax? In regard to the possibility of a long-distance anaphoric relation as mentioned above, I would like to first point out that such a possibility is not preferred by real data. The corpus study carried out by Hu (2008) shows that the distance between zero anaphora and its antecedent is quite close—they either belong to two immediate clauses or to one same clause. As for the other two possibilities, i.e., a semantically inferable entity and a logical subject, I will prove in what follows that neither of them are legitimate center candidates. In Sect. 2.4.2, two examples are presented (as repeated below) to illustrate that a semantically inferable entity cannot function as a center of a certain discourse segment. i. Reappearing example (viii) of Chap. 2: a. U1: We took a taxi back home last night. U2: Unluckily, the driver does not speak Chinese. b. U1: We took a taxi back home last night. U2: ??? Unluckily, he does not speak Chinese. ii. Reappearing example (iv) of Chap. 2: a. U1: Li Li qitu cong damen zoujin, Li Li try to from gate enter U2: keshi juda-de mensuo dangzhu-le ta-de qulu. but huge gate lock stop-LE her way. b. U1: Li Li qitu cong damen zoujin, U2: ??? keshi ta (=it) dangzhu-le ta-de qulu. Lit. Lily tried to walk through the gate again, but the huge gate lock stopped her. (modified from Xiao Shidai) Suddenly, she was vigorously slapped on the shoulder (by someone). shi, bei naozhong jiao-xing. Daybreak when BEI alarm clock wake up At dawn, (they were) woken up by the alarm clock.

4 Tianliang

3.3 A Reflection of the Syntactic Analysis Toward Long Versus Short Bei Passive

93

I have argued that “siji” (the driver) in (i.a) and “mensuo” (gate lock) in (ii.a) are both semantically inferable entities. If they are both realized in U1 of each discourse segment respectively, they are predicted to be pronominalized if they are also realized in U2. However, the pronominalization of either case would generate counterintuitive sentences. Based on this observation, I proposed a syntactic realization for all centers and further argued that such syntactic realization could be either in an overt form or covertly by taking three empty categories into consideration. This proposal also excludes the logical subject of middle construction from being a candidate for center as we will see in a minute. Remember that in Sect. 3.2.1, constructional patterns for each transition state combination are summarized. These patterns show that in discourse segments with bei utterance, Cb RETENTION is realized via the object of bei, i.e., the retained backward-looking center always occupies the bei object position so as to make room for a newly introduced center. Further examination of these combinations reveals that a retained Cb at the bei object position could be either in its overt form, as shown in example (5–6), or be a zero form, as shown in example (33) and (34). (33) U1: ......Ø lian xiao dai shuo. ......Ø talking and laughing U2: Pianke, wode fangjian-de men bei tuikai-le a little while my room-DE door BEI open_LE U3: chuanzhuo zhengqi-de Gao Yang he Bai Shan chuxian zai menkou. neatly dressed Gao Yang and Bai Shan appear at door Lit.……Ø talking and laughing, then my door is opened, and Gao and Bai, neatly dressed, are stood in front of me. (RETAIN+ CONTINUATION) (34) U1: Tamen shide liliang yue lai yue meng, They use strength more and more fierce U2: wode lian he jiantou dou bei Ø ti hong-le. my face and shoulder both BEI Ø kick red-LE U3: Wo jingpilijin-de zai chi-zhong you-zhe, ...... I exhausted-DE ZAI pool-inside swim-ZHE Lit. They were fiercer and fiercer, my face and shoulder were kicked to red and I kept swimming in the pool, feeling exhausted,……(RETAIN+ SHIFT)

In example (33), the retained object “Gao Yang he Bai Shan” (Gao Yang and Bai Shan) is in its null form as the object of bei, and presented overtly in the following utterance; and in (34), the retained object “tamen” (they) also adopts a covert form as the object of bei in the bei utterance. This role of bei object in retaining a Cb and in turn connecting two utterances cannot be observed from a logical subject in middle construction. As pointed out by Ackema and Schoorlemmer (1995) and Rapoport (1999), the logical subject in middle construction has no position in the syntactic structure. And following my proposal, such logical subjects are predicted to be not able to bear the function of retaining Cb and connecting utterances. This prediction is legitimate.

94

3 A Centering Analysis of Discourse with Chinese Bei Passive

Consider if the bei utterances in the two examples above are rewritten into middle constructions, could the discourse segments remain acceptable? (33’) Ø lian xiao dai shuo. Wo-de fangjian men hen rongyi tuikai Talking and laughing my room door very easy open chuanzhuo zhengqi-de Gao Yang he Bai Shan chuxian zai menkou. neatly dressed Gao Yang and Bai Shan appear at door Lit. The door of my room is easy to open/opens easily. ???Gao and Bai, neatly dressed, are stood in front of me.

As we can see, a middle construction does not have a syntactic position for the retained Cb from its preceding utterance, i.e., “Gao Yang he Bai Shan” in this case, so such construction cannot serve as a bridge between two utterances. A comparison between (33) and (33’) clearly illustrates the difference between bei utterance and middle construction: The former keeps a syntactic position for a retained Cb even if the Cb is not showing up, and it is this position that passes the Cb from its preceding utterance to its subsequent one, while the latter leaves no syntactic space for such an element, so the logical subject is not saved for the following utterance—that is why it sounds so odd when the logical subject presents in the following utterance. Hence, neither semantically inferable entities nor logical subjects are candidates for centers—only the elements that are syntactically presented are. This supports the traditional idea on passives from a discourse perspective. As demonstrated by Lü (1980) and Li (1994), short passives and long passives are in essence one construction; the former is a result of omitting the agent from the latter. I believe this claim to be true bearing in mind the statistical and discourse evidence I have provided in the previous and the current section. Furthermore, in line with Pan (1998), Shi and Hu (2005), and Shi (2008), I propose a syntactic structure for the Chinese passive construction as:

In this structure, “bei1 ” is the passive marker, which functions basically in the same way as the English “BE + _en,” and “bei2 ” is the preposition, which introduces the agent theta role. “bei1 ”and “bei2 ” are combined via a “haplology” procedure and present as one “bei” in a passive sentence.

3.4 Centering Theory Revisited

95

3.4 Centering Theory Revisited One of the main tasks of this chapter is to utilize the theoretical framework of Centering Theory refined in Chap. 2 to study the discourse function of Chinese bei utterance. Hitherto this task has been fulfilled smoothly: I have revealed the Cb transition state patterns of discourse segments with bei utterance, and also discovered the division of labor between bei utterance and bei object in discourse. Comparisons between long and short passives are rendered with quite exciting results. Now, it is essential that we pay Centering Theory a revisit, with the aim of verifying the improved definitions that were left open in Chap. 2. Chapter 2 redefined two essential definitions in Centering Theory, i.e., center and utterance, as listed below. DEFINITION of center: Center is a semantic entity that has its syntactic realization in an overt form or as a pro, but not necessarily as a full NP constituent. DEFINITION of utterance: A new utterance is triggered by either an update of Cb or an update of temporal/aspectual information with regard to the current Cb. Concentrating on the definition of center, it has been shown that zero anaphors are widely adopted as centers in the data I study, and it is significantly preferred over a pronominal expression. As has been observed, 77 backward-looking centers are in a zero-anaphoric form, while 43 of them are pronouns. However, as it has been pointed out that zero anaphora is not in a competing position with pronominal, the latter are frequently adopted under circumstances in which extra emphasis is involved. The definition of center also mentioned that it does not always take a full-fledged NP to serve as a center. Data analysis of narrative discourse segments with bei utterance verifies this claim—there are 32 nonconstituent centers, with 17 of them being presented as NP modifiers/restrictors while 15 of them are parts of conjuncts. (7) U1: Ta ye-li chang zuo emeng, She at night always have nightmare U2: Wo jingchang bei ta-de chouchu he shenyin nongxing, I always BEI her twitch and moan wake up U3: pinming yao ta, ... like hell shake her up Lit. She constantly has nightmares, and I am always woken up by her twitching and moaning, and have to shake her like hell,……(RETAIN+ SHIFT)

96

3 A Centering Analysis of Discourse with Chinese Bei Passive

(4) U1: Tongxue he laoshi dou zhuyi-dao-le wo-de lian se cangbai, Classmates and teacher all notice-LE my face color pale U2:suoyi dui wo congcong zou-chu jiaoshi bing wu chayi, so toward I buzzing out classroom not surprised U3: laoshi shenzhi hai wen wo yao-bu-yao zao ge tongxue pei-zhe dao xiaoyishi, teacher even ask me if find a classmate accompany to school clinic U4: bei wo jujue-le, BEI I refused U5: wo yi-ju hua dou shuo bu chulai. I a word even speak no out Lit. Both my classmates and the teacher noticed that I went as white as a sheet, so they showed no surprise when I buzzed out of the classroom. The teacher even asked me if I needed any company to the school clinic, and I refused. I could not even utter a word. (CON+SHIFT)

In example (7), the Cb is maintained in the bei utterance as a restrictive modifier of “chouchu he shenyin” (twitching and moaning), while in (4), the Cb of Ubei-1 “laoshi” (the teacher) is actually part of the Cb in Ubei-2 (the classmates and the teacher). Both examples together with the other 30 instances show that my prediction on the presentational form of center is correct. Turning to the three constraints of Centering Theory, the following refinements have been proposed in Chap. 2: For each utterance Ui in a discourse segment D consisting of utterances U1…Um Constraint 1: • There is precisely one backward-looking center Cb (Ui, D), except for U1, if only linear discourse relations are involved in D; • The backward-looking center Cb (Ui, D) is subject to branching if a hierarchical discourse relation is involved in D. Constraint 2: • Every element of the forward-looking centers set, Cf (Ui, D), must be syntactically and directly realized in Ui either overtly or covertly. Constraint 3: • The backward-looking center Cb (Ui, D), is the highest-ranked element of Cf (Ui-1, D) that is realized in Ui, and this highest-ranked element is annotated as CpR (Ui-1, D), thus Cb (Ui, D) = CpR (Ui-1, D). Starting from Constraint 3, data analysis of this chapter illustrates that the principle of Cb transition state calculation as shown in Table 3.11 is an effective and efficient

3.4 Centering Theory Revisited

97

tool in deciding the attentional focus (a.k.a. the backward-looking center) of a certain utterance. This calculation system places most weight on Constraint 3 of Centering Theory as well as the interaction between discourse coherence and entity salience. The equation Cb (Ui) = CpR (Ui-1) maximizes the connection between two adjacent utterances and in turn preserves the discourse coherence. However, the CpR of Ui-1 does not always coincide with the Cb of Ui, under which situation Cb SHIFT takes place. This draws us back to the question I posed on the relation between Cb RETAIN and Cb SHIFT in Chap. 2, i.e.: Which parameter plays a more decisive part in discourse, the degree of discourse coherence or the degree of center salience? I proposed in Chap. 2 that a comparison between the amount of each might help us to answer the question. However, as analysis develops, it turns out that the contribution of such comparison is next to none. In my data, 21 instances adopted a Cb RETAIN state between Ubei-1 and Ubei , and 15 between Ubei and Ubei+1 . The numbers are 11 and 31 for the Cb SHIFT state. Taken together, no significant difference concerning the preference for Cb transition state is observed. Thus, I propose to reconsider what has been suggested previously and demonstrate that there might be no preference for either of the parameters, i.e., both of them are but different means to ends. The adoption of Cb RETENTION indicates that a SHIFT of Cb is around the corner—in other words, the degrading of salience for an existing Cb suggests the introduction of a new possible Cb candidate in a salient position. In contrast, when a Cb SHIFT happens, it indicates a following up CONTINUATION or RETAIN, which renews Cb and continuously maintains the coherence of discourse. By and large, most of the definitions and postulation proposed in Chap. 2 have been proved to be valid and efficacious for the data analysis carried out in this chapter, which suggests that the refined Centering Theory has a strong explanatory power.

3.5 Interim Summary Adopting the refined Centering Theory, especially the interaction between Constraint 3 and Rule 2 as shown in the graph below, this chapter has scrutinized the Cb transition states between a bei utterance and its preceding one, as well as that between a bei utterance and its subsequent one in Chinese discourse (Graph 3.1).

Graph 3.1 Generating transition states via Constraint 3 (reappearing Graph 2.1 of Chap. 2)

98

3 A Centering Analysis of Discourse with Chinese Bei Passive

Besides presenting a general picture of each transition state, a detailed illustration of these transition state combinations is rendered, based on which different patterns of Cb transition are discovered. Judging from the patterns and the number of instances that belong to each pattern (or transition states), it is obvious that Cb CONTINUATION is the preferred transition state, and within this pattern, the subject of bei utterance plays the key role in maintaining the Cb from its current utterance to the next. Hence, I propose that one function of bei utterance in Chinese discourse is to preserve the Cb, so as to maintain the coherence of discourse. As suggested by the patterns of CONTINUATION + SHIFT, RETAIN + CONTINUATION/RETAIN/SHIFT, I furthermore proposed a division of labor between the discourse function of bei utterance and that of bei object. To be more specific, the function of bei utterance as claimed above is to preserve the Cb so as to maintain discourse coherence, whereas the function of the object of bei is to introduce a new possible Cb or to RETAIN the original Cb so as to make room for a new one at a more salient position. Table 3.10 also reveals a quite interesting phenomenon, i.e., different transition states seem to prefer different subsequent states. For instance, a CONTINUATION transition prefers another CONTINUATION as its following state, but a RETAIN transition is more likely to be followed by a SHIFT one; and as for a SHIFT transition, it prefers a CONTINUATION attendant. Quantitative study concerning voice alternation has long been carried out (cf. Cooreman 1984; Rude 1988; Thompson 1987; Xing 1990; Myhill and Xing 1994, among others). This chapter also implemented a similar experimentation by rewriting all bei utterances into the active voice. Via the rewriting, it is found that such alternation of voice prohibited center preservation as well as discourse coherence. Hence, compared to the active voice, the bei utterances that are originally adopted in these discourse segments functioned much better in maintaining discourse coherence. The referential relation between Cb and non-Cb entities in Ubei is also discussed in this chapter. My data largely supported the zero-anphora rule as well as the pronoun rule. Another of the main tasks of this chapter is to falsify the structure separation approach toward long versus short passives. It is found that discourse segments with overt or zero objects of bei all prefer Cb CONTINUATION, that both types of objects can function as the backward-looking center so as to maintain discourse coherence, and that they can both function as the antecedent of a pronoun in the subsequent utterance. Their difference lies only in the fact that an overt object of bei may provide a possible Cb for the following utterance, while the role of a zero object is only to maintain Cb CONTINUATION, and hence keep the fluency of the information flow in question. With this data analysis, I would like to support the traditional “ellipsis approach” regarding long and short passives, namely that both long and short passives have the same syntactic structure—with a syntactic bei object—and their difference only lies in their different roles in discourse. Last but not least, this chapter also proves that most of the definitions and postulations proposed in Chap. 2 are valid and efficacious for the data analysis concerning discourse coherence and the role different semantic entities play in discourse and the

3.5 Interim Summary

99

distinct contributions they make, which suggests that the refined Centering Theory has a strong explanatory power. In the next chapter, I would like to further prove the applicability of Centering Theory by taking discourse with the Chinese disposal ba construction into consideration, and further tackle the relation between the ba construction and antipassive.

References Ackema, P., & Schoorlemmer, M. (1995). Middles and nonmovement. Linguistic Inquiry, 26, 173– 197. Ariel, M. (1990). Accessing noun phrase antecedents. New York: Routledge. Cooreman, A. (1984). A functional analysis of passives in Chamorro narrative discourse. Linguistics, 16, 395–428. Di Eugenio, B. (1998). Centering in Italian. In M. A. Walker, A. K. Joshi, & E. F. Prince (Eds.), Centering theory in discourse (pp. 115–138). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Givón, T., (Ed.). (1983). Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.3. Hu, Q. (2008). A corpus-based study on zero anaphora resolution in Chinese discourse. Ph.D. thesis. Department of Chinese, Translation, & Linguistics, City University of Hong Kong. Huang, J. (1999). Chinese passives in comparative perspective. Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studies, 29(1), 423–509. Li, C. N. & Thompson, S. A. (1981). Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. University of California Press. Li, S. (李珊). (1994). Xiandai hanyu beiziju yanjiu 現代漢語被字句研究 [A Study on the Bei Passive in Modern Chinese]. Beijing: Peking University Press. Liu, F. H. (2011). The bei passive and its discourse motivations. Chinese Language and Discourse, 2(2), 198–231. Lü, S. (Ed.). (呂叔湘編). 1980. Xiandai hanyu babai ci 現代漢語八百詞. Beijing: The Commercial Press. Myhill, J., & Xing, Z. (1994). A comparison of the function of voice in Biblical Hebrew. Chinese and English. Language Sciences, 16(2), 253–283. Pan, H. (1998). Generalized Passivization on Complex Predicates. In The 1998 annual meeting of the linguistic society of America. New York City, 8–11 January, 1998. Prince, E. (1981). Topicalization, focus-movement, and yiddish-movement: A pragmatic differentiation. In et al, D. A. (Ed.), Proceedings of the seventh annual meeting of the berkeley linguistics society (pp. 249–264). Rapoport, T. R. (1999). The English middle and agentivity. Linguistic Inquiry, 30, 147–155. Rude, N. (1988). Ergative, passive and anti-passive in Nez Perce: A discourse perspective. In M. Shibatani (Ed.), Passive and voice (pp. 537–560). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Shi, D. (石定栩). (2008). Chang duan “bei”ziju zhi zheng 長短“被”字句之爭 [Probing into the Long and Short “Passive” Words and Expressions]. Qinghai minzu xueyuan xuebao (shehui kexue ban) 青海民族學院學報(社會科學版) [Journal of Qinghai Nationalities Institute (social sciences)]2008.3:111–117. Shi, D. (石定栩), & Hu, J. (胡建華). (2005). “Bei” de jufa diwei “被”的句法地位 [The syntactic status of “bei”]. Dangdai Yuyanxue 當代語言學 [Contemporary Linguistics] 2005.3:213–224. Tang, S.W. (鄧思穎). (2004). Zuogehua he hanyu beidongju 作格化和漢語被動句 [Ergativization and Chinese passives]. Zhongguo Yuwen 中國語文[Studies of the Chinese Language] 2004.4, 291–301.

100

3 A Centering Analysis of Discourse with Chinese Bei Passive

Tang, S.W. (鄧思穎). (2008). Hanyu beidongju jufa fenxi de chongxin sikao 漢語被動句句法 分析的重新思考 [Syntactic Analysis of Chinese Passives]. Dangdai Yuyanxue 當代語言學 [Contemporary Linguistics] 2008.4, 308–319. Thompson, S. A. (1987). The passive in English: A discourse perspective. In R. Channon, & L. Shockey (Eds.), In honor of ilse lehiste (pp. 497–511). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. Turan, Ü. (1998). Ranking forward-looking centers in Turkish: Universal and language-specific properties. In M.A. Walker, A. K. Joshi, & E. F. Prince, (Eds.), Centering theory in discourse (pp. 139–160). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Walker, M. A., Iida, M., & Cote, S. (1994). Japanese discourse and the process of centering. Computational Linguistics, 20(2), 193–232. Wuyun, S., & Pan, H. (2014a). Hanyu beiziju yu huizhi zhongxin guodu guanxi de yanjiu [A study on the influence of Chinese passives on center transitions in discourse]. Language and Linguistics, 15(2), 265–293. Wuyun, S., & Pan, H. (2014b). The inter-sentential function of Mandarin bei passive. Chinese Language and Discourse, 5(2), 252–280. Xing, Z. (1990). Discourse function in mandarin: A quantitative study of five major constructions. University of Michigan MA thesis. Xiong, Z. (熊仲儒). (2003). Hanyu beidongju jufa jiegou fenxi 漢語被動句句法結構分析 [The syntactic structure of passive sentences in Mandarin Chinese]. Dangdai Yuyanxue 當代語言學 [Contemporary Linguistics], 2003(4): 308–319.

Chapter 4

A Centering Analysis of Chinese Disposal Ba Construction

Abstract This chapter provides further support for the findings from Chap. 3 by examining discourse segments with ba construction. By carrying out a similar discourse analysis under the refined Centering Theory framework, this chapter scrutinizes similar parameters to those in Chap. 3, i.e. the transition states, the patterns of each combination, the division of labor between ba utterance and ba object, etc. Data analysis shows that an overwhelming majority of ba utterances function to maintain the Cb inherited from their previous utterance so as to maximize discourse coherence. The object of ba, competing with the predicative object bearing the recipient role in ba utterance, serves to retain the Cb and makes preparation for a SHIFT of Cb. Besides the discoursal study on ba utterance, this chapter also seriously considers the possibility of incorporating the ba construction into the framework of antipassives. However, evidence from syntax, semantics, and discourse suggests that it is better not to analyze the Chinese ba construction in line with the antipassive. Keywords Centering Theory · Chinese disposal ba · Discourse function of ba · Antipassive

4.1 A General Data Presentation This chapter partially aims to provide some further support for the claims proposed on Centering Theory in Chap. 2 and verified in Chap. 3 with regard to the definitions, constraints, and rules. I am also interested in the centering behaviors in discourse segments containing the Chinese disposal ba construction. To be more specific, this chapter will scrutinize each Cb transition state combination, so as to find out the role that ba utterance plays in such segments by presenting construction patterns, respectively. Partially based on this examination, I will further draw forth two questions, namely How is the Cf set ranked according to the entity salience in ba utterance? and Is the Chinese disposal ba construction antipassive? Following the same principles and regulations as for bei utterance, 12 transition state combinations are witnessed by narrative discourse segments with ba utterance as illustrated in Table 4.1. © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 S. Wuyun, Where Centering Meets Chinese Discourse, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8666-8_4

101

142(73.57%)

193

Sum for each

Total

5

2.59

104

53.88

RETAIN

Percentage

CON

Uba → Uba+1

Amount

CON

Uba-1 → Uba

11.40

22

SHIFT

Table 4.1 Transition states concerning ba utterance

5.70

11

Ø

RETAIN

0.52

1

RETAIN

29(15.03%)

7.77

15

CON 6.74

13

SHIFT

SHIFT

0.52

1

RETAIN

18(9.33%)

4.66

9

CON

4.15

8

SHIFT

Ø

3

1.55

3

CON

1

0.52

1

Branching

102 4 A Centering Analysis of Chinese Disposal Ba Construction

4.1 A General Data Presentation

103

Instances for each transition state with a brief expounding are presented below: 1) U1: You ge nvhai ziji zuo-le gan huoyaoqiang, Have CL girl self make-LE CL pistol U2: ba ta nanpeng you da-le ge manlian hua, BA her boyfriend shoot on the face U3: ta duo zai qiangjiao, ...... She hide ZAI corner Lit. There was this girl, she made a pistol herself and shot her boyfriend right in his face, she hid in the corner,……(CON+ CON) U1: you ge nvhai ziji zuo-le gan huoyaoqiang, Cb:[?] Cf:{nvhaiCp, huoyaoqiang} Girl pistol U2: ba ta nanpengyou da-le ge manlian hua, Cb:[Ø=nvhai] Cf:{(nvhai)Cp, ta nanpengyou} CONTINUATION Girl her boyfriend U3: ta duo-zai qiangjiao, Cb:[ta=the girl] Cf:{taCp, qiangjiao} CONTINUATION She corner 2)

U1: Wo he Fangfang you jing you xi, I and Fang Fang pleasantly surprised U2: ba gangcai-de yiqie quan pao-dao jiuxiao. BA just now-DE everything totally forget Lit. Fang Fang and I were so pleasantly surprised that we totally forgot what just happened. (CON + Ø) U1: Wo he Fangfang you jing you xi, Cb: [?] Cf:{wo he FangfangCp} I and Fangfang U2: ba gangcai-de yqie quan pao-dao jiuxiao. Cb:[Ø=wo he Fangfang] Cf:{(wo he Fangfang)Cp} CONTINUATION

104

3)

4 A Centering Analysis of Chinese Disposal Ba Construction

U1: Houlai, wo ba ta wang-le. Later I BA she forget-LE U2: Wo meiyou yongqi name dangzhen-de qu gan taofengong,..... I have no courage so seriously go do nightman Lit. Later, I forgot her. I was just not courageous enough to be a nightman. (Ø+ CON) U1: Houlai, wo ba ta wang-le. Cb:[?] Cf:{woCp,, ta} I she U2: wo meiyou yongqi name dangzhen-de qu gan taofengong, Cb:[wo] Cf:{woCp, taofengong} CONTINUATION I nightman

4)

U1: Amei zai qianchufang manglu-zhe, Amei at kitchen busy-ZHE U2: ba yinliao dao-jin yi-zhizhi beizi, BA beverage pour into one_CL_Rep. cup U3: wo bushi keyi kandao ta tianlanse-de shenying shandong I now and then can see her sky-blue-DE figure move Lit. Amei is hurrying in the kitchen, pouring beverage into the cups. I can see her sky-blue figure from time to time. (CON+ RETAIN) U1: Amei zai qianchufang manglu-zhe, Cb:[?] Cf:{AmeiCp, qianchufang} Amei kitchen U2: ba yinliao dao-jin yi-zhizhi beizi, Cb:[Ø=Amei] beizi} CONTINUATION Cf:{(Amei)Cp, yinliao, yi-zhizhi Amei beverage one-CL-Rep. cup U3: wo bushi keyi kandao ta tianlanse-de shenying shandong. Cb:[ta=Amei] Cf:{woCp, ta tianlanse-de shenying} RETAIN I her sky-blue-DE figure

4.1 A General Data Presentation

5)

105

U1: Siji ma-le yiju guan-le deng, Driver utter-LE a curse turn out light U2: hu-de ba che kai zou. suddenly BA car drive away U3: Wo he Fangfang zou-dao ting ziji che-de difang, ...... I and Fang Fang walk to where our car parked Lit. The driver uttered a curse, turned out the light, and suddenly drove away. Fang Fang and I walked to our parking space, ……(CON+ SHIFT) U1: Siji ma-le yiju guan-le deng, Cb:[?] Cf:{sijiCp, deng} Driver light U2: hu-de ba che kai zou. Cb:[Ø=siji] Cf:{(siji)Cp, che} CONTINUATION Driver car U3: Wo he Fangfang zou-dao ting ziji che-de difang, Cb:[Ø=wo he Fangfang] Cf:{Wo he FangfangCp，ting ziji che-de difang} CONTINUATION I and Fangfang where our car parked

6)

U1: Amei guoqu you ge nanpengyou, Amei before have CL boyfriend U2: ke houlai na-ge but later

nande meiliyou-de ba

ta

shuai-le.

that_CL man for no reason BA she dump_LE

U3: Amei shang-le xin,...... Amei heartbroken Lit. Amei had a boyfriend before, but he dumped her for no reason, which broke her heart. (RETAIN+CON)

106

4 A Centering Analysis of Chinese Disposal Ba Construction

U1: Amei guoqu you ge nanpengyou, Cb:[?] Cf:{AmeiCp, nanpengyou} Amei boyfriend U2: ke houlai na-ge nande mei liyou-de ba ta shuai-le. Cb:[ta=Amei] Cf:{na-ge nandeCp, taCb} RETAIN That-CL man she U3: Amei shang-le xin, Cb:[Amei] Cf:{AmeiCp} CONTINUATION

7)

U1: (Liangge nvhaizi) biaoshuo bianxiao bianzou bianchi. Two-CL girls talking laughing walking eating U2: Fang Fang ba che kai-dao tamen shenbian tingxia, Fang Fang BA car drive to them stop U3: wo yao chechuang jiao tamen, ...... I roll down car window call them Lit. There were two girls walking and laughing, walking and eating. Fang Fang stopped the car beside them and I rolled the window down to call them, …… (RETAIN+ RETAIN) U1: (Liangge nvhaizi) bianshuo bianxiao bianzou bianch. Cb:[Ø=liangge nvhaizi] Cf:{(liangge nvhaizi) Cp} CONTINUATION Two-CL girl U2: Fangfang ba che kai-dao tamen shenbian tingxia, Cb:[tamen=liangge nvhaizi] Cf:{Fangfang Cp, che, tamen Cb} RETAIN Fangfang car they U3: wo yao chechuang jiao tamen Cb:[tamen=liangge nvhaizi] Cf:{wo Cp, chechuang, tamen Cb} RETAIN I car window they

4.1 A General Data Presentation

8)

U1: (Ta) nong jin huoren shouduan. (she) do all charm means U2: Zuihou, wo rengran ba ta yi-ge ren reng-zai jieshang, in the end I still BA she one-CL person leave ZAI street U3: zige cheng moban ditie liu-le. by myself take the last subway leave_LE Lit. (she) did all charming things, but I still left her on the street and took the last train home. (RETAIN+ SHIFT) U1: (ta) nong jin huoren shouduan. Cb:[Ø=ta] Cf:{(ta)Cp, huoren shouduan} CONTINUATION She charming means U2: Zuihou, wo rengran ba ta yi-ge ren reng-zai jieshang, Cb:[ta] Cf:{woCp, taCb, jieshang} RETAIN I she street U3: zige cheng moban ditie liu-le. Cb:[zige=I] Cf:{zige, moban ditie} SHIFT Myself the last subway

9)

U1: Pan Youjun de nvpengyou cong zhenshi chulai, Pan DE girlfriend from consulting-room come out U2: na-ge nan daifu you ba Du Mei jiao-le jinqu, that_CL male doctor again BA Du Mei call-LE enter U3: hen yansu-de he ta shuo shenme. very seriously with her say something Lit. Pan’s girlfriend came out of the doctor’s consulting room, and the doctor asked Du Mei to come in again. He talked with her seriously. (SHIFT+ CON) U1: Pan Youjun-de nvpengyou cong zhenshi chulai, Cb:[?] Cf:{Pan Youjun-de nvpengyouCp, zhenshi} Pan Youjun’s girlfriend consulting-room

107

108

4 A Centering Analysis of Chinese Disposal Ba Construction

U2: na-ge nan daifu you ba Du Mei jiao-le jinqu, Cb:[na-ge nan daifu] Cf:{na-ge nandaifu Cp, Du Mei} SHIFT That-CL male doctor Du Mei U3: hen yansu-de he ta shuo shenme. Cb:[Ø=na-ge nan daifu] ta} CONTINUATION Cf:{(na-ge nan daifu) Cp, That-CL male doctor she

10)

U1: Yihuier, Wu Di he Chen Weiling zou-guolai, Later Wu Di and Chen Weiling come U2: wo ba pangbian kong zuoshang-de liang-ge shubao rengkai, I BA besides empty seat-above-DE two-CL bag throw away U3: bang tongxue zhanzuo-de yi-ge nvhai dudunangnang chong women fan baiyan. the girl who occupied seat for her classmate roll eyes at us Lit. Later, Wu and Chen came, so I threw away the bags on the empty seats besides me. The girl who was occupying seats (with those two bags) rolled her eyes at us.(SHIFT+ RETAIN)

U1: Yihuier, WU Di he Chen Weiling zou-guolai, Cb:[?] Cf:{Wu Di he Chen Weiling

Cp}

U2: wo ba pangbian kong zuosa ng-de liang-ge shubao rengkai, Cb:[wo] Cf:{wo Cp，pangbian kong zuosang-de liang-ge shubao} SHIFT I besides empty seat-above-DE two-CL bag U3: bang tongxue zhanzuo-de yi-ge nvha i dudunangnang chong women fan baiyan. Cb:[women] women Cb} RETAIN Cf:{bang tongxue zhanzuo-de yi-ge nvhai Cp, the girl who occupied seat for her classmate we

4.1 A General Data Presentation

11) U1: Gao Jin kuaibu zoudao fuwutai da-le ge dianhua, Gao Jin hurry to service desk make_LE one phone U2: nv zhaodai ba shoufeidan song-lai, waitress BA bill send-DIR U3: Gao Jin cong xifu neidou tao-chu yi-zhi yuanzhubi...... Gao Jin from suit pocket take out one_CL ball pen Lit. Gao hurried to the service desk and made a phone call. Then the waitress came Gao took a ballpoint pen out of his suit pocket…… (SHIFT + SHIFT) U1: Gao Jin kuaibu zoudao fuwutai da-le ge dianhua, Cb:[?] dianhua} Cf:{Gao JinCp, fuwutai, Gao Jin service dest phone U2: nv zhaodai ba shoufeidan song-lai, Cb:[nv zhaodai] Cf:{nv zhaodaiCp, shoufeidan} SHIFT Waitress bill U3: Gao Jin cong xifu neidou tao-chu yi-zhi yuanzhubi, Cb:[Gao Jin] Cf:{Gao JinCp, xifu neidou, yi-zhi yuanzhubu} SHIFT Gao Jin suit pocket one_CL ball pen

12) U1: Wo tai-qi yan, I raise eyes U2: Shi Jing wang-zhe wo, Shi Jing gaze at-ZHE me U3: women liangren duishi-zhe shahuhu-de xiao. we two persons exchange glances-ZHE silly-DE giggle U4: Shi Jing you ba jiubei zhen-man, Shi Jing again BA glass top up U5: women gongtong jubei we together raise glasses Lit. I raised my eyes and Shi was gazing at me. We exchanged glances and giggled. Shi Jing topped up the glasses again and we raised our glasses together. (Cb branching)

109

110

4 A Centering Analysis of Chinese Disposal Ba Construction

U1: wo tai-qi yan.

U2: Shi Jing wang-zhe wo.

Cb:[?]

Cb:[?]

Cf:{x1=wo (I)}

Cf:{X2=Shi Jing, x1=wo (I)} Branching

U3: Women liangren duishi-zhe, shahuhu-de xiao. Cb:[women (we)] Cf:[X=women] U4: Shi Jing you ba jiubei zhenman, Cb:[x1=Shi Jing] Cf:{Shi Jing, jiubei (glass)} U5: women gongtong ju bei. Cb:[X=women (we)] Cf:{women}

The instances presented above give us a general image of the transition state types with respect to discourse segments with ba utterance. Briefly speaking, the CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION transition type is overwhelmingly preferred over all other types (53.88%). In addition, there are 115 (59.59%) discourse segments in which ba utterance bears a CONTINUATION relation with its preceding utterance, and in terms of the relation between a ba utterance and its subsequent one, 131 (67.88%) of the segments witnessed a CONTINUATION transition. All these observations indicate that as with bei, ba utterance also plays an important part in discourse coherence. In what follows, I will examine these transition states in detail with a view to digging up more discourse realities concerning ba utterance.

4.2 The Contribution of Ba Utterance to Discourse Coherence 4.2.1 Combinations Starting with CONTINUATION Five transition state types will be discussed in this section, namely CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION, CONTINUATION + Ø, Ø + CONTINUATION, CONTINUATION + RETAIN, and CONTINUATION + SHIFT.

4.2 The Contribution of Ba Utterance to Discourse Coherence

111

(1) CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION/Ø; Ø + CONTINUATION Three issues will be focused on when each transition type is studied—the pattern for each transition state combination; the referential relation between Cb and nonCb entities; and the thematic role of each semantic entity in ba utterance, namely the utterance-initial entity (also recognized as the subject), the ba object, and the predicative object. For the CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION combination as illustrated in example (1), a simple transition pattern of A……, A ba B…(C)…, A…… is observed; i.e. the subject of the ba utterance maintains that of its preceding utterance and passes it to the subject of its subsequent utterance. In this segment, the ba utterance first maintains the subject of Uba-1 —‘nvhai’ (a girl) and preserves it for Uba + 1 . The same is the case with CONTINUATION + Ø as well as Ø + CONTINUATION as shown in instances (2) and (3). As for the referential behavior, the zero-anaphora rule is strongly supported by this transition state. Out of 104 instances, there is only one violator against this rule. To be more specific, 75 backward-looking centers in ba utterance adopt a zeroanaphoric form and 83 of the Cbs in Uba + 1 are zero anaphora. For detail, please refer to Appendix A. What has been observed here is consistent with the situations in narrative bei utterance. Firstly, the pattern A……, A ba B…(C)…, A…… is perfectly predictable from the constraint and regulations of Centering Theory, and secondly, the overwhelming preference for this transition state indicates a discourse function of ba utterance in continuing Cb so as to preserve discourse coherence. (2) CONTINUATION + RETAIN This transition state combination shares a pattern with its bei counterpart, i.e. A……, A ba B……, B/C…A…. The Cb of the utterance preceding Uba (or the Cp if the utterance is the initial one) is preserved as the Cb as well as the Cp of ba utterance, and its Cb status will be retained for its subsequent utterance—Uba+1 —but not as the preferred center anymore. Note that there are actually two variations in the pattern— the new preferred center in Uba+1 could be either the object of ba (as shown in (13)) or a brand-new semantic entity introduced in Uba+1 (as in (4)). 13) A……, A ba B……, B…A… U1: Dianhualing xiang-le, U2: ba wo jiu-le. U3: wo qu jie dianhua,...... Phone ring-LE BA I save_LE I go pick up phone Lit. I was saved by the phone. I went to pick up the phone, …… (CON + RETAIN)

112

4 A Centering Analysis of Chinese Disposal Ba Construction

U1: Dianhualing xiang-le, Cb:[?] Cf:{dianhualingCp} phone U2: ba wo jiu-le. Cb:[Ø=dianhua] Cf:{(dianhua)Cp, wo} CONTINUATION Phone I U3: Wo qu jie dianhua, Cb:[dianhua] Cf:{woCp, dianhua} RETAIN I phone

In example (13), “dianhualing” (the phone), as the Cp of Uba-1 , is preserved as the Cb/Cp of the ba utterance; however, the preferred center in Uba+1 is altered to the object of ba “wo” (I) and the retained Cb recedes to the less prominent position as the object of Uba + 1 . The case is similar to (4), except that the preferred center in Uba+1 is a newly introduced semantic entity and the object of ba plays no part in this RETAIN of Cb. Although there are only two instances (out of five) in which the Cp of Uba+1 is served by the previously newly introduced ba object, this still indicates that the object of ba makes a preparation for a potential Cb SHIFT. As for the referential relation between Cb and non-Cb entities, none of these five instances in this combination violates the zero-anaphora rule or the pronoun rule as shown in Table 4.2. Concentrating on the referential relation between the subject of Uba and ba object, all utterances followed the zero-anaphora rule. However, there is one violator in Uba+1 as shown in (13). The retained Cb in Uba+1 in this instance adopted an overt NP form, i.e. “dianhualing” (the phone), while the new preferred center was in its pronominal Table 4.2 Referential relations between Cb and non-Cb entities concerning CON + RETAIN No.

Transition states

Uba-1

Sub. Of ba

BA

Obj. of ba

Post-verbal object

1.

CON + RETAIN

01

01

ba

Pronoun2

02 …pronoun1

2.

CON + RETAIN

Overt1

01

ba

Pronoun2

Pronoun2 …overt1

3.

CON + RETAIN

Overt1

01

ba

Overt2

Pronoun3 …pronoun1

4.

CON + RETAIN

Overt1

01

ba

Overt2

5.

CON + RETAIN

01

Pronoun1

ba

Overt2

Sum

5

Overt4

Uba+1

Pronoun3 …pronoun1 Pronoun3 …pronoun1

4.2 The Contribution of Ba Utterance to Discourse Coherence

113

form “I.” This kind of violation is also witnessed by the one and only violator in the CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION type as presented in (14). In this example, the Cb “Shi Jing” is in its overt proper name form, while the object of ba is a pronoun “I.” I attribute this kind of violation to the characteristic of the deictic “wo” (I)—since all the seven instances that violate the pronoun rule of Centering Theory observed from the narrative ba data are related to the deictic “wo”(I) (cf. Appendix B). 14) U1: Ø maiwan

bai

shaqun

Ø buy-finish white dress U2: Shi Jing you ba wo la dao xifu guitai, Shi Jing again BA I draw to suit counter U3: dian-le yi-tao zui gaoji-de xifu. order_LE one_CL most exclusive-DE suit Lit. After buying her white dress, Shi drew me to the suit counter and ordered a most exclusive suit for me. (CONTINUATION+ CONTINUATION)

The notorious deictic entity has long been noticed in centering literature (cf. Walker 1993; Di Eugenio 1998; Byron and Stent 1998; Poesio et al. 2004, among others). Whether or not to incorporate the deictic entities such as you and I into the candidates of Cb is a troublesome question as indicated by Walker (1993), who argues that the deictic entities are beyond the scope of Centering Theory; however, in some instances, there would be no center at all if the deictic element is not counted as one as illustrated in the example below. 15) U1: Wo qingqing-de kai suo, U2: qiaoqiao-de jin wu, U3: lian deng ye mei kai, ...... I gently-DE unlock quietly-DE enter room even light also not turn on Lit. I unlocked the door gently and quietly entered the room, I didn’t even turn on the light.

The feature of the deictic “wo”(I) has long been studied and its role in Centering Theory is still open to discovery. I am only presenting this phenomenon concerning this deixis here in the hope that it might be explained by interested parties. To sum up, the CONTINUATION + RETAIN transition state presents an A……, A ba B……, B/C…A… pattern, via which Cb is continued and retained. This is a coherence-friendly pattern too since no new backward-looking center is replacing the original one; however, the semantic entity introduced by the ba object replaces Cb as the preferred center in Uba+1 , which is regarded as a preparation for a possible Cb SHIFT as will be observed in the next transition state. (3) CONTINUATION + SHIFT The CONTINUATION +SHIFT transition state witnesses the following three patterns:

114

(a) (b) (c) (d)

4 A Centering Analysis of Chinese Disposal Ba Construction

A……, A ba B…(C)…, D…… A……, A ba B…C…, C…… A……, A ba B…C…, B…… A……, A ba B…(C)…, D…B…

Basically, the Cb (or the Cp if the utterance is the initial one) of the utterance preceding the ba utterance is also the Cb-Cp of the ba utterance, while it is no longer maintained as the Cb or Cp of Uba + 1 . Example (5), together with the following three instances, illustrates these four patterns, respectively. 16) A……, A ba B…C…, C…… U1: Wo chui-qi koushou, diao-qi yi-zhi yan, I whistle between my lips one_CL cigarette U2: ba yanhe digei ta, BA cigarette case pass to her U3: ta yaoyao tou. she shake-Dupl. head Lit. I started whistling and took a cigarette between my lips, then I passed the cigarette case to her, but she shook her head. (CON+ SHIFT) U1: Wo chui-qi koushao, diao-qi yi-zhi yan, Cb:[?] Cf:{woCp, koushao, yi-zhi yan} I whistle one-CL cigarette U2: ba yanhe digei ta, Cb:[Ø=wo] Cf:{(wo)Cp, yanhe, ta} CONTINUATION I cigarette case she U3: ta yaoyao tou. Cb:[ta (she)] Cf:{taCp} SHIFT 17) A……, A ba B…(C)…, B…… U1: Ta zheme yiju, U2: dao ba wo ou xiao-le, U3: mei ci ke shuo. She this one sentence instead BA I annoy smile-LE no word can say Lit. To my surprise, she responded in this way, I just smiled helplessly, and was speechless. (CON + SHIFT)

4.2 The Contribution of Ba Utterance to Discourse Coherence

115

U1:Ta zheme yiju, Cb:[?] Cf:{taCp (she)} U2: dao ba wo ou xiao-le, Cb:[Ø=ta] Cf:{(ta)Cp, wo (I)} CONTINUATION U3: mei ci ke shuo, Cb:[Ø=wo] Cf:{(wo)Cp} SHIFT 18) A……, A ba B…(C)…, D…B… U1: Qita lanzai ye bei jingcha yiyi buhuo luxu ya shang che. Other gangs also BEI policemen one by one capture eventually guard onto car U2: Jingcha ba wo he nage shoushang-de jingcha songdao yiyuan, policemen BA I and that-CL injured-DE policeman send to hospital U3: daifu gei wo jiandan qingli-le chuangmian, ...... doctor give me briefly clean_LE wound surface Lit. Other gangs were also captured and guarded in the car by the policemen. They sent that injured policeman and me to the hospital, where the doctor roughly cleaned my wound surface. (CON+ROUGH SHIFT) U1: Qita lanzai ye bei jingcha yiyi buhuo luxu ya shangche. Cb:[jingcha] Cf:{qita lanzaiCp, jingchaCb, che} other gang policeman car U2: Jingcha ba wo he na-ge shoushang-de jingcha songdao yiyuan, Cb:[jingcha] Cf:{jingchaCp, wo, na-ge shoushang-de jingcha, yiyuan} CONTINUATION policeman I that-CL injured-DE policeman hospital U3: daifu gei wo jiandan qingli-le chuangmian, Cb:[wo] Cf:{daifuCp, woCb, chuangmian} ROUGH SHIFT doctor I wound surface

In example (5), “siji” (the driver) is the Cb-Cp of Uba-1 as well as that of Uba . However, Uba+1 introduces a brand-new semantic entity “wo he Fangfang”(Fang Fang and I) into the discourse, and since no center is inherited from the previous utterance, this new semantic entity becomes the new Cb-Cp of Uba+1 . Among the 22 instances of the CONTINUATION + SHIFT transition state combination, half of them adopt this pattern of construction. As for example (16), the Cb of Uba-1 is also

116

4 A Centering Analysis of Chinese Disposal Ba Construction

maintained as the Cb in Uba ; however, it fails to compete with the predicative object in serving as the Cb of Uba+1 . So its pattern is A……, A ba B…C…, C……. The same is the case with example (17). The new Cb of Uba+1 is introduced by the object of ba, and the original Cb fails again in this competition to be the Cb of Uba+1 and it presents a pattern of A……, A ba B…(C)…, B……. Instance (18) is in fact a case of ROUGH SHIFT, and the SHIFT of Cb between Uba and Uba+1 relies on the object of ba, which acts as the object in Uba+1 and thus causes a ROUGH SHIFT. Now let us consider patterns (b) and (c) by taking both grammatical category and argument structure into consideration. For pattern (b), the ba utterance has three grammatical categories as well as three thematic roles—the agent (occupying position A as the subject), the theme (taking position B as the object of ba), and the recipient (in position C as a predicative object). And pattern (c) also involves three grammatical categories and three thematic roles—the agent (again as the subject), the theme (as the ba object occupying B), and the locative (taking position C, which is an optional prepositional object). The competition for the shifted Cb in Uba+1 is actually between two thematic roles or two grammatical categories in each pattern: For pattern (b), it is between the theme/prepositional object and the recipient/predicative object, while for pattern (c), it is between the theme and the locative—both are prepositional objects. Based on the observation, the object of ba (a.k.a. the theme) always wins in its competition for the Cb of Uba+1 with the locative thematic role, while it always fails in its competition for the Cb of Uba+1 with the predicative object (also as the recipient role). This contrast between pattern (b) and (c) might indicate either a grammatical or a thematic analysis of Cf ranking for Chinese, and this issue is going to be further examined in Chap. 5. Turning back to the referential relation between Cb and non-Cb entities in ba utterance, there are two cases of violation against the zero-anaphora rule and pronoun rule as shown in Appendix B sentence (193) and (199). Again, such violation is caused by the exceptional characteristic of deixis.

4.2.2 Combinations Starting with RETAIN Unlike what has been consistently observed in narrative bei-discourse segments, not all RETENTION of Cb in narrative discourse segments with ba utterances relies on the object of ba. Competition for hosting the retained Cb is even more intense between the ba-object position theme and predicative object position recipient in these three transition states.

4.2 The Contribution of Ba Utterance to Discourse Coherence

117

Two transition patterns are summarized for the RETAIN + CONTINUATION combination: (a) A…(B)…, B ba A……, A…… (cf. example (6)) (b) A…(B)…, B ba C…A…, A…… (cf. example (19)) 19)

A…(B)…, B ba C…A…, A…… U1: Ta you shuo leng. U2: wo ban waitao tuo gei ta, U3: ta hai shuo leng. She again say cold I BA coat take off give her she still say cold Lit. She said that she was cold, so I gave my coat to her. But she still said she was cold. (RETAIN+CON) U1: Ta you shuo leng. Cb:[?] Cf:{taCp} (she) U2: wo ba waitao tuo gei ta, Cb:[ta] Cf:{woCp, waitao, taCb} RETAIN I coat she U3: ta hai shuo leng. Cb:[ta] Cf:{taCp} CONTINUATION

In the case of (6), the object of ba retains the Cb while the subject of ba introduces a new semantic entity into the utterance. As the discourse continues, this retained Cb is still the attentional focus of the speaker as the Cf of the Uba+1 . However, such a RETENTION task is fulfilled via the predicative object “ta” (her) in instance (19), which is the recipient in the ba utterance. In the one and only case of RETAIN + RETAIN as shown in example (7), the RETENTION relies on the post-verbal recipient “tamen”(them) instead of the object of ba “che” (car). Thus, this combination presents a pattern of A……, B ba C…A…, D…A…. As for RETAIN + SHIFT, 12 out of 13 instances adopt an A……, B ba A……, B……/A…B… pattern, and only one segment puts the retained Cb in the predicative object position with the recipient role and presents as A……, B ba C…A…, B……. (refer to examples (8) and (20)).

118

4 A Centering Analysis of Chinese Disposal Ba Construction

20) A……, B ba C…A…, B…… U1: Ta diandian tou. U2: Wo ba shou-li zhe-zhi Ø gei ta, U3: you dian-shang yi-zhi. He nod I BA hand-inside this_CL Ø give him again light one_CL Lit. He nodded, so I gave the cigarette in my hand to him and lit another one. (RETAIN+ SHIFT) U1: Ta diandian tou. Cb:[?] Cf:{taCp} (he) U2: Wo ba shou-li zhe-zhi gei ta, Cb:[ta] Cf:{woCp, shou-li zhe-zhi (yan), taCb} RETAIN I hand-inside this_CL cigarette he U3: you dian-shang yi-zhi. Cb:[Ø=wo] Cf:{(wo)Cp, yi-zhi (yan)} SHIFT I one-CL cigarette

It must be pointed out that in all instances of the RETAIN + SHIFT combination that I studied, example (20) is the only case that has a predicative object (or recipient thematic role)—all the others are of only a ba object (theme) or a ba object plus another prepositional object (locative). Taken together, in combinations starting with the RETAIN transition state, a ba-object theme is preferred as the host of a retained Cb in ba utterance without a predicative object bearing the recipient thematic role. However, when there is a predicative object bearing a recipient, the retained backward-looking center always recognizes this semantic entity as its host—no exception has been observed so far. From this piece of evidence, I may want to demonstrate that in the Cf ranking concerning ba utterance, a predicative object bearing a recipient role ranks higher than a prepositional object bearing a theme role, which in turn is higher than the other prepositional objects. Nonetheless, it is obvious that the elaboration of this issue has been rather chaotic so far. Firstly, no consistent standard has been provided, and predicative object, ba object, prepositional object, recipient, theme, and locative are used without differentiating their categories. What I am trying to do here is just to show the divertingness of this issue, and a thorough and methodical analysis will be given soon. Analogously to bei utterance, a division of labor between ba utterance and ba object will be made here. Starting from the CONTINUATION + SHIFT combination, I have observed that the object of ba prepares a new backward-looking center for its following utterance, while the subject of ba maintains the original Cb so as to preserve discourse coherence. In combinations starting with Cb RETAIN, the object of ba preserves the Cb that passed from Uba-1 and thus makes room for a newly introduced semantic entity in the subject position. It is later proved that this new entity in the RETAIN + SHIFT case gradually turns out to be the shifted Cb in the utterance following Uba —again, there is no exception for the 13 instances under examination.

4.2 The Contribution of Ba Utterance to Discourse Coherence

119

4.2.3 Combinations Starting with SHIFT Similarly to narrative discourse with bei utterance, this group of transition states is not as interesting as the previous two and has the fewest instances (18/193). Starting with a SHIFT of Cb, the backward-looking center of Uba is not the same as that of Uba-1 . Thus, the relation between Uba-1 and Uba , which is A……, B bei C……, is predictable. Below is a general picture of the patterns with regard to the three combinations of this group. (a) SHIFT + CONTINUATION A……, B ba C……, B……(example 9) (b) SHIFT + RETAIN A……, B ba C……, D…B…(example 10) (c) SHIFT + SHIFT A……, B ba C……, A/C/D……(example 11) In example (9), the Cp of Uba-1 is “Pan Youjun de nvpengyou” (Pan Youjun’s girlfriend), which does not even appear in Uba , so it fails to preserve its Cb status and causes a Cb SHIFT. In Uba , a new semantic entity “na-ge nan daifu” (that male doctor) is introduced in the most prominent position as the subject and starts to act as the new Cb of Uba as well as Uba+1 . Thus, SHIFT + CONTINUATION presents a pattern of A……, B ba C……, B……. As for (10)—the SHIFT + RETAIN case— the Cp of Uba-1 also fails to maintain its Cb status in Uba , so the Cb is shifted to the deictic “wo” (I). Unfortunately, this new Cb fails to preserve its Cp status in the following utterance, is degraded to the object position of the verb “fan baiyan” (roll one’s eyes), and serves as a retained Cb. Hence, the pattern for this type is A……, B ba C……, D…B…. With regard to instance (11), there are actually more possibilities for Cb SHIFT than is presented here. As indicated by the pattern A……, B ba C……, A/C/D……, the second SHIFT of Cb could be fulfilled by the Cb of Uba-1 as in (11), the object of ba, as well as some other semantic entities. Nevertheless, due to the frequent SHIFT of Cb, this group contributes little to discourse coherence, whereas it introduces more entities into the discourse. However, the good news is that in no case in this group is the zero-anaphora rule violated.

4.2.4 Interim Summary Since only one case of Cb branching is observed in narrative discourse segments with ba utterance, whose pattern is X(x1 , x2 )……, x1 ba y……, X(x1 , x2 ), it will not be discussed in detail in a separate section. Basically, what has been discussed in this chapter so far all looked very familiar—the transition states, the patterns of each combination, the division of labor between ba utterance and ba object…all have been expounded in Chap. 3 with bei utterance as its study object. Consequently, this interim summary will be short and brief. Firstly, an overwhelming majority of ba utterances function to maintain the backward-looking center inherited from their previous utterance so as to maximize the

120

4 A Centering Analysis of Chinese Disposal Ba Construction

coherence of discourse. The object of ba, competing with the predicative object position recipient in ba utterance, serves to RETAIN the Cb and makes preparation for a Cb SHIFT. With regard to the referential relation between a Cb and non-Cb entity, all instances of violation against the zero-anaphora rule involve the participation of the deictic “wo” (I) and I put these violations down to the special characteristic of deixis. Since all the patterns of transition are also predictable from the principles and calculating algorithms from Centering Theory, discourse segments with ba utterance as discussed in this chapter, for the second time, certified that Centering Theory is a capable formal tool for predicting discoursal presentational patterns based on its constraints and regulations.

4.3 Is Ba Construction Antipassive? 4.3.1 Antipassive in Ergative Languages—Definition and Features of Antipassive As first proposed by Silverstein (1976), antipassive refers to an intransitive clause construction that was similar to a passive but occurred in ergative languages. Ever since Silverstein, the antipassive has always been treated as a phenomenon to be observed only in ergative languages (cf. Baker 1988; Tallerman 1998, among others). Cooreman (1994) defines antipassive as a construction that is typical of ergative languages and that occurs along with ergative constructions as a morphosyntactic alternative for the same transitive proposition. Similarly, Polinsky (2017) recognizes the antipassive as a valency alternation resulting from the mapping of logical objects into different syntactic constituents. Now let us draw a brief picture of the antipassive construction and its features by comparing two ergative languages, namely West Greenlandic Eskimo and Tagalog. i.

Antipassive in West Greenlandic Eskimo (WGE) (Blight 2004:96-7) a) AUut-ip miirqa-ta parr-ai. Man-ERG child-PL(ABS) care INDIC/3sS/3pO “The man takes care of the children.” b)

ANut-O mirrqa-nik parr-si-vuq. Man(ABS) children-INSTR care-APASS-INDIC/3sS “The man takes care of the children.”

4.3 Is Ba Construction Antipassive?

ii.

121

Antipassive in Tagalog (Aldridge 2004:1) a) K-in-ain=ko ang isda. -Tr.Perf-eat=1stErg. Abs fish “I ate the/*a fish.” b)

K-um-ain=ako ng isda. -Intr.Perf-eat=1stAbs. Obl fish “I ate (a) fish.”

Scrutinizing the examples above, three antipassive features can be seen: Firstly, it changes a transitive verb into an intransitive one or one with an antipassive morpheme. In WGE, the transitive verb “parr-ai” in (i.a) agrees with both its subject and its object, while in (i.b), “parr-si-vuq” only agrees with its subject. Secondly, it turns a transitive subject into an intransitive subject, which has a morphological consequence in ergative languages. For an ergative language, when the subject is transitive, it is usually marked with an ergative case, and the object with an absolutive case; when the subject is intransitive, it is marked with an absolutive case, and the object with an oblique/dative. This phenomenon is uniformly observed in both of these two languages. Thirdly, the original object in a transitive construction is always demoted (suppressed) to an oblique status and is usually marked with a noncore case (e.g. instrumental/dative). Demotion, as defined by Polinsky (2017), indicates that a constituent is being lowered with regard to the hierarchy of grammatical roles: subject > object > noncore argument > nonargument. She also points out that in the antipassive construction, it is the logical object of a transitive verb that is being demoted. For instance, in example (a) of WGE, the object “children” is marked with a core case absolutive “t,” while in its (b) counterpart, the object is marked with an instrumental case “nik.” Accompanied by the case degradation, the semantics of the object is also changed from specific/definite to nonspecific/indefinite. So the “fish” in the Tagalog antipassive example could only refer to an unknown indefinite “fish.” Now let us apply the seven criteria drawn up by Blight (2004) to the two languages we have analyzed above to check their antipassive nature. Table 4.3 shows that WGE is one of the most typical antipassive languages that obey all criteria. It also shows that no single morphological diagnostic exists for the Table 4.3 A comparison of morphological and syntactic antipassive features

WGE

Tagalog

Subject: Trans. S→Intrans.S (syntactic)

Yes

Yes

Subject: Case change (morphology)

Yes

Yes

Object: TO→OBL (syntactic)

Yes

Yes

Object: De-focused (semantic)

Yes

Yes

Object: Case change (morphology)

Yes

Yes

Verb: Antipassive Affix (morphology)

Yes

No

Verb: TV→IV (syntactic)

Yes

Yes

122

4 A Centering Analysis of Chinese Disposal Ba Construction

Table 4.4 Antipassive vs. ergative in transitivity

Antipassive

Ergative

a

Verb codes only one participant (intr.)

Verb codes two participants (tr.)

b

Imperfective aspect

Perfective aspect

c

Partitive object

Total involvement of object

d

Indefinite object

Definite object

e

Stative/Involuntary verb

Kinetic/volitional verb

f

Passive participation of Active participation of agent agent

antipassive, and morphology by itself cannot be sufficient to identify this construction as pointed out by Polinsky (2017). Thus, morphological criteria for the antipassive need further support from other perspectives like semantics to make the definition of antipassive more precise and the boundary with other constructions more concrete. Hopper and Thompson’s (1980) dichotomy on antipassive and ergative, as summarized in Table 4.4, may help to fulfill this task. This dichotomy focuses on the semantic features instead of morphosyntactic ones of the antipassive construction, which is supported by many ergative antipassive facts such as in West Greenlandic Eskimos as proposed by Bittner (1987). As pointed out by Bittner (1987), there are five commonly occurring antipassive suffixes, namely “-Ø, -si, -llir, -(ss)i, and -nnig.” Some verbs can take them all, for instance “tusar-” (hear), which takes “-Ø” yields “tusarpuq;” “-si,” “tusarsivuq;” “-llir,” “tusarlirpuq;” “-(ss)i,” “tusaavuq;” and “-nnig,” “tusarnippuq.” However, most verbs reject one or two of these suffixes and these suffixes may also affect the aspect of the verb. Besides the semantics of the antipassive verb, the behavior of the object in antipassive constructions is also taken into consideration of the previous analyses of antipassives. It is commonly accepted that the object of an antipassive construction is indefinite, as could be seen from the Tagalog example. However, Bittner (1987) argues that objects like proper names, pronouns, nouns modified by determiners such as “this/all,” and even definite descriptions could also appear in antipassive constructions as shown in the example below. iii.

Miiraq-mik taassu-minnga isumagi-nnig-ssa-u-gut Child-INS this-INS look.after-AP-FUT-INTR.INDIC-1PL.A “We will look after this child.” Bittner (1987:200)

Thus, the notion “indefiniteness” seems no longer to be appropriate as a criterion for identifying antipassive constructions, which requires new devices to fulfill this task. Polinsky (2005) claims that the semantic import of the antipassive has to do with the affectedness and individuation of the patient. Firstly, the adoption of an antipassive construction is to cancel an entailment from a typical transitive verb, i.e. the event denoted by the verb causes a change of state in the object.

4.3 Is Ba Construction Antipassive?

123

iv. The hunter shot the bear (entails that the bear died). The hunter shot at the bear (the bear may or may not be affected). (Polinsky 2005) Since the object in an antipassive construction may not be directly affected by the verb, the event could be interpreted as incomplete, which is compatible with the imperfective/frequentative/inceptive aspect of the verb in the antipassive construction analyzed above. Secondly, Polinsky (2005, 2017) points out that the patient participant in the antipassive construction is lower in individuation (or identifiability), which could be manifested as a plural/indefinite/nonspecific/generic/implicit argument, etc. She further argues that the antipassive is often used to introduce an episodic referent because of its low individuation, which makes it play no essential role in communication or discourse CONTINUATION. Table 4.5 sums up the features that we have introduced thus far. For the syntactic and morphological features, we believe different languages may tend to adopt different mechanisms to express their antipassives, which may result in different morphosyntactic presentations. However, as regards the semantic features, we would like to treat them as the trigger for antipassive following Cooreman (1994), and I will come back to this soon. Note that there are three semantic features for the object of the antipassive and five for the verb, with only one for the agent role; the question is how to utilize these features in deciding an antipassive construction. Researchers of previous studies tend Table 4.5 Features of antipassive

Antipassive Syntactic

Intransitive subject Oblique object Intransitive verb

Morphological

Subject Case change (ERG→ABS) Object Case change (ABS→OBL/DAT/INSTR) Antipassive affix

Semantic

De-focusing object Partitive object Indefinite object Low affectedness degree on object Low identifiability degree on object Verb codes only one participant Imperfect/frequentative/inceptive aspect on verb Stative/involuntary verb Nonvolitional of agent

124

4 A Centering Analysis of Chinese Disposal Ba Construction

to reject a certain feature by taking certain counterexamples from some languages into account, or to add a certain feature by discovering some new antipassive phenomena, neither of which is plausible for linguistic analysis. For instance, in the table above, the semantic features of the object in an antipassive are analyzed as partitive, indefinite, low affectedness degree, and low identifiability degree, which somehow could all be violated but not in a once-and-for-all way. So we can assume that these features play their roles in a complementary way—not all of them are required to be met within one language, and yet not all of them can be violated within one language.

4.3.2 Functions of Antipassive Following Lazard (1989), the functions of the antipassive can be classified into three aspects: syntax, communicative intent, and semantics. (A) Syntactic functions: Given the fact that the object is always suppressed or defocused in an antipassive construction, it is quite natural to use the antipassive when no object is mentioned. The suppression of object also leads to subject promotion, in this way the antipassive is also used when the agent of the sentence is pivotal. (B) Discourse functions: Lazard points out that the discourse function of the antipassive cannot be analyzed as simply as that of the passive, i.e. topicalizing the object and/or marking the subject as a comment. Analogously, the agent/subject of the antipassive is a result of topicalization as a theme, whereas the patient/object behaves as a comment, which is indeed followed by many ergative languages, albeit still challenged by others like Mam (England 1983). So the discourse function of the antipassive construction is still left open for further discovery, which is also one of the aims of this study. (C) Semantic functions: The semantic functions summarized by Lazard (1989) are basically the same as the semantic features that I have introduced in the previous section, which will be listed here for convenience: (a) Antipassive is often associated with aspectual categories; (b) The action in an antipassive is usually not volitional; (c) There is a strong correlation between antipassive and an indefinite/ nonspecific/ generic object. Besides the three general functions, antipassive constructions in different languages tend to present additional functions. Here I would like to take Yukulta and Nez Perce as examples. The antipassive in Yukulta, for instance, is required to code counterfactual propositions or those that involve marked A-O relationships as claimed by Denniss (2007). She notes that if the present irrealis auxiliary verb “a-yi” is used in a certain context, the clause must choose an antipassive form.

4.3 Is Ba Construction Antipassive?

125

v. rtathin-ta=thu=l=a-yi purlrtamurr-a wuu-tya ngityin-tyi That-ABS=1SG.DAT=PL(NOM)=PRES(INT)-IR three-ABS give-IND 1SG.GEN-ERG/LOC “Those three will give it to me. [present irrealis][AP]” quoted by Denniss (2007) from Keen (1983:75)

Following McConvell’s (1976) pronominal hierarchy on Yukulta, Denniss (2007) further proposes that an antipassive construction is adopted when the object is higher than the agent in this hierarchy. Yukulta’s pronominal hierarchy: 1NSG>1SG/2>3

vi.

Denniss (2007:178) cites from Keen (1983:146 7) a) kungul-ta=thu=yingk-a paa-tya Mosquito-ABS=1SG.DAT=NPRES(INT)-R bite-IND “A mosquito bit me.”[Antipassive] b)

kunguli=nk=ka-nt-a paa-tya mosquito-ERG=TR-NPRES-R bite-IND “A mosquito bit him.”[Active voice]

Since the agent “kungul-” (mosquito) in (vi.a) ranks lower than the object “-thu” (me) in the pronominal hierarchy, an antipassive form is adopted, while in (vi.b), the object and the agent rank equivalently, and the active voice is enough for expression. As for the case of Nez Perce, Deal (2007) argues that the language does not show any antipassive morphology; nevertheless, the combination of intensional verb and property-type object does produce the same semantic result as the antipassive can in WGE, i.e. the scopal opacity effect. There are fundamentally two types of clauses in Nez Perce: a canonically marked transitive clause, which chooses a quantificational indefinite as its canonical indefinite object, and a noncanonically marked caseless clause, whose object is property-type indefinite. For the former case, once combined with an intensional verb, it cannot have a narrow scope (an opaque interpretation); for the latter case, on the other hand, an opaque interpretation is required, as can be seen from the sentences below. vii. ’e-’péew’i-se cíiciyele picpíc-ne 3OBJ-seek-INC purple cat-OBJ “I am looking for a purple cat.” (there is a cat out there that is purple and you are looking for it!) (Crook 1999:135)

viii. Kismis-pe sapatk’ayn wewluq-siiz Meli kaa Cosef Christmas-LOC show want-INC.PL Mary and Joseph “For the Christmas show we want a Mary and a Joseph.” (Deal 2007:44)

Sentence (vii) is a case for a canonical clause, where an opaque reading is impossible to obtain, while (viii) is a caseless clause, which asks for an opaque interpretation

126

4 A Centering Analysis of Chinese Disposal Ba Construction

for its property-type indefinite object “Meli kaa Cosef ” (Mary and Joseph). Since scopal opacity is also a semantic effect of antipassive constructions in many ergative languages, Deal proposes that it is better to analyze the noncanonical caseless clause with a property-type indefinite object as an antipassive. As can be seen, the unique functions of the antipassive of both languages are related to semantic factors, which further confirm my assumption that it is the semantic features that trigger the antipassive construction.

4.3.3 Classification of Antipassive Foley and Van Valin (1985) classify two main types of antipassive: foregrounding and backgrounding. A foregrounding antipassive is found in many ergative languages in which a syntactic pivot system is adopted. The syntactic pivot system requires the absolutive noun phrase to be the “controller and target of zero anaphora,” which means that both the noun phrase that co-references a zero noun phrase and the zero noun phrase itself must be assigned an absolutive case. As for the backgrounding antipassive, it serves to demote the “undergoer”/patient to a peripheral status, which may occur without a syntactic pivot. Undergoing a demotion process, the patient could be eliminated completely from the sentence, or may be incorporated into the antipassive verb, or may also be marked as oblique. Cooreman (1994) makes a classification of antipassive, based on the trigger factors, that divides antipassive into a structurally triggered and a semantically/pragmatically triggered antipassive. For the first type, it essentially is the same as a foregrounding antipassive, which requires a syntactic pivot system, while the second one, a semantic/pragmatic antipassive, is best described as indicating a certain degree of difficulty by which an effect stemming from an activity by A on an identifiable O can be recognized. The so-called difficulty in the definition is a twofold effect: First, it indicates that the object is low in identifiability, which is expressed by an indefinite, nonspecific, or nonreferential NP; and second, it implies that the activity is incomplete, and has no perceptible start and end, which is compatible with an imperfective, inchoative, or habitual aspect. The advantage of Cooreman’s classification is that it could take the “counterfactual effect” witnessed by Yukulta’s antipassive into consideration. Cooreman claims that the propositions expressed by counterfactuals in Yukulta refer to events that are not likely to occur in the real world of experience, whose starting or ending point is hard to perceive—similarly to an incomplete event. Given that not all languages have a syntactic pivot system, we would like to take the semantic/pragmatic trigger of the antipassive as a more fundamental one. Recalling the semantic features and semantic functions that we introduced above, together with the semantic triggers, these three notions virtually pass on the same information as summarized here. The antipassive is adopted for a certain semantic reason—the incompleteness of the event, which could be delivered from the perspectives of the object, verb, or agent. From the perspectives of object and agent, such incompleteness is realized by

4.3 Is Ba Construction Antipassive?

127

the vagueness and/or “lazy” participation of the object and agent in question, which in turn is presented by devices of de-focusing/low affected degree/low identifiable degree/partial participation of the object, and nonvolitional participation of the agent. From the verbal perspective, such incompleteness makes the antipassive construction compatible with imperfective/habitual/inchoative aspects. Thus, I would like to propose tentatively that the antipassive construction is triggered by an incomplete event it describes.

4.3.4 Antipassive Versus Passive The passive involves a demotion of the agent role, which is removed or marginalized, while the antipassive, as a mirror image of the passive, removes or marginalizes the patient role so as to demote it. Blight (2004) proposes that both antipassive and passive involve a certain presyntactic operation on the feature of the matrix verb by deleting some of its major features. For the antipassive, such a presyntactic operation deletes the internal theta feature, the case feature of the matrix verb, as well as assigning an oblique feature to it, whereas for the passive, it deletes the external theta feature, the case feature, as well as the so-called [π] feature.1 Both antipassive and passive involve a process of partial de-transitivization. It is “partial” because the result of this process is essentially different from intransitive constructions like “He died” which involves only one theta role. Although the patient/agent role in the antipassive/passive construction is suppressed/demoted, it does participate in the proposition as an oblique, which is impossible for an intransitive proposition. Thus, we can treat both antipassive and passive as constructions in between a transitive biactant construction and an intransitive uniactant construction as proposed by Lazard (1989), and the following diagram could be drawn for this purpose.

1 Blight

(2004) proposes that the movement of the verb to the extended projection of V (e.g. the letter v in VP shell) is triggered by a strong active voice feature [π], and the passive deletes this feature from the feature matrix of the main verb.

128

4 A Centering Analysis of Chinese Disposal Ba Construction

Interestingly, Polinsky (2017) notes that in some of the languages that mark the antipassive verbally, the antipassive could be syncretic with de-transitiving affixes such as anticausative, reflexive/reciprocal, middle or passive markers, which means a given antipassive marker could also serve as a general de-transitivizing affix.

4.3.5 Is Ba Construction Antipassive? 4.3.5.1

Ye and Pan (2012a, b, 2018) Revisited

Ye and Pan (2012a, b, 2018) attribute an antipassive nature to the Chinese disposal ba construction based on observations from both syntactic and semantic perspectives. Syntactically, Ye and Pan (2012b) focus on the de-transitivization outcome of the Chinese disposal ba construction. Specifically, the original object in a transitive construction is suppressed to a peripheral status and raised from its argument position to a preverbal position by “ba” as shown in example (ix.a) and (ix.b). According to their analysis, sentence (ix.b) is the result of antipassivization from (ix.a). ix.

a. Yero chi-le rou. Yero eat-LE meat b. Yero ba rou chi-le. Yero BA meat eat-LE (Lit. Ye Rong ate the meat.) (Ye and Pan 2012b:604)

They further generate this observation for ditransitive constructions as well as intransitive ones. According to them, the Chinese ba construction resembles the Tarramiutut antipassive in that they both allow a double secondary case situation as illustrated below.

4.3 Is Ba Construction Antipassive?

129

x. Tarramiutut (Beach 2003:18-19) a. Pattag inummarim-mut aittu-lauq -ta-ra ball.ABS adult-DAT give-PAST-IND-1SG:3SG “I gave the ball to the adult.” b. Inummarim-mut aittu -i -laur -tu -nga patta-mik adult-DAT give-AP-PAST-IND-1SG ball-SEC “I gave the ball to the adult.” c. Inummarim-mik aittu -i -laur -tu -nga patta-mik adult-SEC give-AP-PAST-IND-1SG ball-SEC “I gave the adult a ball.”

xi. Chinese ba construction a. Wo song yi-fen liwu gei Zhang San. I send one-CL gift to Zhang San (I sent Zhang San a gift) b. Wo ba yi-fen liwu song-gei Zhang San. I BA one-CL gift send to Zhang San (I sent a gift to Zhang San)

The parallelism between (x.c) and (xi.a), together with that between (x.b) and (xi.b), is regarded as evidence for an antipassive analysis on the Chinese ba construction. As for the intransitive circumstance, a comparison between the Inuit intransitive antipassive and the Chinese ba construction involving intransitive verbs is presented (as quoted below), based on which they demonstrate that both cases deliver a change of state/inchoative meaning, and thus they are better treated as one construction. xii. a. Miiqqat piqqip-p-u-t children healthy-IND-[INTR]-3PL. “The children are healthy.” b. Miqqat piqqis-si-pp-u-t children healthy-AP-IND-[INTR]-3PL. “The children are getting well.” (Bitter and Hale 1996:37) xiii. Chinese ba a. Ba ge Fengjie bing-le. BA CL Fengjie ill-LE b. Ba laoban si-le. BA spouse die-LE c. Ba fanren pao-le. BA prisoner run-LE (Ye and Pan 2012b:610)

Zhang (2014) argues against this claim and points out that the object of ba should bear a disposed-of (zhishi in Chinese) thematic role by following Xu (2000), and

130

4 A Centering Analysis of Chinese Disposal Ba Construction

that disposed-of role ranks higher than a theme role, which is the opposite of detransitivization. Zhang also raises a group of counterexamples to show that the object of ba can also target the subject of a sentence, which is not possible for antipassvization, which is contradicted by Ye and Pan (2018), who pointout that the example from Zhang (2014) does not include [vP-Spect] base-generated subjects. I will come back to this point later. Besides the syntactic evidence reviewed above, Ye and Pan (2012b) also provide three further pieces of semantic evidence to support their proposal. Firstly, the ba construction highlights the verb’s meaning of action, which is regarded as a characteristic of the disposal construction. Secondly, the ba construction allows an iterative as well as a durative interpretation. For instance, it is not grammatical to express an iterative meaning by uttering “Ta du-le yibian you yibian shu,2 ” while “Ta ba shu du-le yibian you yibian” is fine. As for the durative interpretation (which is provided as evidence No. 3), the Chinese ba construction is compatible with the durative affix –zhe, such as “ba wan duan-zhe”/ “ba tou ce-zhe”.3 Lastly, they add one more pragmatic support to their argument, i.e. the weak topicality of the ba object. As introduced previously, Polinsky (2005) argues that the antipassive is often used to introduce an episodic referent because of its low individuation, which makes it play no essential role in either communication or discourse CONTINUATION. In line with this claim, Ye and Pan (2012b) carried out a small-scale corpus study and found that 16 out of 19 instances adopted the object of ba as the topic for the sentence following a ba construction. Taking these eight pieces of evidence together, they arrive at the conclusion that the Chinese ba construction should be classified as antipassive. In what follows, I would like to examine their argumentation in detail in an effort to recapture the relation between the antipassive and the Chinese ba construction.

4.3.5.2

My Doubts Concerning the Syntactic Evidence

The key idea of Ye and Pan (2012a, b, 2018), as has been pointed out above, is that the Chinese ba construction involves a de-transitivization mechanism, which demotes the original logical object to a relatively peripheral status. As regards this standpoint, I would like to raise two linguistic facts first. The data we collected in this book suggest that not all objects of ba are arguments of the verbs. For instance, “tian dou

2

Ta du-le yi-bian you yi-bian shu. he read-LE once and once book Ta ba shu du-le yi-bian you yi-bian. he BA book du-LE once and once (He read the book again and again) 3 Ba wan duan-zhe BA bowl hold-ZHE (holding the bowl) Ba tou ce-zhe BA head tilt-ZHE (tilting the head)

4.3 Is Ba Construction Antipassive?

131

kuai mengmeng liang-le, wo cai ba Wang Ruohai ao hui-jia.”4 In this sentence, the object of ba “Wang Ruohai” is by no means the argument of the transitive verb “ao” (sit up), and the same is the case with the following two sentences. Note that both verbs in these examples are transitive ones, and neither of the ba objects, i.e. “qian” (money) and “Xu Liyu,” is the object of the transitive verb. Hence, if this V-O relation does not hold, the whole mechanism is debatable. xiv. a. Wo xiang ba qian zuo yixia guihua, suoyi xiangdao-le mai baoxian. I wang BA money do a little plan so think of-LE buy insurance Lit. I wanted to make a plan for my money, so I thought of buying insurance. b. Houlai, ta zhende ba Xu Liyu bandao-le riben. afterward she really BA Xu Liyu arrange to-LE Janpan Lit. Later, she actually managed to make the arrangement for Xu Liyu to go to Japan.

The definition by Polinsky (2017) clearly shows that the antipassive is the result of mapping logical objects into different syntactic constituents. All the typological evidence provided above involves the demotion of the logical object syntactically; however, data from Zhang (2014) show that the Chinese disposal ba construction can also put experiencer and locative at the ba object position. Another linguistic fact I wish to mention is that not all de-transitivization is recognized as antipassivization. Incorporation, for instance, is another construction that involves de-transitivization. The notion of “incorporation” could be understood as a construction consisting of a verb and a nominal with a particularly tight relation. It is widely observed in languages like Hungarian, West Greenlandic, and Hindi (cf. Farkas and de Swart 2003). Take this example from van Geenhoven (1998), as quoted in Fakas and de Swart (2003:1), to illustrate: xv. a. Angunguu-p aalisagaq neri-v-a-a A -Erg fish.Abs eat-Ind-[+tr.]-IIISg.IIISg “Angunguaq ate the/a particular fish.” b. Arnajaraq eqalut-tur-p-u-q A.ABS salmon-eat-Ind-[-tr.]-IIISg “Arnajaraq ate salmon.”

Sentence (xv.a) shows that in West Greenlandic standard transitive construction, the subject is in the ergative case, while the object is in the absolutive case, and the object agreement is on the verb. However, sentence (xv.b) involves an incorporated nominal as a part of the intransitive verb. In this situation, the subject is in its absolutive case, the object loses its status as a full-fledged argument, and the verb bears no agreement. We find this construction remarkably similar to the antipassive construction. First, they both involve a de-transitivization procedure with a demoted object, and secondly, they both turn a transitive subject into an intransitive one. My message 4

Tian dou kuai mengmeng liang-le, wo cai ba Wang Ruohai ao hui-jia. . At dawn I only BA Wang Ruohai sit up back home I sat up until dawn, and Wang finally returned home.

132

4 A Centering Analysis of Chinese Disposal Ba Construction

is that de-transitivization is not reliable enough to classify a certain construction and should be cautiously used. Interestingly, the Chinese ba construction is more like incorporation since both of them involve a movement of the object to a preverbal position. As shown in the examples below, the incorporated object “verset” (poem) is moved from a post-verbal to a preverbal position. xvi. a. Mari olvas egy verset. (standard transitive case) Mari read a poem.Acc “Mari is reading a poem.” b. Mari verset olvas. (incorporation construction) Mari poem.Acc read. “Mari is reading a poem/poems.” (Fakas and de Swart 2003:21)

I certainly accept that the ba object is peripheralized into an oblique status; however, an oblique object is not in itself an antipassive object. Aldridge (2012) points out that an oblique object differs from an antipassive one in its scope possibilities with respect to the external argument. An oblique object with an absolutive case, as shown by Basilico (2003), Benua (1995), Bittner (1987, 1994), and Aldridge (2012), is able to take a wide scope over an ergative NP, whereas an antipassive object must scope together with its external argument as illustrated in the West Greenlandic examples below, in which (xvii.a) is an antipassive case, and (xvii.b) is an instance with an oblique object. xvii. a. Atuartu-t ila-an-nik ikiu-i-sariaqar-p-u-nga Student-PL.ERG part-3PL.SG-INSTR help-AP-must-IND-[-TR]-1SG “I must help one of the students (any one will do).” b. Atuartu-t ila-at ikiur-tariaqar-p-a-ra Student-PL.ERG part-3PL.SG help-must-IND-[+TR]-1SG.3SG. “There is one of the students that I must help.” (Bittner 1994:138)

This scopal behavior of the antipassive object again resembles that of the incorporated nominals in incorporation constructions. For these scopally inert NPs, they are never able to undergo a quantifier raising (QR). However, QR is possible for a ba object in the Chinese ba construction. For instance, in the sentence “Ta ba zai-chang-de meigeren dou dezui-le.”5 The universal expression “zai-chang-de meigeren” (everyone present) could be QRed to a c-commanding [Spec. IP] position in the syntactic tree, so as to take the widest scope: ∀x [present’(x) → offend’(he, x)].

5

Ta ba zai-chang-de meigeren dou dezui-le. He BA present-DE everyone all offend_LE He offended everyone present.

4.3 Is Ba Construction Antipassive?

133

The above points demonstrate that de-transitivizing a verb and suppressing the argument status of an object does not necessarily cause antipassivization. In regard to the cases with the intransitive verbs, Ye and Pan (2012b) claim that analogously to ergative antipassives, the ba construction could be applied to intransitive verbs as well and generates an inchoative meaning as shown in the examples of (xiii). To the best of my knowledge, the sentence-final -le bears a dual function of perfectivity and change of state (cf. Xiao 2001; Zhang 1995; Li 1999, among others). Smith (1997) also demonstrates that the stative verb constellations are assigned a dynamic interpretation by -le, and the situation type thus derived bears an inchoative reading, which indicates the coming-about of a state. Hence, the inchoative meaning does not necessarily come from the ba construction, the sentence-final -le may also get the work done. To sum up, what has been demonstrated is that neither the transitive 6 nor the intransitive cases of the Chinese ba construction are positively linked to antipassives. Firstly, the pre-posed ba object is not always the internal argument of the transitive verb; secondly, even if the object is demoted to an oblique status, it is not in itself an antipassive object. Thirdly, the demoted object of antipassive constructions or incorporations can never take a wide scope over the external argument, nor can it undergo a QR movement; however, it is always possible for a ba object. And lastly, the inchoative meaning in intransitive cases could be a result of the sentence-final -le instead of the antipassive. Now let us turn our attention to the semantic evidence.

4.3.5.3

My Doubts Concerning the Semantic Evidence

Three semantic features concerning the verb of the ba construction are presented by Ye and Pan (2012a), namely meaning of action, iterative interpretation, and durative interpretation. Fundamentally, all these three features are epi-phenomena of the aspectual feature of the antipassive verb—imperfective. Most antipassive verbs, as introduced in Sect. 4.3.1, are of an imperfective aspectual viewpoint, so they tend to express a frequentative and inceptive meaning. For instance, in West Greenlandic Eskimos, the antipassive verbs with imperfective markers “-si,” “-(ss)I,” and “-nnig” also allow a frequentative interpretation. However, the Chinese ba construction seldom allows an imperfective aspect. Cui (1995) claims that one crucial semantic feature of a typical ba construction lies in the fact that the complement element “R” (realized as resultative complement, directional complement, etc.) within the VP behaves as the semantic focus of the whole sentence, whose function is to specify the result/change role “B” undergoes/is going to undergo via the action described by VP. We can infer from this argument that the ba construction focuses itself on the result of the object of ba after the action of VP, which in turn indicates that the aspectual viewpoint of the ba construction is unlikely to be imperfective. 6I

treat the ditransitive cases in line with the transitive ones since they share the same mechanism in becoming a ba construction.

134

4 A Centering Analysis of Chinese Disposal Ba Construction

Data analysis in this book also verified this claim. I focus on the situation type of the predicates that I studied and find that in 166 out of 193 instances, the predicate of the ba utterance adopts an accomplishment/achievement form, which makes up 86% of the total. This overwhelming majority suggests that the default aspectual viewpoint of the Chinese ba construction is perfective. The last piece of evidence from Ye and Pan (2012b) is in actuality from a discoursal perspective and will be discussed in the next section. Before moving on, there is one more word to say concerning the semantic features of the antipassive; i.e. it requires a less affected object and a nonvolitional subject. Obviously, neither of these is met by the Chinese ba construction.

4.3.5.4

Further Discourse Evidence

Polinsky (2017) claims that when the object is demoted, its oblique encoding has subtle interpretive consequences. Specifically, if a new referent appears as an oblique, it is less likely to be maintained in the upcoming discourse, which means the oblique participant in the antipassive construction is lower in individuation (or identifiability), and this semantic feature prohibits it from playing an essential role in communication as well as discourse CONTINUATION. However, the data analysis in this chapter suggests that the object of ba participates actively in serving as the backward-looking center so as to preserve discourse CONTINUATION. Firstly, five instances of a CONTINUATION + SHIFT transition state rely on the object of ba to complete the Cb SHIFT as illustrated in example (17). 17) A……, A ba B…(C)…, B…… U1: Ta zheme yi-ju, U2: dao ba wo ou xiao-le, U3: mei ci ke shuo. She this one sentence instead BA I annoy smile-LE no word can say Lit. To my surprise, she responded in this way, I just smiled helplessly, and was speechless. (CON + SHIFT)

Secondly, in most of the RETAIN + CONTINUATION transition state cases (15 out of 22), the first Cb RETAIN is completed via the object of ba as shown in example (6). 6)

U1: Amei guoqu you ge nanpengyou, Amei before have a boyfriend U2: ke houlai na-ge nande meiliyou-de ba ta shuai-le. but later that_CL man for no reason BA she Dump_LE U3: Amei shang-le-xin, ...... Amei heartbroken Lit. Amei had a boyfriend before, but he dumped her for no reason, which broke her heart. (RETAIN+ CON)

Thirdly, ten out of 13 RETAIN + SHIFT instances depend on the object of ba to RETAIN the first backward-looking center:

4.3 Is Ba Construction Antipassive?

135

8) U1: (Ta) nong jin huoren shouduan. (she) do all charm means U2: Zuihou, wo rengran ba ta yi-ge ren reng-zai jieshang, in the end I still BA she one-CL person leave-ZAI street U3: zige cheng moban ditie liu-le. by myself take the last subway leave_LE Lit. (she) did all charming things, but I still left her on the street and took the last train home. (RETAIN+ SHIFT)

Lastly, two SHIFT + SHIFT instances adopted the ba object as the new backwardlooking center of Uba+1 . 21) A……, B ba C……, C…… U1: Wode yangzi yiding hen kepa, My look must be very horrible U2: siji yixia ba che kai kuai-le driver suddenly BA motorcycle drive fast_LE U3: Motoche yilu jichi dao-le minhang shoupiao chu. Motorcycle spur to-LE CAAC booking office Lit. I must have looked horrible—the driver suddenly sped up and the motorcycle raced to the CAAC booking office. (SHIFT + SHIFT)

There are a total of 58 instances that belong to the above-mentioned four transition state combinations, and in 26 of them the object of ba played an essential role in Cb transition. This suggests that unlike the antipassive objects, the object of ba contributes a lot to discourse CONTINUATION. The result from the small-scale corpus study by Ye and Pan (2012b) is due to the fact that the ba construction, similarly to bei and maybe most other constructions, functions to maximally maintain the discourse coherence. And according to Centering Theory, such preservation relies on a continuous backward-looking center, which coincides with the subject of ba. Ye and Pan (2018) further tried to prove the low individuation feature of the ba object with an operation of relativization as shown in the example below. xviii. a. Zhang San mai-le chezi. Zhang San sell-LE car (Zhang San sold the car.) a’ Zhang San mai-le ti de chezii. Zhang San sell-LE ti DE cari (the car that Zhang San sold)

136

4 A Centering Analysis of Chinese Disposal Ba Construction

a’’*Zhang San mai-le tai de na-liang chezii. *Zhang San sell-LE iti DE that-CL cari. (the car that Zhang San sold) b. Zhang San ba chezi mai-le. Zhang San BA car sell-LE b’*Zhang San ba ti mai-le de na-liang chezii. *Zhang San BA ti sell-LE DE that-CL cari b’’Zhang San ba tai mai-le de na-liang chezii. Zhang San BA iti sell-LE DE that-CL cari. (Ye and Pan 2018:5)

They argue that the fact that the ba object “chezi” (car) cannot be relativized is due to the fact that it is demoted syntactically and thus has a low individuation interpretation. I find this claim untenable in that the interpretative properties of the antipassive should be a discourse feature, which relates to eventuality and discourse accessibility. The ba + NP phrase may be an island, but it is not evidence of an antipassive. Taken together, I have provided evidence from syntax, semantics, and discourse to refute the idea that the ba construction is antipassive. Syntactically, I have shown that the pre-posed ba object is not always the internal argument of the transitive verb, and even if the object is demoted to an oblique status, it is not in itself an antipassive object. In addition, the demoted object of antipassive constructions or incorporations can never take a wide scope over the external argument, nor can it undergo a QR movement; however, it is always possible for a ba object. Semantically, all core semantic features of antipassive construction are missing from the Chinese ba construction, namely the imperfective aspect of the verb, the low affectedness degree of the object, and a nonvolitional meaning of the agent subject. And last but not least, data analysis in this chapter shows that the ba object participates actively in discourse CONTINUATION, which, according to Polinsky (2005), is not possible for an antipassive object. Thus, I come to the conclusion that it is better not to analyze the Chinese ba construction in line with the antipassive.

4.4 Interim Summary 4.4.1 A Summary of the Chapter This chapter is meant to provide further support for the findings from Chap. 3. By carrying out a similar discourse analysis in the refined Centering Theory framework, I have scrutinized similar parameters to the last chapter, i.e. the transition states, the patterns of each combination, the division of labor between ba utterance and ba object, etc. My conclusions are: Firstly, an overwhelming majority of ba utterances function to maintain the backward-looking center inherited from their previous utterance so as to maximize the coherence of discourse. The object of ba, competing with the predicative object

4.4 Interim Summary

137

bearing the recipient role in ba utterance, serves to retain the Cb and makes preparation for a Cb SHIFT. With regard to the referential relation between a Cb and non-Cb entity, all instances of violation against the zero-anaphora rule involve the participation of the deictic “wo” (I) and I put these violations down to the special characteristic of deixis. Since all the patterns of transition are also predictable through the principles and algorithms from Centering Theory, discourse segments with ba utterance as discussed in this chapter, for the second time, certified that Centering Theory is capable of predicting the discoursal presentational patterns based on its constraints and regulations. Besides the discoursal study on ba utterance, I have also seriously considered the possibility of incorporating the ba construction into the framework of antipassives. However, evidence from syntax, semantics, and discourse suggested that this might not be a good idea. Syntactically, I have shown that the pre-posed ba object is not always the logical object of the transitive verb, and even if the object is demoted to an oblique status, it is not in itself an antipassive object. In addition, the demoted object of antipassive constructions or incorporations can never take a wide scope over the external argument, nor can it undergo a QR movement; however, it is always possible for a ba object. Semantically, all core semantic features of antipassive construction are missing from the Chinese ba construction, namely the imperfective aspect of the verb, the low affectedness degree of the object, and a nonvolitional meaning of the agent subject. And last but not least, data analysis in this chapter shows that the ba object participates actively in discourse CONTINUATION, which, according to Polinsky (2017), is not possible for an antipassive object. Thus, I come to the conclusion that it is better not to analyze the Chinese ba construction in line with the antipassive.

4.4.2 Some Hints on Cf Ranking of Ba Utterance In Sect. 4.2, a distinction between the discourse function of ba utterance and that of ba object is clarified. Similarly to the division of labor between Ubei and the object of bei, the discourse function of ba utterance is to maximize the coherence of discourse, which has been proved by the high percentage of CONTINUATION transition patterns of backward-looking centers witnessed in discourse segments with ba utterances, while the object of ba maintains the backward-looking center RETAIN so as to make room for a new Cb in the subject position. As has been illustrated in 4.2.1, the CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION transition pattern does not involve the participation of a ba object—the whole process is accomplished by the subject of ba/the agent role. Since the subject has not been changed from its previous utterance to Uba or to its following one, we can say that these utterances are within the same topic chain, and the subject/agent role is actually the topic. As for the combination CONTINUATION + SMOOTH SHIFT, the topic chain is maintained only to the end of the ba utterance, the object of which

138

4 A Centering Analysis of Chinese Disposal Ba Construction

introduces a new topic into the discourse and a SMOOTH SHIFT of Cb occurs. However, in cases of RETAIN + CONTINUATION and RETAIN + RETAIN, new semantic entities are introduced in ba utterance in the subject position as agent, and the backward-looking centers are retained at the ba-object position as theme/patient, or the predicative object position as recipient, which further appears at the subject or object position of the following utterance so as to maintain the Cb. This mechanism shows that once a topic chain is interrupted, the most salient semantic entity is absent from the discourse segment, at which point the object of ba plays an essential role in maintaining the backward-looking center RETENTION, without which a Cb SHIFT will take place. However, the role of ba object is challenged by the predicative object bearing the recipient role when there is one. I have observed three possibilities concerning CONTINUATION + SHIFT, and combinations starting with RETAIN in the previous section: (a) Possibility I: Utterance with ba construction has only two thematic roles—the agent and the theme/patient, which are the subject and the object of ba from a grammatical function perspective. In CONTINUATION + SHIFT, the object of ba provides the new backward-looking center for its following utterance after the SMOOTH SHIFT, whereas in RETAIN-started combinations, the ba object retains the Cb. (b) Possibility II: The ba utterance consists of the agent, the theme/patient, and the locative. Grammatically, the agent is the subject, the theme/patient the object of ba, and the locative the object of the post-verbal preposition. As with what has been observed previously, the object of ba provides the new backward-looking center for its following utterance after the SMOOTH SHIFT, while it retains the Cb in RETAIN-started cases—leaving the subject position for a more promising new backward-looking center. (c) Possibility III: What competes with the object of ba for the Cb of Uba+1 is the predicative object (recipient in terms of thematic role); the latter always wins the competition and behaves as the new backward-looking center for the following utterance or acts as the host position for a retained Cb. To summarize, in discourse segments with ba utterance, Cb CONTINUATION is preferred in a significantly large number of cases; once Cb RETAIN or SHIFT happens, the role of the ba object or the predicate object is highlighted and the latter always wins. In other words, the utterance-initial position subject plays a distinctive role in Cb transition, besides which the predicative object always bears a higher level of salience than the other semantic entities in the utterance. This observation stimulates my interest in finding the key factor that determines Cf ranking in Chinese discourse.

References

139

References Aldridge, E., (2004). Antipassive and specificity in tagalog. In P. Law (Ed.), Proceedings of AFLA 11. ZAS papers in linguistics (pp. 1–14). Berlin: Zentrum fur Allgemeine Sprachwissenscha, Typologie, und Universalienforschung. Aldridge, Edith. (2012). Antipassive and ergativity in Tagalog. Lingua, 122, 192–203. Baker, Mark. (1988). Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Barbara, D. E. (1998). Centering in Italian. In M. A. Walker, A. K. Joshi, and E. F. Prince (Eds.), Centering theory in discourse (pp. 115–138). Oxford: Oxford University Press, Chapter 7. Basilico, D. 2003. The antipassive: Low transitivity objects, syntactic intertness, and strong phases. Paper presented at the North American Syntax Conference. Montreal: Concordia University. Beach, M. 2003. Asymmetries between passivization and antipassivization in the Tarramiutut subdialect of Inuktitut. In M. Butt, & T. H. King (Eds.), Proceedings of the LFG03 Conference, 1–21. University of Albany, State University of New York. CSLI: CSLI Publications. Benua, L. 1995. Yup’ik antipassive. In: Dainora, A., Hemphill, R. Luka, B., Need, B., Pargman, S. (Eds.), Papers from the 31st Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 28–44. Bittner, Maria. (1987). On the semantics of the greenlandic antipassive and related constructions. International Journal of American Linguistics, 53, 194–231. Bittner, M. (1994). Case, scope, and binding. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Blight., R. C. (2004). Head Movement, Passive, and Antipassive in English. Ph.D. dissertation. The University of Texas at Austin. Byron, D.K. & Stent, A. (1998) A preliminary model of centering in dialog, Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL ’98) (pp. 1475–7). Montréal, Canada: ACL. Cooreman, A. (1994) ‘A functional typology of antipassives. In B. Fox & P. L. Hopper (Eds.), Voice: Form and function (pp. 49–88). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Crook, H. D. (1999). The phonology and morphology of Nez Perce stress. Doctoral Dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles. Cui, X (崔希亮). (1995). “ba” ziju de ruogan jufa yuyi wenti, “把”字句的若干句法語義問題 [Some Syntactic and Semantic Puzzles Concerning the Ba-Construction]. Shijie hanyu jiaoxue 世界漢語教學 [Chinese teaching in the world] 1995(3), 12–21. Deal, A. (2007). Antipassive and indefinite objects in Nez Perce. SULA 4: Proceedings of the Fourth Conference on the Semantics of Under-Represented Languages in the Americas, Amherst: GLSA. pp 35–47. Denniss, J. 2007. Antipassives in yukulta. The University of Queensland Working Papers in Linguistics, Vol. 1. England, Nora. (1983). A grammar of mam, a mayan language. Austin: University of Texas Press. Fakas, D. F., & de Swart, H. (2003). The Semantics of Incorporation: From Argument Structure to Discourse Transparency. CSLI. Foley, W.A., & R.D. Van Valin Jr. (1985). Information packaging in the clause. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description vol. 1 (pp. 282–364). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hopper, Paul J. & Sandra A. Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56.251–299. Keen, S. (1983). Yukulta. In R. M. W. Dixon & B. J. Blake (Eds.), Handbook of Australian languages (Vol. 3, pp. 190–304). Canberra: Australian National University Press. Lazard, G. (1989). Transitivity and markedness: the antipassive in accusative languages. In O. M. Tomi´c (Ed.), Markedness in synchrony and typology (pp. 309–331). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Li, M. (1999). Negation in Chinese. Unpublished Ph.D thesis, Manchester University. McConvell, P. (1976). Nominal hierarchies in yukulta. In R. M. W. Dixon (Ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages (pp. 191–200). AIAS: Canberra.

140

4 A Centering Analysis of Chinese Disposal Ba Construction

Poesio, M., et al. (2004). Centering: A parametric theory and its instantiations. Computational Linguistics, 30, 309–363. Polinsky, M. (2005). Antipassive constructions. In M. Haspelmath, Matin S. Dryer, D. Gil, B. Comrie (Eds.), The world atlas of language structure. Oxford University Press, pp. 438–439. Polinsky, Maria. 2017. Antipassive. In J. Coon, D. Massam, and L. demean Travis (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Ergativity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Chapter 13. Silverstein, M. (1976). Hierarchy of Features and Ergativity’. In R. M. W. Dixon (Ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages canberra: AIAS. pp. 112–171. Smith, C. S. (1997). The parameter of aspect (2nd Ed.). Kluwer Academic Publishers. Tallerman, Maggie. (1998). Understanding syntax. London: Arnold. van Geenhoven, V. (1998). Semantic Incorporation and Indefinite Description: Semantic and Syntactic Aspects of Noun Incorporation in West Greenlandic. CSLI. Walker, M.A. (1993). Initial contexts and shifting centers. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Centering. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. Xiao, R. (2001). “A corpus-based study of interaction between chinese perfective—le and situation types.” In Proceedings of Corpus Linguistics 2001. pp. 625–635. Lancaster University, 30 March– 2 April, 2001. Xu, Liejiong(徐烈炯).2000. Tiyuan de yongchu題元的用處 [The usage of the concept thematic role]. Mashi Wentong yu Hanyu Yufaxue 《馬氏文通》 與漢語語法學 [Mashi Wentong and Chinese Grammatical Studies], Jingyi Hou &Guan’gan Shi (eds.), pp. 425–440. Beijing: Shangwu Yinshuguan 北京:商務印書館 [Beijing:The Commercial Pres]. Ye, Kuang(葉狂) & Haihua Pan(潘海華). (2012a). Nidongtai de kuayuyan yanjiu逆動態的跨語 言研究 [Antipasive from a typological perspective].Xiandai Waiyu 現代外語 [Modern Foreign Languages]2012.3, 221–229. Ye, Kuang(葉狂) & Haihua Pan(潘海華). (2012b). “Ba”-ziju de kuayuyan shijiao把字句的跨語言 視角 [The“ba” construction:A cross-linguistic perspective].Yuyan Kexue 語言科學 [Linguistic Sciences]2012. 6, 604–620. Ye, K., & Pan, Haihua. (2018). Nidongju de zuixin yanjiu ji baziju de guff xingzhi 逆動式的最 新研究及把字句的句法性質 [The Most Recent Research on Antipassive and the Nature of the Ba(把) Construction in Chinese]. Yuyan yanjiu 語言研究 [Studies in Language and Linguistics], 2018(1), 1–10. Zhang, B. (2014). Hanyu Sushi de kuayuyan guan—“ba” ziju yu nibeidongtai guanxi shangque 漢語 句式的跨語言觀——“把”字句與逆被動態關係商榷 [Chinese Syntax from a Cross-linguistic Perspective: A Case Study on the Relation between “Ba”-construction and Antipassive]. Yuyan kexue 語言科學 [Linguistic Sciences], 2014(6), 587–600. Zhang, L. (1995). A Contrastive study of aspectuality in german. English & Chinese: Peter Lang.

Chapter 5

Ranking of Forward-Looking Centers in Chinese

Abstract This chapter first conducts a typological review with regard to Cf ranking proposed for different languages ranging from Japanese to Italian, Turkish, Hindi, Greek, and German. By comparing existing researches, it further calculates the Cb transition states between ba/gei/fang/bei utterance and the preceding utterance, as well as the subsequent utterance. The results show the following patterns: (1) Cb CONTINUATION is realized by the semantic entity in the topic position of all utterances; (2) the thematic hierarchy decides the prominence of the remaining semantic entities; (3) since the prominence of the topic is not affected by the thematic hierarchy, a two-tier Cf ranking is proposed. The first tier recognizes the topic as the most prominent semantic entity and ranks it in first place in the Cf ranking, while the rest are ranked according to their positions in the thematic hierarchy. The Cf ranking thus gained decides the discourse salience as well as the discourse accessibility of all semantic entities in an utterance. Keywords Cf ranking in Chinese · Centering Theory · Ba/gei/fang/bei utterance · Discourse salience As mentioned in Chap. 2, a Cf set is a partially ordered set of all semantic entities in the current utterance, in which there is only one backward-looking center (Cb), which tends to be the most salient semantic entity in the utterance. Basically, the most salient entity is ranked at the left-most position in the Cf set and is most likely to be the Cb of the subsequent utterance. However, due to the partial ordering character of the Cf set, there might be more than one semantic entity in the current utterance competing for the same ranking, and since only one preferred center (Cp) is allowed, we have to choose among the competitors. This raises a question that is crucial for Centering Theory and its application to the naturally produced languages: What factors affect the ranking of Partial results of the presented work in this chapter have been accepted by Language and Linguistics (語言暨語言學). Wuyun and Pan (烏云賽娜、潘海華) (accepted) 漢語語篇中語義實體的篇章 可及性 (The Discoursal Accessibility of Semantic Entities in Chinese Discourse), 語言暨語言學 [Language and Linguistics]. © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 S. Wuyun, Where Centering Meets Chinese Discourse, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8666-8_5

141

142

5 Ranking of Forward-Looking Centers in Chinese

the Cf set and thus determine the choice of the most salient semantic entity in a specific utterance so as to decide the backward-looking center (Cb) of the following utterance? This question is vital to the whole theory of centering, since it dominates the decision of preferred center as well as backward-looking center, which in turn manipulates the Cb transition pattern from one utterance to the next. So it deserves a chapter-length examination. This chapter first provides a typological review with regard to Cf ranking proposed for different languages. The typological studies I review range from Japanese to Italian, Turkish, Hindi, Greek, and German. By comparing existing researches, I would like to propose a two-tier Cf ranking for Chinese. With the analytical tool of Centering Theory, this chapter focuses on the transition states of the backwardlooking center (Cb) between ba/gei/fang/bei utterances and their adjacent (previous and subsequent) utterances in Chinese discourse. The results show the following patterns: (1) Cb CONTINUATION is realized by the semantic entity in the utteranceinitial position, which is the most salient semantic entity in any utterance; (2) the thematic hierarchy determines the degree of salience of the remaining semantic entities; (3) since the salience of the utterance-initial semantic entity is not affected by the thematic hierarchy, a two-tier forward-looking center (Cf ) ranking is proposed. The first tier recognizes the utterance-initial center as the most salient semantic entity and ranks it first in the Cf set; the rest are ranked afterward according to their positions in the thematic hierarchy. The Cf ranking thus gained decides the discourse salience as well as the discourse accessibility of all semantic entities in an utterance of a given discourse.

5.1 The Ranking of Forward-Looking Centers in Different Languages Since Brennan et al. (1987), substantial studies on this issue have been carried out from both language-specific and cross-linguistic perspectives. Before reviewing these studies, there is one pair of definitions that need to be distinguished, i.e., Cf set versus Cf template. According to Cote (1998), a Cf template is an ordered set of features for a language that determines the ranking of semantic entities in each concrete utterance, whereas a Cf set is the actual set of ranked semantic entities in a particular utterance. To put it another way, there is only one Cf template for each language, and this template may vary cross-linguistically, whereas for each language and for each discourse segment, there is one corresponding and unique Cf set for each and every utterance. To correct what I have stated, the issue I try to uncover in this section is actually the factors that affect the ranking of a Cf template. The first Cf template was given by Brennan et al. (1987), the skeleton of which is still not abandoned by researchers today, with only patches upon it. Based on English discourse, Brennan, Friedman, and Pollard propose a Cf template as follows: A. SUBJECT > DIRECT OBJECT > INDIRECT OBJECT > OTHERS

5.1 The Ranking of Forward-Looking Centers in Different Languages

143

This ranking template states that in English, the subject of an utterance realizes the most salient semantic entity that has the strongest tendency to be the backwardlooking center (Cb) of the subsequent utterance. Moreover, the direct object ranks higher than the indirect one, which ranks higher than other arguments or adjuncts of the utterance. It is obvious that the factor affecting the Cf template in English discourse, according to Brennan, Friedman, and Pollard, is the grammatical function of the semantic entities realized in each utterance. Walker et al. (1990, 1994) inherit Brennan et al. (1987) ranking system in a critical way by introducing two factors into the Cf template for Japanese—TOPIC and EMPATHY.1 Topichood is indicated overtly by using the morphological case marker -wa in Japanese, the optional use of which picks out the most salient entity in the current utterance, which means that entities marked by -wa rank the highest in the Japanese Cf template. The language also provides morphological means to show the speaker’s perspective through the use of verbal compounding by adding suffixes such as jureta/kita.2 Compare the following two sentences: i.

a. Hanako wa Taroo ni hon o kureta. b. Hanako wa Taroo ni hon o yatta. (Walker, Iida and Cote 1990:3)

a. Hanako wa Taroo ni hon o Top-subj obje2 book obj ‘Hanako gave Taroo a book.’ EMPATHY=OBJ2=TAROO

kureta. b. Hanako wa Taroo ni hon o give-past book obj Top-subj obj2 ‘Hanako gave Taroo a book.’

yatta. give-past

EMPATHY=SUBJ=HANAKO

The verb “kureta” suggests that the indirect object “Taroo” is the empathy locus, which indicates that it is “Taroo” that the speaker identifies with, while the verb “yatta” makes “Hanako” the empathy locus, the referent of which the speaker identifies with. Due to the highest position of topic in salience ranking, the Cf set of both sentences could be: Cfa: [HANAKO, TAROO, TOPIC EMPATHY Cfb: [HANAKO, TOPIC/EMPATHY

BOOK] OBJ

TAROO, BOOK] OBJ2 OBJ

Thus, Walker, Iida, and Cote modified Brennan, Friedman, and Pollard’s ranking template as follows: B. TOPIC > EMPATHY > SUBJECT > INDIRECT OBJECT > DIRECT OBJECT Take their original discourse segment, for instance:

1 Kuno

(1973) proposes the notion of EMPATHY, which is the perspective from which a speaker describes an event. Kuno calls a verb that is sensitive to the speaker’s perspective an EMPATHYLOADED verb and defines EMPATHY LOCUS as the argument position whose referent the speaker is identifying with. 2 We can change any Japanese verb into an empathy-loaded verb by adding such suffixes.

144

5 Ranking of Forward-Looking Centers in Chinese

ii. U1: Hanako wa tosyokan de benkyoositeita. U2: Taroo ga Hanako o tetudatte-kureta. U3: Tugi no hi o o eiga ni.(Walker, Iida and Cote 1990:4) U1: Hanako wa tosyokan de benkyoositeita. Hanako-TOP library in studying-was “Hanako was studying in the library.” Cb: HANAKO Cf: [HANAKO] U2: Taroo ga Hanako o tetudatte-kureta. Taroo-SUBJ Hanako-OJB help-gave. “Taroo did Hanako a favor in helping her.” Cb: HANAKO Cf: [HANAKO, TAROO] CONTINUATION EMPATHY SUBJ U3: Tugi no hi o o eiga ni sasotta. Next of day SUBJ OBJ movie to invited. “Next day she invited him to a movie.” Cb: HANAKO Cf: [HANAKO, TAROO] CONTINUATION SUBJ OBJ

The use of the suffix “kureta” in U2 indicates that the object “Hanako” is the empathy locus, which is also the topic of U1 as well as U3. Thanks to the comparatively higher ranking of empathy to the subject, the Cb transition states are both CONTINUATION, which means the discourse segment is a very coherent one. Another difference between Walker, Iida, and Cote’s template and Brennan et al. (1987) ranking system is that they rank the indirect object higher than the direct one, which conforms to Japanese language facts. As pointed out by Turan (1995, 1998), the notion of “empathy” is not unique to Japanese, but is relevant to many Western languages as well. By investigating data from both Turkish and English, she claims that it is the experiencer role, which is often in an object position, that should be ranked higher, such as the nonagentive psychological verbs interest/seem, the perception verbs feel/appear, and expressions that refer to a speaker’s point of view like the thought crosses her mind. Thus, it is tempting to suggest that an experiencer object is the Cp because it is the “empathy locus” in Turkish analogous to “kureta/yatta” in Japanese. However, Turan (1998) argues that the notion of “empathy” fails to distinguish between psychological and nonpsychological verbs and further proposes that empathy cannot account for the fact that objects of psychological verbs rank higher in the Cf template, and Cfs need to be ranked according to the thematic hierarchy3 as follows: C. Agent > Experiencer > Theme 3 The

thematic hierarchy this book follows is from Bresnan (2001): Agent > Recipient > Goal/Experiencer > Instrument > Theme/Patient > Locative.

5.1 The Ranking of Forward-Looking Centers in Different Languages

145

The following two examples exemplify the distinction between “empathy locus” (as in b) and “experiencer” (as in c): iii.

a. Suzank Ferdi’yei bir kedi Verdi. Susan Fred.DAT one cat give.PAST “Susan gave a cat to Fred.” yaptı./Hata yaptı Suzank b. Ferdi’yei göre Suzank hata Fred.DAT according Susan mistake make.PAST “According to Fred, Susan made a mistake.” c. Øi kedileri hiç Cat.PLU.ACC. never “(He) doesn’t like cats.”

Ferdi’yei

gore.

sevmez. like.NEG.AOR. (Turan 1998:145)

As the object of “göre” (according to), “Ferdi’ye” (Fred.DAT) is the empathy locus of the speaker, and it ranks the highest in utterance (iii.b) no matter what linear position it is placed in, while as the null subject of the psychological verb “sevmez” (like), the EXPERIENCER “Øi = he” ranks the highest in utterance (iii.c). Further investigation of the relation between Cf template B and C still needs to be carried out since they both conform to linguistic facts to a certain degree. As a matter of fact, template B itself is not really a satisfactory ranking system either, since it combines both the information structure factor (topic) and the thematic relation factor (experiencer), as well as the grammatical function factor (subject, etc.) so as to form a ranking hierarchy that meets the linguistic reality of Japanese and Turkish. Such a combination from different aspects of language needs further specification relating to the reason why certain factors are more powerful than others. Moreover, ranking agent as the most salient entity in the template needs to be examined by passive construction data in the first place, which also works that will be conducted in this chapter. Another finding of Turan is that quantified indefinite subjects (qis) and arbitrary plural pros (proarb) rank very low in Turkish, so if we continue to adopt ranking system B, the Cf template for Turkish should be like this: D. TOPIC > EMPATHY > SUBJCT > INDIRECT OBJECT > DIRECT OBJECT > OTHERS > qis, proarb This ranking system is also supported by data from Greek (Miltsakaki 2001). On the one hand, Miltsakaki claims that salience in Greek is determined by grammatical function and agrees with the ranking system developed by Brennan et al. (1987) as shown in A, while on the other hand, she points out that, as in Turkish, quantified indefinite expressions and impersonal uses of we/you are also ranked low regardless of their grammatical function. This kind of ranking throws us into a dilemma: Firstly, when Brennan et al. (1987) brought out ranking system A, they did not make any further classifications within the highest-ranked SUBJECT, such as definite or indefinite, specific or arbitrary. If language requires the speaker to make a distinction among these parameters within a SUBJECT, the SUBJECT in itself is

146

5 Ranking of Forward-Looking Centers in Chinese

not a sufficient feature that could be safely listed in the hierarchy, which means the criterion “grammatical function” has lost its power in determining the Cf template ranking alone. This idea is also supported by linguistic facts from Italian. Eugenio (1990, 1998) states that a null subject signals a CONTINUATION by default, and a strong pronoun a RETAIN/SHIFT; however, null subjects can also be used in cases of RETAIN/SHIFT if the context or the verb forms provide a tense or agreement that coerces the null subject to refer to some referent other than Cb(Un − 1), as shown in the following example: iv.

a. Mariai voleva andare al mare. Mariai wanted to go to the seaside. b.Øi Telefono’a Giovannij. (Shei) phoned to Giovannij. c. (i) Øi Si arrabbio’ perche’ Øi non loj trovo’a casa. (Shei) self got angry because (shei) not himj found at home. Si arrabbio’ perche’ Øj stave dormendo. (ii) Øi/?j (Shei)/(? Hej) self got angry because (hej) was sleeping stave dormendo. (iii) Luij si arrabbio’ perche’ Øj (Hej) self got angry because (hej) was sleeping (iv) Øj Si e’ arrabbiatomasc perche’ Øj stave dormendo. (Hej) self is become angry masc because (hej) was sleeping (Di Eugenio 1998:272)

The context is that “Maria wanted to go to the seaside, and (she) called Giovanni. (She) got angry when she found out that he was not at home.” Since “she” is also the EXPERIENCER of “got angry,” it ranks the highest in the Cf set of this utterance by default, which also explains the oddness of utterance (c.ii) where the null subject co-indexes with “he.” Nevertheless, this default ranking could be altered by verbal agreement in the context. Note that in utterance (c.iii) and (c.iv), both the strong pronoun “lui” and the verbal agreement indicating masculine are used to coerce the null subject to co-index with the object of utterance (b), which makes the most salient entity in utterance (c.iii) and (c.iv) the object of (b)—“Giovanni.” So it is the context including the verb that is taken into account when selecting the most salient semantic entity rather than the subject/object distinction, which once again proves that the grammatical function factor needs to be reconsidered in counting as a factor that determines the ranking of a Cf template. Secondly, as stated above, the existing ranking systems all seem to be in a mess due to ignoring the consistency of ranking criteria. Cf template B is established on the basis of information structure, argument structure, and grammatical function; Cf template D further takes semantic interpretation of noun phrases into consideration, not to mention the overlapping within the ranking hierarchies themselves. Even so, these hierarchies still cannot predict the salience ranking of the forward-looking centers for all languages.

5.1 The Ranking of Forward-Looking Centers in Different Languages

147

Take German, for instance; it is claimed by Rambow (1993) that the surface linear order decides the ranking in the Cf template of German. German is a verbfinal language, and it is also verb-second (V2), in which the finite verb in the main clause is always in the second position of the clause. Thus, two positions are left for semantic entities to fill in the surface presentation of the sentence—the position in front of the finite verb, the Vorfeld (VF), and the position between the finite and nonfinite verb, the Mittelfeld (MF). The VF must contain exactly one constituent and the MF contains all the remaining arguments as well as adjuncts in the sentence. Rambow also distinguishes two types of topicalization, which are directly related to the order of the forward-looking centers. In German, topicalization could be for the differentiation of given and new information; it could also be a focus topicalization. For the former, the topic is placed in the left-most place in theCf template, and the rest of the template is composed of all the remaining arguments or adjuncts of the utterance by listing themes in the linear order that they appear in the sentence, whereas for the latter, the topicalized semantic entity does not move into the VF position, but is reconstructed to some position in the MF, although it still ranks higher than other arguments in MF position. At a quick glance, the so-called linear order does not always make the right salience ordering of the entities, since the “Yiddish topic” (following Rambow’s term) is never restricted by the linearly ordered position in the Cf template. By now, it can be claimed that what determines or affects the Cf template of different languages cannot be totally the grammatical function, the surface linear order, the thematic hierarchy, in themselves. I admit that to explore the salience preference of a discourse, multi-tier Cf -template criteria should be established. Then the question is, how many tiers of criteria do we actually need for this ranking in Chinese? Chap. 4 presents a preliminary attempt to answer this question; however, it is not enough to focus only on the Chinese bei and ba construction.

5.2 A Proposal of Cf Ranking in Chinese Discourse 5.2.1 Rationale of the Study Cross-language analyses, as introduced in the previous section, all point to one fact— the topic (or the utterance-initial semantic entity) is more salient than the other semantic entities and is placed in the left-most position of the Cf template in most languages, such as English (subject), Japanese, Greek (topic), Turkish (agent), and German (VF). This fact is closely associated with the choice of Cb for the subsequent utterance. Specifically, the left-most position center is of the highest discourse accessibility and is thus more likely to be the backward-looking center of the subsequent utterance. Chinese, as a topic-prominent language, recognizes topic as the most salient (and discoursally most accessible) semantic entity in discourse. So theoretically speaking, the topic in Chinese discourse, similar to Japanese and Greek, should

148

5 Ranking of Forward-Looking Centers in Chinese

be ranked in first place in the Cf template followed by the rest of the semantic entities within the utterance. But in what order are the rest semantic entities ranked? This is the main concern of my current research. My rationale is as follows: (1) The more discoursally accessible a center is, the more salient it should be, and (2) By calculating the actual discourse accessibility of each center involved in an utterance, it is possible to postulate the ranking of discourse salience concerning these centers. To this end, this chapter scrutinizes Chinese discourse segments with four utterance types, namely ba utterance, gei utterance, fang utterance, and bei utterance, with the following three questions tackled: a. Does Cb CONTINUATION show diverse patterns in discourse segments involving these four utterances? b. Do different semantic entities in these utterances show discrepancy in their contribution to Cb CONTINUATION/SHIFT? If yes, are there any consistent patterns shown in their contribution? c. Can the analysis of these four types of utterance help reveal the Cf template in Chinese discourse? The choice of these four types of utterances has double considerations of both syntax and semantics: First, these four types of utterance include various grammatical functions such as subject, direct object, indirect object, and preposition object, etc.; in addition, these four types of utterance also include various thematic roles such as agent, theme/patient, recipient, and locative. Most importantly, among these four types of utterance, the grammatical function and the thematic role can have all sorts of realization relations. For example, the patient/ theme role in ba utterance is realized by the object of ba—i.e., as a prepositional object—leaving the recipient role the predicate object, while the recipient role in gei utterance could be realized as the object of the preposition gei, leaving the patient/ theme role the predicate object. Moreover, the agent–patient realization in ba utterance and bei utterance is exactly reversed, which makes it possible to reveal the factor that actually determines the ranking in the Cf template. This section will discuss this intricate realization relation in detail, with a view to identifying the factors that determine the ranking of forwardlooking centers in a given utterance of Chinese discourse.

5.2.2 An Overview of Data Table 5.1 summarizes the Cb transition states of these four types of utterance with their previous utterances, as well as those with their subsequent utterances, and results in the following seven types. As in Chap. 3, all the Cb transition state combinations in this chapter use the utterances to be examined—that is, the ba/gei/fang/bei utterance—as the intermediate utterances, calculating the Cb transition states of these four types of utterance with

5.2 A Proposal of Cf Ranking in Chinese Discourse

149

Table 5.1 An overview of Cb transition states concerning four types of utterance Transition state

Ba utterance

Gei utterance

Fang utterance

Bei utterance

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

75/65.22%

41/34.75%

78/73.58%

73/58.87%

CONTINUATION + RETAIN

6/5.22%

5/4.24%

5/4.72%

14/11.29%

CONTINUATION + SHIFT

16/13.91%

38/32.20%

11/10.38%

19/15.32%

RETAIN + CONTINUATION/RETAIN

9/7.83%

21/17.80%

3/2.83%

7/5.65%

RETAIN + SHIFT

8/6.96%

13/11.02%

3/2.83%

8/6.45%

SHIFT + CONTINUATION/RETAIN

1/0.87%

–

5/4.72%

3/2.42%

SHIFT + SHIFT

–

–

1/0.94%

–

Total

115

118

106

124

their previous and subsequent utterances. Again, I mark the Cb transition state combinations in the form of CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION/CONTINUATION + RETAIN/RETAIN + SHIFT… Taking ba utterance as an example, CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION means that the transition state between the Cb of ba utterance and that of its previous utterance is a CONTINUATION; and so is the transition state between the Cb of ba utterance and that of its subsequent utterance. Let us illustrate the calculation of transition states via discourse segment (1). 1)

(Uba-2˖La La que tingshuo Wang Qiang zhuyuan-le,) La La instead hear of Wang Qiang in hospital LE Uba-1: ta bian da dianhua weiwen. Cb: [La La] Cf: {La La, Wang Qiang,dianhua} La La WangQiang phone Uba: Wang Qiang ba bingqing gaosu-le La La. Cb: [La La] Cf: {Wang Qiang, bingqing, Wang Qiang state of illness

La La} RETAIN] La La

Uba+1: (Wang Qiang) shuo shi yao zuo shoushu. Cb: [Wang Qiang] Cf: {Wang Qiang, shoushu} SMOOTH SHIFT Wang Qiang operation Lit. (Uba -2: La La heard that Wang Qiang was hospitalized), Uba -1: She called to convey greetings; Uba: Wang Qiang told La La about her illness, Uba +1: (Wang Qiang) said she was going to have an operation.

150

5 Ranking of Forward-Looking Centers in Chinese

This is a discourse segment with the Cb transition states of RETAIN + SMOOTH SHIFT: Uba−2 establishes the Cb for Uba−1 as “La La”; according to Constraint (c) of Centering Theory, “Cb (Ui, D) is the highest-ranked element of Cf (Ui − 1, D) that is realized in Ui,” “La La” is recognized as the Cb of Uba ; however, “La La” in Uba is not the Cp of the utterance. According to the calculation equation, i.e., Eq. Cb(Ui) = Cb(Ui − 1) and Eq. Cb(Ui) = Cp(Ui), of the transition state, the transition state from Uba−1 to Uba is RETAIN. In the subsequent Uba+1 , the Cb is no longer “La La,” which indicates a Cb SHIFT; however, the Cb is the preferred center of the utterance after SHIFT, i.e., “Wang Qiang.” Also, according to the corresponding calculation formula (Eq. Cb (Ui) = Cb(Ui − 1) and Eq. Cb(Ui)= Cp(Ui)), the transition state from Uba to Uba+1 is SMOOTH SHIFT. The next three sessions will introduce the specific transition states of the backward-looking center and the patterns presented by various transition states in discourse segments with ba/gei/fang/bei utterance.

5.2.3 Ba Utterance4 In discourse with ba utterance, there are seven transition states of the backwardlooking center as shown in Table 5.2, namely CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION, CONTINUATION + RETAIN, CONTINUATION + SHIFT, RETAIN + CONTINUATION, RETAIN + RETAIN, RETAIN + SHIFT, and SHIFT + CONTINUATION. The transition state of CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION accounts for 65.22% of the discourse segments with ba utterance as the intermediate utterance. This transition state is most conducive to the maintenance of discourse coherence, so it is preferred. Specifically, in example (2) the Cb “Hai Ping” of Uba−1 continues to act as the Cb of Uba and its subsequent utterance—Uba+1 . In this state, only the topic5 (syntactic subject and semantic agent) participates in the transition of the backward-looking center. Therefore, we cannot see the role of other syntactic and semantic components in the transition process. (2)

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION: Uba−1: [Hai Ping] zai shoushi zhuo-shang de keben, Hai Ping ZAI gather table-on DE textbook U ba : [Ø] bing ba shouji fangjin bao li [Ø] and BA cell phone put-in bag-inside Uba+1: [Ø] zhunbei xiake. [Ø] prepare dismiss the class Lit. Uba−1: [Hai Ping] is gathering up the textbooks on the table, Uba: [Ø] putting the phone into the bag, Uba+1: [Ø] and ready to finish class.

4 From this section on, I will not provide the calculating process of the Cb transition state for each discourse segment I use as an example. 5 Topic in this study is defined as the semantic entity realized at the utterance-initial position. In Sect. 5.2.6, an explanation of this definition is provided.

The topic (also Cp) of Uba+1 is introduced into the discourse via the object of the predicate in Uba (also the recipient thematic role); there is also a ba object (bearing a theme role) in Uba

Pattern II: A…, A ba…V Brecipient , B…A…

The Cb of Uba is retained via the object of ba (bearing a theme role); there is no predicative object (recipient) in Uba The Cb of Uba is retained via the predicative object (bearing a recipient role); there is also a ba object (bearing a theme role) in Uba

Pattern II: A…, B ba…V Arecipient …, A…

The predicative object (bearing a recipient role) in Uba behaves as the Cb (also Cp) in Uba+1 (there are both recipient and theme roles in Uba )

Pattern II: A…, A ba…V Brecipient , B…

Pattern I: A…, B ba Atheme …, A…

The object of ba (bearing a theme role) in Uba behaves as the Cb (also Cp) in the subsequent utterance Uba+1 (there is no recipient role in Uba )

Pattern I: A…A ba Btheme …, B…

SHIFT + CON

RETAIN + SHIFT

The transition of Cb only involves the topic of Uba , which bears an agent role

The Cb of Uba−1 is retained via the ba object (bearing a theme role) in Uba The topic position (with an agent thematic role) introduces a new semantic entity, which in turn behaves as a shifted Cb (as well as Cp) in Uba+1 (there is no predicative object or recipient role in Uba )

Pattern II: A…, B ba Atheme …, B…

A…, B ba…, B……

The Cb of Uba−1 is retained via the object of the predicate (bearing a recipient role) in Uba The topic position (with an agent thematic role) introduces a new semantic entity, which in turn behaves as a shifted Cb (as well as Cp) in Uba+1 (there is a theme role in Uba )

Pattern I: A…, B ba… V Arecipient , B…

RETAIN + RETAIN A…, B ba Atheme V Crecipient , C…A… The Cb of Uba−1 is retained via the ba object (bearing a theme role) in Uba The topic (also Cp) of Uba+1 is introduced into the discourse via the object of the predicate in Uba (bearing a recipient role)

RETAIN + CON

CON + SHIFT

The topic (also the preferred center) of Uba+1 is introduced into the discourse via the object of ba (also the theme thematic role) in Uba . (There is no recipient or locative role in Uba )

Pattern I: A…, A ba Btheme …,B…A…

CON + RETAIN

Cb transition only involves the topic position semantic entity in ba utterance, which bears an agent thematic role. The other semantic entities do not participate in Cb transition

A…, A ba…V…, A…

CON + CON

A description of the patterns

Cb transition patterns

Cb transition states

Table 5.2 Cb transition patterns in discourse segments containing ba utterance

5.2 A Proposal of Cf Ranking in Chinese Discourse 151

152

5 Ranking of Forward-Looking Centers in Chinese

Next, let us focus on CONTINUATION + RETAIN: The RETAIN of the Cb means that the ba utterance inherits the Cb from the previous utterance Uba−1 , but the Cb is no longer the preferred center, which has the highest salience degree in Uba and its accessibility to the subsequent utterance correspondingly reduces. Taking (3) as an example, the preferred center of Uba−1 is “Xia Hong.” According to Constraint (c), the Cb of Uba is recognized as “Xia Hong.” Because this semantic entity occupies the utterance-initial topic position, it is also the preferred center of the utterance [i.e., Cb(Uba ) = Cb(Uba−1 ) and Cb(Uba ) = Cp(Uba )]. Therefore, the transition state from Uba−1 to Uba is CONTINUATION. Similarly, according to Constraint (c), the Cb of Uba+1 is still “Xia Hong”; however, since the Cb is realized at a nontopic position and is no longer a preferred center, the transition state of Uba –U ba+1 is RETAIN [i.e., Eq. Cb(Uba ) = Cb(Uba+1 ) and Eq. Cb (Uba+1 ) = Cp (Uba+1 )]. (3) CONTINUATION + RETAIN (pattern I) (Uba−2: [Xia Hong zhan-zai ditan-shang......]) Xia Hong stand-ZAI carpet-above Uba−1: [Ø] yikou Conghua xiangxia baihua weimiaoweixiao, one-mouth Conghua rural dialect reemerging U ba : [Ø] ba La La liangren dou-de xiao-dao siquhuolai [Ø] BA La La two people amused laugh to half dead Uba+1: liangren dou [Xia Hong] dao, ...... Two people tease Xia Hong say Lit. Uba-2: [Xia Hong] stands on the carpet, ..., U ba-1: [Ø] and does a pretty good imitation of Conghua dialect, Uba: [Ø] making La La and her colleague burst into laughter. Uba+1: These two are amused [Xia Hong] that, ……

The transition state CONTINUATION + RETAIN distinguishes between two different patterns. In pattern (I), the topic of Uba+1 (and also the preferred center) is introduced by the ba object, which plays the theme role in the utterance; meanwhile, there are no other thematic roles in Uba except for the agent and the theme. As shown in example (3), the ba object introduces the theme “La La liangren” (La La and her colleague), and this theme role is placed in the topic position in Uba+1 (as the subject acts as an agent), and the Cb of Uba takes a back seat in the object position and acts as a theme role in Uba+1 . In pattern (II), both a recipient and a theme role exist in Uba , as shown in (4).

5.2 A Proposal of Cf Ranking in Chinese Discourse

153

(4) CONTINUATION + RETAIN (pattern II) Uba−1: [Wang Qiang] dui Meigui xianran bu fuqi, Wang Qiang toward Meigui obviously not convinced U ba : ta cengjing ba he Meigui de butong yijian huibao gei zongjian Lisite, she once BA with Meigui DE different opinion report to director Liszt Uba+1: danshi Lisite you ba Wang Qiang de email zhuanfa hui gei Meigui chuli. but Liszt again BA Wang Qiang DE email forward back to Meigui handle Lit. Uba−1: [Wang Qiang] is obviously not convinced about Meigui, Uba: [She] once reported tthe different opinions of Meigui to the director Liszt, Uba+1: but Liszt forwarded Wang Qiang’s email back to Meigui to handle.

In this case, it is the recipient role “Lisite” (Liszt) that is placed in the topic position in Uba+1 (as the subject, it acts as the agent of Uba+1 ). In other words, “Lisite” is more discoursally salient than “he Meigui de butong yijian” (the different opinions of Meigui). There are two possible explanations for these two patterns: The first possibility: The salience degree of the predicate object is higher than the degree of the prepositional object, so it is the predicate object that is more accessible to the subsequent utterance; The second possibility: The salience degree of the recipient role is higher than the degree of the theme role, so it is the recipient role that is more accessible to the subsequent utterance.

Let us move on to CONTINUATION + SHIFT: The transition state of CONTINUATION + SHIFT means that Uba inherits the Cb from its previous utterance and this inherited semantic entity is no longer the Cb of Uba+1 . Taking discourse segment (5) as an example, the Cf list of Uba−1 is Cf : {Pamela, Shanghai Office, Executive Director}, where the preferred center is “Pamila” (Pamela) at the left end of the set. According to Constraint (c), the Cb of Uba is recognized as “Pamila” (Pamela), which is also the preferred center of Uba . In the Cf list of Uba , “Maiqi” (Maggie) is the only semantic entity that is realized in Uba+1 , so “Maiqi” (Maggie) is recognized as the backward-looking and preferred center of Uba+1 and the transition state from Uba to Uba+1 is SHIFT. (5) CONTINUATION + SHIFT (pattern I) Uba−1:[Pamila] shangren Shanghai ban xingzheng zhuguan hou, Pamela assume office Shanghai office administration director afterward U ba : [Ø] ba xiashu de zhuli Maiqi deng ren shoushi de fufutietie. BA subordinate DE assistant Maggie other people dispose DE mercilessly Uba+1: Maiqi tianxing poyouxie jieaobuxun, fenqi fankang. Maggie nature somehow rebellious rise up in resistance Lit. Uba−1: After [Pamela] took the post of the Administration Director of the Shanghai Office,Uba: [Ø] she consolidates the subordinate assistant, Maggie, and others. Uba+1: Maggie’s nature is quite intractable, and rises up against it.

Then the question is: When a Cb SHIFT occurs, who is the new Cb in Uba+1 ? The transition of CONTINUATION + SHIFT also presents two patterns, which

154

5 Ranking of Forward-Looking Centers in Chinese

exactly correspond to the two cases of CONTINUATION + RETAIN introduced above—that is: a. When there is no predicate object (recipient) in Uba , the theme/patient role in the object position of ba is placed in the most salient position in Uba+1 ; once the Cb undergoes a SHIFT, the shifted Cb is realized by the semantic entity introduced by the ba object (theme/patient). b. However, when both the predicate object (recipient) and the ba object (theme/patient) are present in Uba+1 , as shown in discourse segment (6), it is the recipient role “Lisite”(Liszt) that is placed in the topic position in Uba+1 . There are two explanations that could be provided for these two patterns, namely (a) the predicate object has a higher salience degree than the prepositional object, and is thus more accessible to the subsequent utterance; or (b) the recipient role has a higher salience degree than the theme/patient role, and is thus more accessible to the subsequent utterance. (6) CONTINUATION + SHIFT (Pattern II) Uba−2: [Wang Hong] benren duoshao juede La La cifan weimian taiguo hesuan, Wang Hong himself kind of think La La this time rather too profit Uba−1: ta zai “jianyi gongzi” yi lan li tian le 8,800. he at recommended salary one-column-inside fill in-LE 8,800 U ba : [Wang Hong] ba biaoge songqu gei Lisite, Wang Hong BA form send to Liszt shuo, ...... Uba+1: Lisite yi-kan mashang Liszt glance immediately say Lit. Uba−1: [Wang Hong] himself felt that Lala profited too cost-effectively, ...Uba−1:[He] filled 8,800 in the “recommended salary” column.Uba:[Wang Hong] sent the form to Liszt, Uba+1:Liszt had a glance and said immediately, …

I also observed these two patterns in the transition states of RETAIN + CONTINUATION/SHIFT. Briefly speaking, the transition states of the backward-looking center in the discourse segment involving ba utterance are summarized as follows: A. Cb CONTINUATION from Uba−1 to Uba and Cb SHIFT from Uba to Uba+1 rely on the utterance-initial topic position semantic entity function as the subject (bearing the agent role). B. Cb RETAIN from Uba−1 to Uba witnesses the following phenomena: • When there is a predicate object (recipient) and a ba object (theme/patient) in Uba , the backward-looking center of Uba−1 is retained in Uba by the predicate object (recipient); • When there is no predicate object (recipient) in Uba , the backward-looking center of the previous utterance retains in ba utterance via the object of ba (theme/patient); C. Cb RETAIN/SHIFT from Uba to Uba+1 witnesses the following phenomena:

5.2 A Proposal of Cf Ranking in Chinese Discourse

155

• When ba utterance has both a predicate object (recipient) and ba object (theme/patient), the preferred center in Uba+1 is introduced into the discourse by the predicate object (recipient) in ba utterance; • When there is no predicate object (recipient) in ba utterance, the preferred center in Uba+1 is introduced into the discourse by the object of ba (theme/patient); D. The salience ranking of semantic entities in ba utterance can be influenced by the thematic hierarchy or by the grammatical function; that is, the recipient role has a higher degree of salience than the theme/patient role, or the predicate object has a higher degree of salience than the prepositional object. The more salient a semantic entity is, the more accessible it is to the subsequent utterance. In order to eliminate the overlap between the thematic role and the grammatical function, I further investigate the salience degree of the recipient role as a nonpredicate object: If the recipient is placed in the position of the prepositional object, is its degree of salience still higher than the theme/patient?

5.2.4 Gei Utterance According to Eight Hundred Words in Modern Chinese (Lü 1980), the word gei can be used both as a verb (example 7a) and as a preposition (example 7b). (7)

a. Na ben shu wo gei ni le. That-CL book I give you LE (I have given you the book.) b. Gei ta qu ge dianhua. to him make a phone call (Give him a call.)

Regardless of whether gei is used as a verb or a preposition, the thematic role of the gei object is unchanged—i.e., a recipient. Meanwhile, there could also be a theme/patient in the utterance, whose grammatical function is always the predicate object, for instance the “shu” (book) in sentence (7a), and the “dianhua” (phone) in (7b). This is exactly the opposite of the ba utterance examined earlier: When the word gei is used as a preposition, the recipient role is a prepositional object, and the grammatical function of the theme/patient role is a predicate object. The discourse segment with gei utterance I examined includes both the verb gei and the preposition gei, which allows us to identify whether the salience ranking is affected by the thematic hierarchy or by the grammatical function, i.e., whether the salience ranking of the preposition gei object is still higher than that of the predicate gei object. Let me first provide an overview of the Cb transition patterns in discourse segments containing gei utterance. The Cb transition in discourse segments containing gei utterances witness only five different states as shown in Table 5.3. Data show that discourse segments with

156

5 Ranking of Forward-Looking Centers in Chinese

Table 5.3 Cb transition patterns in discourse segments containing gei utterance Cb transition states Cb transition patterns

A description of the patterns

CON + CON

A…, A gei B…, A…

Cb transition only involves the topic position semantic entity (bearing an agent role) of Ugei ; the other semantic entities do not participate in Cb transition

CON + RETAIN

A…, A gei B…, B…A… The topic position Cp in Ugei+1 is introduced into the discourse via the recipient role in Ugei , which can be realized as either the object of the predicate or the object of a preposition

CON + SHIFT

A…, A V C gei B, B…

The recipient role in Ugei behaves as the shifted Cb as well as Cp in Ugei+1 , and all the gei in Ugei are prepositions

RETAIN + CON

A…, B gei A, A…

The Cb of Ugei is retained via the recipient role, and gei can be either a verb or a preposition in these cases

RETAIN + SHIFT A…, B gei A…, B…

The Cb of Ugei−1 is retained via the recipient role in Ugei ; meanwhile, the topic position introduces a new semantic entity (bearing an agent role) into the discourse, which in turn behaves as the new shifted Cb (also Cp) in Ugei+1 . There are both verb gei and preposition gei in these cases

Ugei give more transition states between CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION (34.75%) and CONTINUATION + SHIFT (32.20%). Under CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION, only the topic (syntactic subject and semantic agent) participates in the transition of Cb, which is the same as what has been observed from discourse segments with ba utterances. As shown in example (8), the Cb of Ugei−1 “caiwu fuzong Kebide” (Finance VP Cobide) continues to act as the Cb in both Ugei and Ugei+1 . (8) CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION Ugei−1: Caiwu fuzong Kebide dui ci hen manyi, Finance VP Cobide toward this very satisfied U gei : xie le ge youjian gei Hehaode he Lisite, write-LE one email to Howard and Liszt Ugei+1: biaoyang La La. praise La La Lit. Ugei−1: Finance VP Cobide was very satisfied with this, Ugei : and wrote an email to Howard and Liszt, U gei+1: to praise La La.

However, in discourse segments with Ugei as the intermediate utterances, the other transition states, such as RETAIN + CONTINUATION and CONTINUATION + SHIFT, help us to answer the questions that ba utterance cannot answer—that is,

5.2 A Proposal of Cf Ranking in Chinese Discourse

157

whether the influencing factor of the salience ranking of the Cf list members is the thematic hierarchy or the grammatical function. Through discourse segment (9), I notice that if there is a Cb RETAIN from Ugei−1 to Ugei , the Cb is retained by the recipient role in Ugei (the role can be realized either as a predicate object or a prepositional object); and if Cb RETAIN occurs between Ugei and its subsequent utterances Ugei+1 , the preferred centers (topic position semantic entity) of Ugei+1 are also introduced via the recipient role in Ugei (which can also be realized as a predicate object or a preposition object). In example (9), the Cb of Ugei−1 “La La” is the semantic entity with the highest salience degree in Cf (Ugei−1 ). It is further realized in Ugei , but no longer behaves as the most salient semantic entity; i.e., Cb RETAIN occurs from Ugei−1 to Ugei . It is worth noting that gei in this example is a preposition; therefore, “ta” (she = La La) as the recipient is actually a prepositional object; at the same time, the predicate object “dianhua” (phone) in the utterance acts as a theme role. This shows that even if the thematic role is grammatically degraded, “ta” (she = La La) is still more advanced in Cf ranking and is more accessible to the following utterance. (9)

RETAIN + CONTINUATION Ugei−1: [La La] pingchang nande lundao he Lisite jianghua, La La usually rare have one’s turn with Liszt talk U gei : jinfan laoban qinzi gei ta da dianhua, this time boss personally to her make a phone call shouchongruojing. Ugei+1: ta she feel extremely flattered Lit. Ugei−1: [La La] usually has a rare turn to speak with Liszt, Ugei: Today, the boss personally called [her], U gei+1: [She] was flattered, …

(10) CONTINUATION + SHIFT yiquan Ugei−2: Hehaode dao xianchang zhuan le Howard go scene go around-LE one-round Ugei−2: [Ø] kan zai yan li, [Ø] see ZAI eye-in da dianhua gei liang-ge buzuowei de bumen de tou’er. U gei : ziji self make a call to two-CL inactive DE department DE head Ugei+1: Buyihuier, liangge ren dou qichuanxuxu de pao-dao banjia xianchang lai. a while two-CL people both out of breath DE run-to move scene come Lit. Ugei−2: [Howard] went around the scene, Ugei−1: [Ø] observed carefully, Ugei: [he] made a call to the two heads of departments about dereliction of duty. Ugei+1 : After a while, both of them ran to tthe moving scene breathlessly.

The CONTINUATION + SHIFT state further proves the above argument: First, among all the discourse segments with Ugei as the intermediate utterances I have investigated, the CONTINUATION + SHIFT combination is the second most frequently used transition state; second, in all discourse segments of this state, the word gei functions as a preposition; third, when a Cb SHIFT occurs between Ugei

158

5 Ranking of Forward-Looking Centers in Chinese

and Ugei+1 , the new Cb in Ugei+1 is the semantic entity introduced by the object of gei, which bears the recipient role and functions as a prepositional object, as shown in example (10). In (10), the word gei in Ugei is a preposition, and the semantic entity “the two heads of departments about dereliction of duty” is the prepositional object. Although there is a predicate object “dianhua”(telephone)(theme) in Ugei , the transition of the Cb from Ugei to Ugei+1 is achieved by the recipient role introduced by the prepositional gei object; that is, the recipient in Ugei is ranked first in the Cf list and is recognized as the backward-looking and preferred center in its subsequent utterance. In all 38 (32.20%) discourse segments with a CONTINUATION + SHIFT transition state, the recipient roles are all introduced into discourses by the prepositional gei objects and further act as the new backward-looking and preferred centers in Ugei+1 . This indicates that the influencing factor of the Cf (salience) ranking should be the thematic hierarchy, rather than the grammatical function. In order not to draw hasty conclusions, I further study discourse segments with fang utterances. My discussion so far has only focused on the thematic roles of recipient and theme/patient, which is far from being comprehensive; so there are two purposes of incorporating fang utterance: One is to examine the other thematic roles, such as locative and agent, the other is to reconfirm whether the salience degree of the topic position semantic entity is indeed the highest and is not affected by its position in the thematic hierarchy.

5.2.5 Fang Utterance There are seven different combinations of transition states observed from discourse segments with fang utterances, as shown in Table 5.4. Thus, the thematic roles involved in the CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION transition are diverse—the semantic entity as the backward-looking center can be the agent, the theme, or the locative (as shown in 11–13). This again proves that the semantic entity in the topic position has the highest degree of salience, and its salience is not affected by its own thematic role. In examples (11–13), the backward-looking center of the fang utterance is followed by the agent “Doris” (11), the theme “gaogenxie” (high-heel shoes) (12), and the locative “Gu Yuan pangbian” (besides Gu Yuan) (13). Thus, for the first time, this chapter separates the topic position from the agent role. In addition, among the seven combinations of transition states, four of them involve both the theme/patient and the locative roles in fang utterances, namely CONTINUATION + SHIFT, RETAIN + CONTINUATION, RETAIN + SHIFT, and SHIFT + SHIFT. In other words, these discourse segments provide conditions for us to examine the difference in discourse salience between theme/patient and locative role in a given discourse. Through my observation of these four transition states, I find the following interesting phenomena:

5.2 A Proposal of Cf Ranking in Chinese Discourse

159

Table 5.4 Cb transition patterns in discourse segments containing fang utterance Cb transition states

Cb transition patterns

CON + CON

A…, A fang (xia/zai/dao)…, A… The transition of Cb is realized via the utterance-initial topic, which could bear a thematic role of agent, theme, or locative

CON + RETAIN

Pattern I: A…, A fang-zai/dao Blocative , B…A…

The Cp in the topic position of Ufang+1 is introduced into the discourse via the locative role of Ufang , and there is no theme role in Ufang

Pattern II: A…, A fang-zai/dao Blocative , C…A…

The topic position of Ufang+1 introduces a new semantic entity, which behaves as the Cp of the utterance; Cb is placed in a secondary position in Ufang+1

Pattern I: A…, Alocative fang-zhe Btheme , B…, or A…, A zai Blocative fang Ctheme , C…

The theme role in Ufang behaves as the new Cb (also Cp) in Ufang+1

Pattern II: A…, A fang-zai Blocative …, B…or A…, A zai Blocative fang Ctheme , B…

The locative role in Ufang behaves as the new Cb (also Cp) in Ufang+1

RETAIN + CON

A…, B fang Atheme zai Clocative …, A…

The Cb of Ufang−1 is retained in Ufang via the theme role, and there is a locative role in Ufang

RETAIN + SHIFT

Pattern I: A…, Bagent …Atheme fang(zai) Clocative …, B…

The Cb of Ufang−1 is retained via the theme role of Ufang ; the topic position of Ufang introduces a new semantic entity (bearing an agent role), which in turn behaves as the shifted Cb (also Cp) in Ufang+1

Pattern II: A…, Bagent …Alocative fang Ctheme …, B…

The Cb of Ufang−1 is retained via the locative role of Ufang ; the topic position of Ufang introduces a new semantic entity (bearing an agent role), which in turn behaves as the shifted Cb (also Cp) in Ufang+1

SHIFT + CON

A…B, B…fang (xia/zai)…, B…

The transition of Cb relies only on the agent role of the two adjacent utterances, and the new Cb in Ufang is introduced via the predicative object of Ufang-1

SHIFT + SHIFT

A…B…, B … Ctheme fang-jin Dlocative …, C…

The Cb of Ufang is introduced into the discourse via the predicative object of Ufang−1 , and that of Ufang+1 is introduced via the theme role of Ufang

CON + SHIFT

A description of the patterns

160

5 Ranking of Forward-Looking Centers in Chinese

A. When a Cb SHIFT occurs from Ufang to its subsequent utterance (11 cases in total), if both theme/patient and locative roles are available in Ufang , the shifted Cb in Ufang+1 is introduced into the discourse via the locative role of Ufang in only two cases, as (14) shows, whereas in six cases, the shifted Cb in Ufang+1 is introduced into the discourse via the theme/patient role in Ufang , as shown in (15). a. In example (14), there are both locative “zai wo mianqian-de chaji shang” (on the coffee table in front of me) and theme roles “yi-bei shui” (a glass of water) in Ufang ; the subsequent utterance Ufang+1 selects “wo” (I)—a constituent in the locative phrase from Ufang to be the new backward-looking and preferred center. b. In Ufang of example (15), there is a theme role “yi-ge dawan” (a big bowl) and a locative role “meiren mianqian” (in front of everyone), and the subsequent utterance selects the theme role “a big bowl” to be the new backward-looking and preferred center after SHIFT. B. In the other three cases, the shifted Cb of Ufang+1 is introduced into the discourse via the locative role of Ufang on the premise of lacking a theme/patient role in Ufang , as shown in (16). In example (16), only the locative role “Gong Ming mianqian” (in front of Gong Ming) is available in Ufang , and it is this role that acts as the shifted backward-looking center in Ufang+1 . (11)

Ufang−1: Doris kan-le-kan limian youya er jingmei de zhici, xiao-le-xiao, Doris have a look inside elegant and fine DE speech smile U fang : [Ø] suishou fangjin suizhiji li, conveniently put-in shedder-inside Ufang+1: ranhou andong anniu. then press button Lit. Ufang−1: [Doris] looked at the elegant and fine speech inside and smiled, Ufang: [Ø] putting it into the shredder, U fang+1: [Ø ] Then pressed the button.

(12)

Ufang−1: Wo pangui zuo-zai kongkuang-de T-tai bianshang, I cross-leg sit-at spacious-DE T-stage edge U fang : gaogenxie tuo-xialai fang-zai-le yibian. high-heel shoes take off put-ZAI-LE aside Ufang+1: Touding shi huangse-de dadeng. over head is yellow-DE headlight Lit. Ufang−1: [I] sit cross-legged on the edge of the spacious T-stage, Ufang: [(My) highheel shoes] were taken off and put aside.Ufang+1: [Above (my) head] there is a yellow light.

5.2 A Proposal of Cf Ranking in Chinese Discourse

(13)

(14)

161

Ufang−1: [Gu Yuan] tang-zai chuang-shang erduo-li sai-zhe ersai, Gu Yuan lie on bed-above ear-inside plug-ZHE earplugs U fang : pangbian fang-zhe iPad. beside put-ZHE iPad deng. Ufang+1: [Gu Yuan] gandao youren kai-le Gu Yuan feel someone turn on-LE light Lit. Ufang−1: [Gu Yuan] lay on the bed with earplugs in his ears, Ufang: [beside (Gu Yuan)] there was an iPad. U fang+1: [Gu Yuan] felt someone turn on the light, … Ufang−1: [Shi Jing] wusheng-de qishen liqu, Shi Jing silently-DE stand up leave U fang : xuan you wusheng-de zai wo mianqian-de chaji-shang fang-le yi-bei shui. soon again silently ZAI me front-DE coffee table-above put-LE one-CL water Ufang+1: Wo xin-li yizhen nuhuo. I heart-inside a burst rage Lit. Ufang−1: [Shi Jing] silently got up and left, Ufang: [Ø] at one point silently put “a cup of water” on the coffee table in front of me. Ufang+1: I have a rage in my heart, …

(15)

Ufang−1: Chifan shi, dajia zuo-cheng yi-quan, have dinner time, everyone sit-form one-circle U fang : meiren mianqian fang-zhe yi-ge da wan, everyone in front of put-ZHE one-CL big bowl Ufang+1: wan-li zhuangman liejiu. bowl-inside fill-full spirits Lit. Ufang−1: When eating, [everyone] sat in a circle, Ufang: [in front of each person] there are big bowls, Ufang+1: the bowls are filled with spirits.

(16)

Ufang−1:Dang wo zai wu-fenzhong nei cong louxia Xingbake ba kabuqinuo mai-shanglai, when I at five-minute in from downstairs Starbucks BA cappuccino buy-up U fang : fang dao Gong Ming mianqian de shihou, put-at Gong Ming in front of DE time yi-kou, ranhou jiu taiqi tou. Ufang+1: ta zhishi he-le he only drink-LE one-mouth, then just raise head Lit. Ufang−1: When [I] bought cappuccino from Starbucks downstairs in five minutes, U fang: [Ø] and put it in front of Gong Ming, U fang+1 : He just took a sip, then raised his head,…

In the transition state of RETAIN + CONTINUATION, the Cb is retained by the theme/patient role in Ufang , even though the locative role exists in Ufang (example 17). Similarly, in the transition state of SHIFT + SHIFT, the semantic entity acts as theme/patient in Ufang and is chosen to be the backward-looking and preferred center in Ufang+1 after a Cb SHIFT takes place (example 18). Ufang in example (17) and (18) has both theme roles (“pizi” (leather) and “yi-ge jidan” (an egg)) and locative roles

162

5 Ranking of Forward-Looking Centers in Chinese

(“zai huo shang” (on the fire) and “jin you li” (into the oil)): in (17), Cb RETAIN from Ufang−1 to Ufang is realized through the theme role “pizi” (leather), which continues to act as the backward-looking center in Ufang+1 ; in (18) the Cb SHIFT from Ufang to Ufang+1 is also realized by the semantic entity “an egg” introduced by the theme role in Ufang , i.e., “yi-ge jidan” (an egg) acts as the new backward-looking center of Ufang+1 after the Cb SHIFT takes place. (17)

Ufang-1: Pidai bei wo duo-cheng-le xiao-kuai, pixie ye cai-cheng yi-pianpian de pige, belt BEI I cut to LE small-piece shoe also tire to one-piece-piece DE leather fang-zai huo-shang kao. U fang : ranhou wo jiang pizi chuan-qilai then I take leather string together put-ZAI fire-above grill zuixian fa-chulai-de yi-gu jiaochou-de weidao,...... Ufang+1: Pizi leather first sent-out-DE one-CL rubber-odor-DE smell Lit. Ufang-1:[Belt] was cut into small pieces by me, [shoes] were also torn into pieces of leather, Ufang: and then I put the [leather] on the fire .Ufang+1: The leather comes out with a bitter smell at first,...

(18)

Ufang-1: Wo ba weizhi rang-gei ta, I BA position give-to her yi-ge jidan fang-jin you-li, U fang : ta momo-de mali-de ke-le she silently quickly smash-LE one-CL egg put-into oil-inside zai ruyou-li guqi pao. Ufang+1: danqing egg white ZAI hot-oil-inside bubble Lit. Ufang-1: I gave the position to [her], Ufang:[she] silently and quickly smashed an egg into the oil, Ufang+1: and the egg white bubbled in the hot oil.

The transition state of RETAIN + SHIFT presents two different patterns, which simultaneously involve three different thematic roles in Ufang —agent, patient, and locative. In pattern (I), the backward-looking center of Ufang-1 is retained in Ufang at the theme position, and the topic position of Ufang introduces a new semantic entity as the agent, which in turn becomes the backward-looking and preferred center after a SHIFT in Ufang+1 (example 19). In pattern (II), the backward-looking center of Ufang−1 is retained in Ufang at the locative position, and a new semantic entity is introduced in the topic position of the Ufang as the agent, which acts as the backwardlooking and preferred center after a SHIFT in Ufang+1 (example 20). In these two discourse segments, Cb RETAIN from Ufang−1 to Ufang depends on the theme “wode shou” (my hand) and the locative “hundun-li” (in the wontons) in Ufang , and in these two fang utterances, the topic positions with the highest salience degree are used to introduce new semantic entities “ta” (she) and “wo” (me), which serve as the backward-looking and preferred centers after a Cb SHIFT takes place in Ufang+1 .

5.2 A Proposal of Cf Ranking in Chinese Discourse

(19)

163

Ufang-1: Wo ba yi-zhi shou shen-gei ta, I BA one-CL hand stretch-to her U fang : ta yong liang-zhi shou bao-zhe wo-de shou fang-zai xiong-qian she use two-CL hand hold-ZHE my hand put-at chest-front Ufang+1: ta haizi yiyang xinmanyisu-de shui-le. she child like contented DE sleep-LE Lit. Ufang-1: [I] stretch a hand to her, Ufang: She puts [my hand] with both hands [on the chest], Ufang+1: (She) slept as a child with satisfaction.

(20)

yi-ceng youzhi. Ufang-1: Liang feng yi-chui, huntun wan-shang ning-le cool wind one blow wonton bowl-above condense-LE one-layer grease huntun-li fang-le shao lajiao you, U fang : Wo wang I toward wonton-inside put-LE spoon chili paste Ufang+1: ba youwangwang, honghuhu-de liang-wan huntun dou hulun tun-le xiaqu. BA oily red-DE two-bowl wonton both whole swallow-LE down Lit. Ufang-1: The cool breeze blows, a layer of grease is condensed on the [wonton] bowl. U fang: I put [a spoon of chili paste] in wontons, Ufang+1: Ø swallowed [two bowls of oily and red wontons].

The first impression given by the above description is that in discourse segments with fang utterances, both the theme role and the locative role in Ufang can function to RETAIN the original backward-looking centers, or introduce new semantic entities to prepare for a possible Cb SHIFT. So which thematic role is more salient? After examining all the discourse segments one by one, it is found that there are 11 cases retaining the original Cb or introducing new semantic entities to prepare for a possible Cb SHIFT via the theme/patient role in Ufang ; the remaining seven cases complete these two transition tasks through the locative role in Ufang , and in five of these seven cases, the theme/patient roles are missing in Ufang . In other words, the theme/patient role and the locative role coexist in only 13 fang utterances, among which 11 complete the two transition tasks through theme/patient roles, whereas only two cases complete these two tasks through locative roles. Although in the current data under investigation, the number of discourse segments belonging to these four types of Cb transition states is not adequate, a strong tendency can still be seen from the ratio of 11:2—i.e., compared to locative roles, theme/patient roles are more discoursally salient. In future work, I will increase the number of discourse segments I am studying in order to see stronger tendencies or other possibilities. Finally, let us return to the two patterns of RETAIN + SHIFT. In fact, the same two patterns are observed in discourse segments containing ba/gei utterances, and the observation from discourse segments containing fang utterances conforms to my expectation that the semantic entities in the topic position are of the highest degree of salience. When Cb CONTINUATION or SHIFT occurs, the semantic entity is more likely to be selected as the continued Cb or the new Cb after a SHIFT. In addition, it can be seen via the transition state of CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION that

164

5 Ranking of Forward-Looking Centers in Chinese

the salience degree of the topic position entity is not affected by the thematic role of that entity.

5.2.6 Bei Utterance Chapter 3 examines the discourse function of the Chinese bei-passive construction and finds that Cb CONTINUATION is the preferred transition state in discourse segments with bei utterance. The utterance-initial semantic entity in bei utterance plays an irreplaceable role in continuing the Cb from the previous utterance and passing it to the subsequent utterance. It is also proposed that there is a division of labor between the discourse function of bei utterance and that of bei object; i.e., the function of bei utterance is to preserve the Cb so as to maintain discourse coherence, whereas the function of bei object is to introduce a new possible Cb or to RETAIN the original Cb so as to make room for a new one at a more salient position. As a matter of fact, this division of labor should be between bei topic, i.e., the topic position semantic entity in bei utterance, and bei object. In what follows, I will further look into more discourse segments containing bei utterance and further prove the conclusion I drew in Chap. 3, as well as providing more evidence for the claims I make based on the analysis of ba/gei/fang utterance in the previous sections (Table 5.5). It should be noted that the topic of Ubei overlaps with the theme/patient role, rather than the agent role, which is different from Uba or Ugei . Nonetheless, this topic position semantic entity is still regarded as the most salient one. First and foremost, identifying the utterance-initial position topic as the most salient entity is out of a typological consideration. As has been mentioned in Sect. 5.1, the topic (or the utterance-initial semantic entity) is more salient than the other semantic entities and is placed in the left-most position of the Cf template in most languages, such as English (subject), Japanese, Greek (topic), Turkish (Agent), and German (VF). As a topicprominent language, it is legitimate to postulate that Chinese also recognizes topic as the most salient (and discoursally most accessible) semantic entity in discourse. Nonetheless, this reason is not solid enough for us to accept unconditionally. Actually, the other reason for such treatment has already been indicated in Sect. 3.2.2 of Chap. 3 and will be further specified here. Identifying the topic position semantic entity as the most salient one can also provide a very coherent discourse. The calculation I conducted in this book shows how the constraints and algorithms of Centering Theory can help derive the Cb transition states from one utterance to the next in a given discourse segment. Via such calculation, the distinct ways in which a particular sentential structure, such as the disposal ba construction, ditransitive gei sentence, or locative fang sentence, etc., participates in and contributes to a discourse can be revealed. All the quantitative information being received in this book is based on the premise of regarding the topic position semantic entity as the most salient one. Under this premise, data from Chaps. 3, 4, and 5 show that the CONTINUATION of Cb is the preferred (as per quantity) transition state and maintains discourse

5.2 A Proposal of Cf Ranking in Chinese Discourse

165

Table 5.5 Cb transition patterns in discourse segments containing bei utterance Cb transition states

Cb transition patterns

A description of the patterns

CON + CON

A…, A bei…V…, A…

The CONTINUATION of Cb only involves the topic position semantic entity, which could be either a theme or a patient. No other thematic roles participate in Cb transition

CON + RETAIN

Pattern I: The Cp of Ubei+1 is introduced into the A…, A bei B…, B…A… discourse via the bei object, which bears an agent thematic role Pattern II: The topic position of Ubei+1 introduces A…, A bei B…, C…A… a new semantic entity into the discourse, which functions as the Cp of Ubei+1 , while the Cb is placed in a secondary position

CON + SHIFT

Pattern I: A…A bei B…, B…

The object of bei (bearing an agent role) in Ubei functions as the Cb (also Cp) in Ubei+1

Pattern II: A…, A bei B…, C…

The topic position of Ubei+1 introduces a new Cb (also Cp) into the discourse

RETAIN + CON/RETAIN A…, B bei A…, A…/ The Cb of Ubei-1 is retained via the A…, B bei A…, C…A… agent (bei object) in Ubei and is continued or retained in Ubei+1 in the topic position or a secondary position RETAIN + SHIFT

A…, B bei A…, B…

The Cb of Ubei-1 is retained via the agent (bei object) in Ubei , while the topic position of Ubei introduces a new semantic entity, which in turn behaves as the shifted Cb (also Cp) of Ubei+1

SHIFT + CON/RETAIN

A V B, B bei…, B…/ A V B, B bei…, …B

The object position of Ubei-1 introduces a new semantic entity into the discourse, which behaves as the shifted Cb (also Cp) in Ubei , and is continued or retained in Ubei+1

coherence to the largest extent. By rewriting all the bei utterances into their active counterpart and comparing the Cb transition states between bei discourses and the rewritten ones, Sect. 3.2.2 shows that the former CON + CON transition state is changed to RETAIN + CON (66/70) or even RETAIN + ROUGH SHIFT (4/70), and that the former CON + RETAIN transition state now presents a RETAIN + RETAIN (4/11) or RETAIN + SMOOTH SHIFT (7/11), which means the rewriting jeopardizes Cb CONTINUATION, and in turn discourse coherence. What is being changed via such rewriting is the semantic role in the topic position, so from a discourse coherence perspective, the topic position semantic entity should be assigned the highest degree of salience, and its salience should not be affected by the thematic role of the entity that occupies this position. Once a topic is selected, it will be removed from

166

5 Ranking of Forward-Looking Centers in Chinese

the thematic hierarchy, and its thematic role does not participate in further ranking. What I am proposing is a two-tier Cf template: For all the semantic entities within a given utterance of a discourse segment, the topic position is picked out first and is ranked at the left-most position of the Cf template; the remaining semantic entities are ranked according to their positions in the thematic hierarchy, and the partially ordered set thus gained should be the Cf template for all the forward-looking centers in the utterance. The application of this proposal to discourse segments with bei utterance is as follows: Step one: Recognize the topic position patient role as the most salient entity and place it at the left-most position in the Cf template. Step two: List all the remaining semantic entities according to their ranking in the thematic hierarchy, i.e., agent > recipient > locative. In the discourse segments containing bei utterance I have examined, all Cb RETAIN from Ubei−1 to Ubei is realized via the agent role in Ubei , and all the RETENTION or SHIFT of Cb from Ubei to Ubei+1 is also completed through the semantic entity being introduced as the agent of Ubei as shown in examples (21–24). Discourse segment (21) witnesses a CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION transition, which is completed via no other semantic entity but the topic position patient/theme. Similarly, the RETENTION of Cb from Ubei−1 to Ubei observed in example (22) relies on the agent position “Pamila” (Pamela), which is being continued in Ubei+1 . The Cb of Ubei in example (23) is retained, which means the preferred center is replaced by another semantic entity, and this replacement, “A bing” (the soldier), is introduced into the discourse through the agent role at the beiobject position in Ubei . Last but not least, the SHIFT of Cb between Ubei and Ubei+1 in (24) is made possible by the semantic entity “Zhou Xin” introduced at the bei object position, i.e., the agent. Thus, it is evident that the CONTINUATION of Cb between Ubei and its preceding or following utterance are both realized through the topic position patient/theme, whereas the RETENTION or SHIFT of Cb relies on the agent role that occupies the bei object position. This observation once again verifies my proposal, i.e., that the topic position semantic entity has the highest degree of salience and is more accessible to the subsequent discourse. The rest of the semantic entities within an utterance are ranked according to their positions within the thematic hierarchy. (21) Ubei-1: [La La] shui-de zheng xiang, La La sleep-de just sweet Ubei : [Ø] bei ta chao-xing-le, BEI him wake up-LE Ubei+1:[Ø] keshui-de hen, [Ø] sleepy-DE very Ubei+2: [Ø] mimihuhu zhong buman-de dunang dao, ...... [Ø] in a daze querulously mumble say Lit. La La was sleeping soundly, and then awakened by him. She was so sleepy and mumbled querulously in a daze that, … (CON+CON)

5.2 A Proposal of Cf Ranking in Chinese Discourse

167

(22) Ubei-2: [Pamila] budan bing meiyou bangzhu Zhou Liang, Pamela not only not help Zhou Liang xingzailehuo, Ubei-1: [Ø] faner [Ø] on the contrary gloat gouqiang hai mei fa fazuo, U bei : jieguo Zhou Liang bei [Ø] qi-de result Zhou Liang BEI [Ø] angry-DE very much yet no way lose temper jiangxia shenjia lai qiu Hailun, ...... Ubei+1: (Zhou Liang) ningke Zhou Liang would rather lower social status come beg Helen Lit. Pamela did not offer any help to Zhou Liang; quite on the contrary, she even took pleasure in his misfortune. As a result, Zhou Liang was burned up but still cannot lose his temper. He would rather lower himself to seek help from Helen. (RETAIN+CON) (23) Ubei-2: Gu Zi yijing you xie zuiyi, Gu Zi already have some feeling of drunk che men. Ubei-1: [Ø] manmu chouhen tui-kai full eye hatred push open car door U bei : [Ø] que bei shenbian-de abing lazhu. [Ø] but BEI around-DE soldier hold on che-shang buyao chumian. Ubei+1: A bing shiyi [ta] liu-zai soldier hint him stay-ZAI car-on do not come out Lit. Gu Zi has already got drunk. He forced the car door open with hatred, however he was caught by the soldier who was by his side. The soldier mo tioned to him to stay in the car and not to come out. (RETAIN+SHIFT) (24) Ubei-1: [Li Shifu] benlai yao pei tamen yiqi qu Minzhengju, Master Li originally want accompany them together go to Civil Affairs Bureau U bei : dan zai yiyuan menkou shang jichengche shi, bei Zhou Xin weiwan-de lanzhu. but ZAI hospital gateway up taxi time BEI Zhou Xin politely-DE stop Ubei+1:Zhou Xin shuo,...... Zhou Xin say Lit. Master Li intended to go to the Civil Affairs Bureau with them, but was stopped by Zhou Xin politely when he was taking the taxi at the gateway of the hospital. Zhou Xin said, … (CON+SHIFT)

5.3 Interim Summary In Chinese discourse segments containing ba/gei/fang/bei utterances, the transition of the backward-looking center depends on specific semantic entities in the utterances and presents a rather neat pattern. First of all, by describing Cb transition states in discourse segments containing ba utterances, I find that both Cb CONTINUATION among Uba−1 , Uba , and Uba+1 , and Cb SHIFT from Uba to Uba+1 depend on the topic

168

5 Ranking of Forward-Looking Centers in Chinese

position semantic entity in the utterances involved. When there is a predicate object (recipient) and a prepositional object (theme/patient) in ba utterance, the Cb of Uba−1 is retained via the predicate object (recipient) in ba utterance; however, when there is no predicate object (recipient) in ba utterance, the Cb of Uba−1 is retained by the object of ba (theme/patient). The Cb transition states from ba utterances to their subsequent utterances present exactly the same pattern. These observations can either be interpreted from a thematic perspective or a grammatical perspective. Therefore, I further examined the salience degree of the recipient role as nonpredicate object via a discourse segment containing gei utterance. The word gei in Chinese can be used as either a verb or a preposition. In either case, the gei object is assigned a recipient role, which is not subject to change. Moreover, there could be theme/patient roles in gei utterances, which allow us to separate the recipient role from the predicate object. Specifically, when gei is used as a preposition, the recipient role is a prepositional object, and the grammatical function of the theme/patient role is a predicate object. This is exactly the opposite of the case in ba utterance. The results of this chapter show that in discourse segments containing gei utterance with a CONTINUATION + SHIFT transition state, the recipient roles are introduced into the discourse by the object of the preposition gei and act as the backward-looking and preferred centers after a Cb SHIFT in Ugei+1 . This indicates that the factor that determines Cf ranking in a given utterance of Chinese discourse is the thematic hierarchy and the specific position in which each semantic entity takes in this hierarchy. Subsequently, this chapter further examines discourse segments containing fang and bei utterances, with the aim of observing the discourse behavior of the other thematic roles and their discourse salience. In the discourse segments I studied, both theme/patient and locative roles may RETAIN the original backward-looking centers or introduce new semantic entities in fang utterances. In terms of quantity, when both theme/patient and locative roles are available to the discourse, the above-mentioned two transition tasks are mostly realized through the theme/patient role—that is, the theme/patient role is more discoursally salient than the locative role. By scrutinizing fang and bei utterances, it also allows us to separate the topic position semantic entity from the agent role, which makes it more evident that the topic position is of the highest degree of discourse salience. In summary, the chapter draws the following conclusions in regard to the ranking of forward-looking centers in Chinese discourse: i.

The semantic entity of the topic position has the highest degree of salience and the highest degree of discourse accessibility, which is not affected by the thematic role of the entity occupying this position. ii. Setting aside the topic, the salience degree of all the remaining semantic entities in a given utterance is determined by the thematic hierarchy and the position in which these semantic entities take in this hierarchy. iii. The salience ranking of forward-looking centers in Chinese discourse is a twotier system: The first tier confirms the utterance-initial semantic entity—realized as the topic—to be of the highest degree of discourse salience; the second tier ranks the remaining semantic entities according to their distinct position in

5.3 Interim Summary

169

Table 5.6 Cf template in Chinese Tier 1

Topic Tier 2

Thematic hierarchy

Agent > Recipient > Theme/Patient > Locative (topic position entity does not join this ranking)

the thematic hierarchy—the closer the semantic entity is to the left end of the ranking, the more discoursally salient it is, as shown in Table 5.6. This chapter calculates the backward-looking center transition states of ba/gei/fang/bei utterances with their preceding utterances, as well as those with the subsequent utterances, and finds that the discourse salience of the semantic entities in a given utterance is decided by their thematic roles and their distinct position in the thematic hierarchy. However, the topic position entity is not affected by such ordering and is always the most discoursally salient entity. The conclusion of this chapter allows us to describe the discourse coherence of Chinese in a rather concrete fashion, which provides a new perspective for Chinese discourse analysis. Nonetheless, only four thematic roles are discussed at the current stage, namely agent, recipient, theme/patient, and locative, and the discourse behavior of the other three roles, namely goal, experiencer, and instrument, is still not clear. In future research, I will expand the sentence type in order to provide a more comprehensive analysis of Cb transition states and the discourse salience of different semantic entities in Chinese discourse.

References Brennan, S. E., Friedman, M. W., & Pollard, C. J. (1987). A centering approach to pronouns. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 155–162). Bresnan, J. (2001). Lexical-functional syntax. Oxford: Blackwell. Cote, S. (1998). Ranking forward-looking centers. In M. A. Walker, A. K. Joshi, & E. F. Prince (Eds.), Centering theory in discourse. Chapter 4 (pp. 55–70). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Eugenio, B. D. (1990). Centering theory and the Italian pronominal system. In COLING90: Proceedings 13th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Helsinki, pages 270–275. Eugenio, B. D. (1998). Centering in Italian. In M. A. Walker, A. K. Joshi, E. F. Prince (Eds.), Centering theory in discourse. Chapter 7 (pp. 115–138). Oxford: Oxford University Press Kuno, S. (1973). The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. Lü, S. (Ed.). (呂叔湘編). (1980). Xiandai hanyu babai ci 現代漢語八百詞[ Eight Hundred Words in Modern Chinese]. Beijing: The Commercial Press. Miltsakaki, E. (2001). Centering in Greek. In Proceedings of the 15th International Symposium on Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, Thessaloniki. Rambow, O. (1993). Pragmatics aspects of scrambling and topicalization in German. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Centering Theory in Naturally-Occurring Discourse. Institute for Research in Cognitive Science, Philadelphia. Turan, Ü. D. (1995). Subject and object in Turkish discourse: A centering analysis. Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania. Institute for Research in Cognitive Science report IRCS-96-13.

170

5 Ranking of Forward-Looking Centers in Chinese

Turan, Ü. (1998). Ranking forward-looking centers in Turkish: Universal and language-specific properties. In M. A. Walker, A. K. Joshi, & E. F. Prince, (Eds.), Centering theory in discourse. Chapter 8. Oxford: Oxford University Press, (pp. 139–160). Walker, M. A., Iida, M., & Cote, S. (1990). Centering in Japanese discourse. In COLING90: Proceedings 13th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Helsinki, pp. 1–8. Walker, M. A., Iida, M., & Cote, S. (1994). Japanese discourse and the process of centering. Computational Linguistics, 20(2), 193–232. Wuyun, S., & Pan, H. (accepted). Hanyu yupianzhong yuyi shiti de pianzhang kejixing (The Discoursal Accessibility of Semantic Entities in Chinese Discourse). Language and Linguistics.

Chapter 6

Concluding Remarks

Abstract This chapter concludes the book from three perspectives: the theoretical refinements, the main findings, and contributions from discourse analyses, and finally some further issues to be addressed. Overall, this book devotes itself to a formal discourse analysis of Chinese. It scrutinizes the particular correlation between Centering Theory and concrete Chinese discourse. This book makes a number of observations and proposals that have not been noted or properly explained by previous discourse studies on similar issues. This suggests that data analysis of Chinese discourse can help develop and refine the theoretical skeleton of centering. In turn, the calculation algorithm of Centering Theory can help to present a more comprehensive portrait of the Chinese language—its discourse, syntax, and semantics. Keywords Centering Theory · Chinese discourse · Formal analysis · Interface This book conducts three monographic studies of Chinese discourse under the framework of a refined Centering Theory, namely the discourse function of the Chinese bei passive and disposal ba construction, and the accessibility of different semantic entities in Chinese discourse. I would like to conclude this book from three perspectives: the theoretical refinements, the main findings and contributions from discourse analyses, and finally some further issues to be addressed.

6.1 Refinement to Centering Theory Centering Theory is a computational semantic theory concerned with local coherence and semantic entity salience. It differentiates various levels of discourse units, such as center, utterance, and discourse segments, within a given discourse. Each level of unit plays its unique role in naturally produced discourse, and together, they construct a coherent discourse while making a distinction between the salient discourse entity and the lesser ones. The current version of Centering Theory suffers from some

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 S. Wuyun, Where Centering Meets Chinese Discourse, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8666-8_6

171

172

6 Concluding Remarks

definitional vulnerabilities as the literature review shows in Chap. 2. These vulnerabilities partially result from typological discrepancies between different languages. In other words, previous conclusions and proposals being drawn from discourse of other languages might not be equivalently applicable for Chinese analysis. For this reason, Chap. 2 further develops Centering Theory by taking more Chinese discourse data into consideration, which makes it a more competent theoretical framework for further data analyses. Below is a summary of the refinement. In line with the Centering Theory framework developed by Grosz et al. (1983, 1995), I redefined two crucial notions based on the discoursal facts from both English and Chinese, and further provided a series of modifications on the substantial constraints of the theory as repeated below: DEFINITION of center: Centeris a semantic entity that has its syntactic realization in an overt form or as a pro, but not necessarily as a full NP constituent. DEFINITION of utterance: A new utterance is triggered by either an update of Cbor an update of temporal/aspectual information with regard to the current Cb. For each utterance Ui in a discourse segment D consisting of utterances U1… Um: Constraint 1: • There is precisely one backward-looking center Cb(Ui, D), except for U1, if only linear discourse relations are involved in D; • The backward-looking center Cb(Ui, D) is subject to branching if a hierarchical discourse relation is involved in D. Constraint 2: • Every element of the forward-looking center set, Cf (Ui, D), must be syntactically and directly realized in Ui either overtly or covertly. Constraint 3: • The backward-looking center Cb(Ui, D) is the highest-ranked element of Cf (Ui−1, D) that is realized in Ui, and this highest-ranked element is annotated as CpR (Ui−1, D), thus Cb(Ui, D) = CpR (Ui−1, D). As for the two rules of Centering Theory, namely the pronoun rule and the ordering of transition states, I propose to treat both of them as tendencies/preferences rather than regulations, which is further supported by data analyses in Chaps. 3, 4, and 5. Chapter 3 shows that 137 out of 141 discourse segments with bei utterance support the zero-anaphora rule and the pronoun rule; it also notes that on rare occasions, an overt NP form is adopted (four out of 141) as a Cb when another semantic entity in the utterance is realized via zero anaphora. The number of violations is 7/193 for discourse segments with ba utterance, and all instances of violation involve the participation of the deictic “wo” (I). So I put these violations down to the special

6.1 Refinement to Centering Theory

173

characteristic of deixis. Though meager, there are discourse segments that do not follow the zero-anaphora and the pronoun rule. So this rule is not infrangible and is better regarded as a strong tendency instead of a compulsory regulation. In regard to the second rule, a fifth transition state is proposed in Chap. 2, namely Cb branching, and is placed between Cb RETAIN and Cb SHIFT considering its contribution to discourse coherence within the ordering of transition states, i.e., CONTINUATION > RETENTION > BRANCHING > SMOOTH SHIFT > ROUGH SHIFT. In Chaps. 3 and 4, these refined definitions and modified constraints are further tested. By applying the refined Centering Theory in the analysis of Chinese discourse with bei and ba utterance, it is proved that most of the definitions and postulations are valid and efficacious for the data analysis concerning discourse coherence and the role different semantic entities play in discourse and the distinct contributions they make, which suggests that the refined Centering Theory has a strong explanatory power. By adopting this calculating tool, this book has successfully examined the following three discoursal issues of Chinese: 1. The contribution of the bei passive construction to discourse coherence and its implication for the syntactic structure of the bei passive (Chap. 3); 2. The contribution of the disposal ba construction to discourse coherence and how discourse analysis can contradict the ba construction as antipassive (Chap. 4); and 3. The discoursal accessibility of semantic entities in Chinese discourse (Chap. 5). The conclusions of these three chapters constitute the main findings and contributions of this book.

6.2 Main Findings and Contributions Chapter 3 scrutinized the Cb transition states between a bei utterance and its preceding one, as well as that between a bei utterance and its subsequent one in the narrative mode of discourse. Besides presenting a general picture of each transition state, a detailed illustration of these transition state combinations is rendered, based on which different patterns of Cb transition are discovered. Judging from the patterns and the amount of instances that belong to each transition state, it is obvious that Cb CONTINUATION is the preferred transition state, and within this pattern, the subject of bei utterance plays the key role in maintaining the Cb from its current utterance to the next. I thus proposed that one function of bei utterance in Chinese discourse is to preserve the Cb, so as to maintain the coherence of discourse. Further, data analysis shows a division of labor between the discourse function of bei utterance and that of bei object. To be more specific, the function of bei utterance as claimed above is to preserve the Cb so as to maintain discourse coherence, whereas the function of the object of bei is to introduce a new possible Cb or to retain the original Cb so as to make room for a new one at a more salient position.

174

6 Concluding Remarks

Chapter 3 also implemented a quantitative study concerning voice alternation by rewriting all bei utterances into the active voice. Via the rewriting, it is found that such alternation of voice prohibited Cb preservation as well as discourse coherence. Hence, compared to the active voice, the bei utterances that are originally adopted in these discourse segments functioned much better in maintaining discourse coherence. On the basis of discourse analysis, I further provided evidence to falsify the structure separation approach toward long vs. short bei passives. It is found that discourse segments with overt or null objects of bei all prefer Cb CONTINUATION, that both types of objects can function as the backward-looking center so as to maintain discourse coherence, and that they can both function as the antecedent of a pronoun in the subsequent utterance. Their difference lies only in the fact that an overt object of bei may provide a possible Cb for the following utterance, while the role of a null object is only to maintain Cb CONTINUATION, and hence keep the fluency of the information flow in question. With this data analysis, I supported the traditional “ellipsis approach” regarding long and short bei passives, namely that long and short bei passives have the same syntactic structure—with a syntactic bei object, and their difference only lies in their different roles in discourse. Chapter 4 provides further support for the findings from Chap. 3. By carrying out a similar discourse analysis under the refined Centering Theory framework, I have scrutinized similar parameters to those in Chap. 3, i.e., the transition states, the patterns of each combination, the division of labor between ba utterance and ba object, etc. Data analysis shows that an overwhelming majority of ba utterances function to maintain the backward-looking center inherited from their previous utterance so as to maximize the coherence of discourse. The object of ba, competing with the predicative object bearing the recipient role in ba utterance, serves to retain the Cb and makes preparation for a SHIFT of Cb. Besides the discoursal study on ba utterance, I have also seriously considered the possibility of incorporating the ba construction into the framework of antipassives. However, evidence from syntax, semantics, and discourse suggested that this might not be a good idea. Syntactically, I have shown that the pre-posed ba object is not always the internal argument of the transitive verb, and even if the object is demoted to an oblique status, it is not in itself an antipassive object. In addition, the demoted object of antipassive constructions or incorporations can never take a wide scope over the external argument, nor can it undergo a quantifier raising movement; however, it is always possible for a ba object. Semantically, all core semantic features of the antipassive construction are missing from the Chinese ba construction, the namely imperfective aspect of the verb, the low affectedness degree of the object, and a nonvolitional meaning of the agent subject. Last but not least, data analysis in this chapter showed that the ba object participates actively in discourse CONTINUATION, which, according to Polinsky (2005), is not possible for an antipassive object. Thus, I come to the conclusion that it is better not to analyze the Chinese ba construction in line with the antipassive. The syntactic analysis of the bei passive and the comparison of the ba construction with the antipassive in these two chapters have achieved another purpose of this book.

6.2 Main Findings and Contributions

175

Table 6.1 Cf template in Chinese (reappearing 5.6) Tier 1

Topic Tier 2

Thematic hierarchy

Agent > Recipient > Theme/Patient > Locative (Topic position entity does not join this ranking)

It is my intention to demonstrate that the merit of formal discourse analysis can go beyond a discoursal level. It can shed light on both syntax and semantics by providing evidence concerning the discourse behavior of some sentential patterns that has long been examined by syntacticians and semanticists. It is only via such a comprehensive perspective that we can truly understand language. Triggered by some findings related to the Cf ranking of ba utterance in Chap. 4, Chap. 5 further calculates the Cb transition states between ba/gei/fang/bei utterance and the preceding utterance, as well as the subsequent utterance. The results showed the following patterns: (1) Cb CONTINUATION is realized by the semantic entity in the topic position of all utterances; (2) the thematic hierarchy decides the prominence of the remaining semantic entities; (3) since the prominence of the topic is not affected by the thematic hierarchy, a two-tier Cf ranking is proposed. The first tier recognizes the topic as the most prominent semantic entity and ranks it in first place in the Cf -ranking list, while the rest are ranked according to their positions in the thematic hierarchy, as shown in Table 6.1. The Cf template thus gained decides the discoursal salience as well as the discoursal accessibility of all semantic entities in an utterance. I thus proposed that the discourse salience of the semantic entities in a given utterance is decided by their thematic roles and their distinct position in the thematic hierarchy. However, the topic position entity is not affected by such ordering and is always the most discoursally salient entity. The conclusion allows us to describe the discourse coherence of Chinese in a rather concrete fashion, which provides a new perspective for discourse analysis of Chinese. This study also indicates that all sentential patterns can be put under the examination of discourse. The direct, indirect, and prepositional object in a sentence, as well as the agent, recipient, theme/patient, and locative thematic role can all bear a certain discoursal function, and in turn, contribute to discourse coherence in their own way. Together with the other two chapters, it aims to answer the question I raised at the beginning of this book: What can close discourse analysis bring to the understanding of language?

Overall, this book devotes itself to a formal discourse analysis of Chinese. It scrutinizes the particular correlation between Centering Theory (a computational semantic theory) and concrete Chinese discourse. I have made a number of observations and proposals that have not been noted or properly explained by previous discourse studies on similar issues. This suggests that data analysis can help develop and refine the theoretical skeleton of centering. Most importantly, the calculation algorithm of Centering Theory can help to present a more comprehensive portrait of the Chinese language—its discourse, syntax, and semantics.

176

6 Concluding Remarks

6.3 Further Issues One major contribution of this book is that I have discovered an inter-sentential function of the Chinese bei passive and disposal ba construction. As summarized above, bei and ba utterance could bridge the utterances preceding and following them via the pre-bei/ba topic or the object of bei/ba. Based on this observation, I proposed that besides the well-studied intra-sentential function, the bei passive and disposal ba construction also function inter-sententially. This is only a first attempt toward the functions of these two constructions from a cross-sentential perspective. Such “pivotal” functions observed in the bei passive and disposal ba construction may exist pervasively in Chinese discourse with special constructions; further investigations in this regard are therefore called for. Actually, Chap. 5 has already attempted to incorporate double-object gei and locative fang constructions into this framework. Unfortunately, no further discussion is carried out due to the limited space. The data analysis parts of this book scrutinized Chinese discourse segments containing bei, ba, gei, and fang utterances. Nevertheless, the basic SVO sequence is not incorporated into the study, which also jeopardizes the comprehensiveness. For future studies, comparisons among SVO sequence, bei passive, the disposal ba construction, and other special sentence patterns could be made in order to discover the specific motivation for the adoption of each construction in a certain discourse. Moreover, only four thematic roles are discussed at the current stage to sketch a Cf template in Chinese, namely agent, recipient, theme/patient, and locative; and it is still not clear in regard to the discourse behavior of the other three roles, namely goal, experiencer, and instrument. In future research, I hope to expand the sentence type in order to provide a more comprehensive analysis of Cb transition states and the discourse salience of different semantic entities in Chinese discourse. I have emphasized on several occasions in this book that my study focuses on discourse segments consisting of three adjacent utterances. The main reason for choosing such a micro-scope is twofold. Firstly, my study interest is the roles that bei and ba/gei/fang utterances play in connecting discourse, so such a micro-scope is exactly what I need. Secondly, Centering Theory is a theoretical tool for calculating discourse coherence in an utterance-by-utterance manner. Thus, however large the scale of the study object is defined, the analysis must be carried out from a microperspective. However, this does not mean that a discourse study from a macroperspective is not necessary. On the contrary, a macro-discourse study is important in that it reveals a more comprehensive picture of the overall Cb transition states of a discourse from utterance to utterance, which might involve a variety of special constructions. It is based on this comprehensiveness that we start to learn how to make a discourse coherent. ~ The road ahead will be long and our climb will be steep. ~

References

177

References Grosz, B. J., Joshi, A. K., & Weinstein, S. (1983). Providing a unified account of definite noun phrases in discourse. In Proceedings for the 21st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Cambridge, Massachusetts. Grosz, B. J., Joshi, A. K., & Weinstein, S. (1995). Centering: A framework for modeling the local coherence of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 21(2), 203–225. Polinsky, M. (2005). Antipassive Constructions. In M. Haspelmath, M. S. Dryer, D. Gil, & B. Comrie (Eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structure. Oxford University Press, pp. 438–439.

Appendix A

Referential relations between Cb and non-Cb entities of discourse segments with ba utterance. Original No.

Transition states

Uba−1

Sub. of ba

BA

Obj. of ba

Uba+1

114

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

Pronoun1

01

Ba

Reflexive1

01

69

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

Pronoun1

01

Ba

Pronoun2

Pronoun1

53

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

Pronoun1

01

Ba

Pronoun2

01

87

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

01

01

Ba

Pronoun2

01

103

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

Overt1

01

Ba

Pronoun2

01

104

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

Pronoun1

01

Ba

Pronoun2

01

115

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

01

01

Ba

Pronoun2

01

151

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

Pronoun1

01

Ba

Pronoun2

01

121

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

Overt1

01

Ba

Pronoun2

01

123

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

01

01

Ba

Pronoun2

Reflexive1

161

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

Pronoun1

01

Ba

Pronoun2

01

163

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

Pronoun1

01

Ba

Pronoun2

01

176

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

Pronoun1

01

Ba

Pronoun2

01

177

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

Pronoun1

01

Ba

Pronoun2

Pronoun1

196

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

Pronoun1

01

Ba

Pronoun2

01 (continued)

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 S. Wuyun, Where Centering Meets Chinese Discourse, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8666-8

179

180

Appendix A

(continued) Original No.

Transition states

Uba−1

Sub. of ba

BA

Obj. of ba

Uba+1

211

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

Overt1

01

Ba

Pronoun2

01

245

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

Overt1

01

Ba

Pronoun2

01

1

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

pronoun1

01

Ba

Overt2

Pronoun1

2

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

Pronoun1

01

Ba

Overt2

Pronoun1

8

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

Pronoun1

01

Ba

Overt2

01

9

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

Pronoun1

01

Ba

Overt2

Pronoun1

12

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

Pronoun1

01

Ba

Overt2

Overt1

16

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

Overt1

01

Ba

Overt2

01

17

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

01

01

Ba

Overt2

01

19

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

Overt1

01

Ba

Overt2

01

22

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

Pronoun1

01

Ba

Overt2

01

23

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

01

01

Ba

Overt2

01

32

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

Pronoun1

01

Ba

Overt2

01

34

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

01

01

Ba

Overt2

Pronoun1

35

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

01

01

Ba

Overt2

01

39

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

Overt1

01

Ba

Overt2

01

50

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

01

01

Ba

Overt2

Pronoun1

52

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

Pronoun1

01

Ba

Overt2

01

58

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

01

01

Ba

Overt2

Pronoun1

64

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

01

01

Ba

Overt2

Pronoun1

66

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

01

01

Ba

Overt2

01

72

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

Pronoun1

01

Ba

Overt2

01

76

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

Pronoun1

01

Ba

Overt2

01

77

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

01

01

Ba

Overt2

01

79

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

Pronoun1

01

Ba

Overt2

01 (continued)

Appendix A

181

(continued) Original No.

Transition states

Uba−1

Sub. of ba

BA

Obj. of ba

Uba+1

84

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

Pronoun1

01

Ba

Overt2

01

85

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

Pronoun1

01

Ba

Overt2

Pronoun1

95

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

Pronoun1

01

Ba

Overt2

01

97

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

01

01

Ba

Overt2

01

99

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

Pronoun1

01

Ba

Overt2

01

109

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

01

01

Ba

Overt2

01

125

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

01

01

Ba

Overt2

01

129

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

01

01

Ba

Overt2

Pronoun1

130

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

01

01

Ba

Overt2

01

133

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

Pronoun1

01

Ba

Overt2

01

134

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

Overt1

01

Ba

Overt2

01

136

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

Pronoun1

01

Ba

Overt2

01

139

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

Pronoun1

01

Ba

Overt2

01

143

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

01

01

Ba

Overt2

Pronoun1

145

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

Pronoun1

01

Ba

Overt2

01

146

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

Pronoun1

01

Ba

Overt2

01

149

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

01

01

Ba

Overt2

01

152

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

Pronoun1

01

Ba

Overt2

01

153

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

Pronoun1

01

Ba

Overt2

01

156

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

Pronoun1

01

Ba

Overt2

01

158

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

01

01

Ba

Overt2

01

166

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

Pronoun1

01

Ba

Overt2

01

189

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

01

01

Ba

Overt2

01

192

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

01

01

Ba

Overt2

01

200

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

01

01

Ba

Overt2

01 (continued)

182

Appendix A

(continued) Original No.

Transition states

Uba−1

Sub. of ba

BA

Obj. of ba

Uba+1

208

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

Overt1

01

Ba

Overt2

Pronoun1

214

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

Pronoun1

01

Ba

Overt2

01

217

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

Pronoun1

01

Ba

Overt2

01

229

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

Pronoun1

01

Ba

Overt2

01

230

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

Pronoun1

01

Ba

Overt2

01

247

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

Pronoun1

01

Ba

Overt2

01

248

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

01

01

Ba

Overt2

01

250

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

Pronoun1

01

Ba

Overt2

01

252

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

Pronoun1

01

Ba

Overt2

01

257

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

Pronoun1

01

Ba

Overt2

01

142

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

01

Pronoun1

Ba

Pronoun2

01

226

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

01

Pronoun1

Ba

Pronoun2

01

13

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

Pronoun1

Pronoun1

Ba

Overt2

01

30

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

0+1

Pronoun1

Ba

Overt2

Pronoun1

44

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

Overt1

Pronoun1

Ba

Overt2

01

51

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

01

Pronoun1

Ba

Overt2

Pronoun1

54

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

01

Pronoun1

Ba

Overt2

01

57

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

Pronoun1

Pronoun1

Ba

Overt2

01

59

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

Pronoun1

Pronoun1

Ba

Overt2

Pronoun1

74

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

01

Pronoun1

Ba

Overt2

01

80

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

Pronoun1

Pronoun1

Ba

Overt2

01

81

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

Overt1

Pronoun1

Ba

Overt2

01

83

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

01

Pronoun1

Ba

Overt2

01

117

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

Pronoun1

Pronoun1

Ba

Overt2

01

120

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

Pronoun1

Pronoun1

Ba

Overt2

01 (continued)

Appendix A

183

(continued) Original No.

Transition states

Uba−1

Sub. of ba

BA

Obj. of ba

Uba+1

154

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

01

Pronoun1

Ba

Overt2

Pronoun1

174

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

01

Pronoun1

Ba

Overt2

01

184

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

Pronoun1

Pronoun1

Ba

Overt2

01

191

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

01

Pronoun1

Ba

Overt2

01

195

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

Pronoun1

Pronoun1

Ba

Overt2

01

220

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

01

Pronoun1

Ba

Overt2

01

232

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

01

Pronoun1

Ba

Overt2

01

239

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

Pronoun1

Pronoun1

Ba

Overt2

01

21

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

01

Overt1

Ba

Overt2

01

26

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

01

Overt1

Ba

Overt2

Pronoun1

27

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

01

Overt1

Ba

Overt2

01

224

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

Pronoun1

Overt1

Ba

Overt2

01

242

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

Overt1

Overt1

Ba

Overt2

Pronoun1

25

CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION

01

Overt1

Ba

Pronoun2

01

7

CONTINUATION + RETAIN

01

01

Ba

Pronoun2

02 …pronoun1

70

CONTINUATION + RETAIN

Overt1

01

Ba

Pronoun2

Pronoun2 … overt1

3

CONTINUATION + RETAIN

Overt1

01

Ba

Overt2

Pronoun3 …pronoun1

4

CONTINUATION + RETAIN

Overt1

01

Ba

Overt2

Pronoun3 …pronoun1

235

CONTINUATION + RETAIN

01

Pronoun1

Ba

Overt2

Pronoun3 …overt1

82

CONTINUATION + SMOOTH SHIFT

Pronoun1

01

Ba

Pronoun2

Overt3

122

CONTINUATION + SMOOTH SHIFT

Pronoun1

01

Ba

Pronoun2

Overt3

43

CONTINUATION + SMOOTH SHIFT

01

01

Ba

Overt2

Overt3

89

CONTINUATION + SMOOTH SHIFT

Pronoun1

01

Ba

Overt2

Pronoun3

106

CONTINUATION + SMOOTH SHIFT

01

01

Ba

Overt2

Pronoun3

113

CONTINUATION + SMOOTH SHIFT

01

01

Ba

Overt2

Pronoun3 (continued)

184

Appendix A

(continued) Original No.

Transition states

Uba−1

Sub. of ba

BA

Obj. of ba

Uba+1

168

CONTINUATION + SMOOTH SHIFT

Pronoun1

01

Ba

Overt2

Pronoun3

170

CONTINUATION + SMOOTH SHIFT

01

01

Ba

Overt2

Overt3

138

CONTINUATION + SMOOTH SHIFT

Pronoun1

Pronoun1

Ba

Overt2

Pronoun3

193

CONTINUATION + SMOOTH SHIFT

01 …pronoun2

Overt1

Ba

Pronoun2

Overt3

207

CONTINUATION + SMOOTH SHIFT

01

Overt1

Ba

Overt2

Pronoun3

18

CONTINUATION + SMOOTH SHIFT

Overt1

01

Ba

Overt2

Pronoun3

37

CONTINUATION + SMOOTH SHIFT

01

01

Ba

Overt2

Pronoun3

107

CONTINUATION + SMOOTH SHIFT

Pronoun1

01

Ba

Overt2

Overt3

185

CONTINUATION + SMOOTH SHIFT

Overt1

01

Ba

Overt2

Pronoun3

127

CONTINUATION + SMOOTH SHIFT

Pronoun1

01

Ba

Pronoun2

02

157

CONTINUATION + SMOOTH SHIFT

01 …pronoun2

01

Ba

Pronoun2

Pronoun2

188

CONTINUATION + SMOOTH SHIFT

Overt1

01

Ba

Pronoun2

Pronoun2

213

CONTINUATION + SMOOTH SHIFT

01

Pronoun1

Ba

Overt2

Overt2

223

CONTINUATION + SMOOTH SHIFT

01

01

Ba

Pronoun2

Pronoun2

249

CONTINUATION + SMOOTH SHIFT

Pronoun1 … Pronoun2

01

Ba

Overt3

Pronoun2

199

CONTINUATION + ROUGH SHIFT

Overt1

Overt1

Ba

Pronoun2

Overt3 …pronoun2

48

CONTINUATION + 0

Overt1

01

Ba

Overt2

63

CONTINUATION + 0

01

01

Ba

Overt2

96

CONTINUATION + 0

01

01

Ba

Overt2

100

CONTINUATION + 0

Pronoun1

01

Ba

Overt2

101

CONTINUATION + 0

01

01

Ba

Overt2

118

CONTINUATION + 0

01

01

Ba

Overt2

132

CONTINUATION + 0

Pronoun1

01

Ba

Pronoun2

140

CONTINUATION + 0

Pronoun1

01

Ba

Overt2

148

CONTINUATION + 0

01

01

Ba

Overt2 (continued)

Appendix A

185

(continued) Original No.

Transition states

Uba−1

Sub. of ba

BA

Obj. of ba

180

CONTINUATION + 0

01

01

Ba

Overt2

Uba+1

241

CONTINUATION + 0

01

01

Ba

Overt2

10

0+ CONTINUATION

Pronoun1

Ba

Pronoun2

Pronoun1

91

0+ CONTINUATION

Pronoun1

Ba

Overt2

01

256

0+ CONTINUATION

Pronoun1

Ba

Overt2

01

24

RETAIN + CONTINUATION

01 …overt2

02

Ba

Pronoun1

Pronoun1

14

RETAIN + CONTINUATION

Pronoun1

Pronoun2

Ba

Pronoun1

Pronoun1

126

RETAIN + CONTINUATION

01

Pronoun2

Ba

Pronoun1

Pronoun1

15

RETAIN + CONTINUATION

Overt1… overt2

Overt2

Ba

Pronoun1

Overt1

61

RETAIN + CONTINUATION

Pronoun1 …overt2

Overt2

Ba

Pronoun1

Pronoun1

78

RETAIN + CONTINUATION

Pronoun1

Overt2

Ba

Pronoun1

Pronoun1

105

RETAIN + CONTINUATION

Overt1

Overt2

Ba

Pronoun1

Pronoun1

124

RETAIN + CONTINUATION

Pronoun1

Overt2

Ba

Pronoun1

Pronoun1

162

RETAIN + CONTINUATION

01

Overt2

Ba

Pronoun1

Pronoun1

7

RETAIN + CONTINUATION

Pronoun1 …overt2 …overt3

03

Ba

Overt2

Pronoun1

5

RETAIN + CONTINUATION

Pronoun1

Pronoun2

Ba

Overt3

Pronoun1

36

RETAIN + CONTINUATION

Pronoun1 … pronoun2

Pronoun2

Ba

Overt3

Pronoun1

110

RETAIN + CONTINUATION

Pronoun1 … Pronoun2

Pronoun2

Ba

Overt3

Pronoun1

112

RETAIN + CONTINUATION

01

Pronoun2

Ba

Overt3

Pronoun1

181

RETAIN + CONTINUATION

Overt1

Pronoun2

Ba

Overt3

Overt1

40

RETAIN + RETAIN

01

Overt2

Ba

Overt3

Overt4 …pronoun1

29

RETAIN + SMOOTH SHIFT

01

Pronoun2

Ba

Pronoun1

02

71

RETAIN + SMOOTH SHIFT

Overt1 … Pronoun2

Pronoun2

Ba

Pronoun1

02

137

RETAIN + SMOOTH SHIFT

Pronoun1

Pronoun2

Ba

Pronoun1

02

169

RETAIN + SMOOTH SHIFT

Pronoun1

Pronoun2

Ba

Pronoun1

02 (continued)

186

Appendix A

(continued) Original No.

Transition states

Uba−1

Sub. of ba

BA

Obj. of ba

Uba+1

198

RETAIN + SMOOTH SHIFT

Overt1

Pronoun2

Ba

Pronoun1

Pronoun2

244

RETAIN + SMOOTH SHIFT

Pronoun1

Pronoun2

Ba

Pronoun1

Pronoun2

251

RETAIN + SMOOTH SHIFT

Overt1

Pronoun2

Ba

Pronoun1

02

254

RETAIN + SMOOTH SHIFT

Pronoun1… Pronoun2

Pronoun2

Ba

Pronoun1

Pronoun2

206

RETAIN + SMOOTH SHIFT

01

Overt2

Ba

Pronoun1

02

221

RETAIN + SMOOTH SHIFT

Overt1

Pronoun2

Ba

Overt1

Pronoun2

92

RETAIN + SMOOTH SHIFT

Pronoun1

Pronoun2

Ba

Overt3

02

73

RETAIN + ROUGH SHIFT

01

Overt2

Ba

Pronoun1

Pronoun1 …pronoun2

222

RETAIN + ROUGH SHIFT

Overt1

Pronoun2

Ba

Overt1

Pronoun1.。。pronoun2

6

SMOOTH SHIFT + CONTINUATION

Pronoun1

Pronoun2

Ba

Overt3

02

182

SMOOTH SHIFT + CONTINUATOIN

Overt1

Pronoun2

Ba

Overt3

02

234

SMOOTH SHIFT + CONTINUATION

Overt1

Pronoun2

Ba

Overt3

02

108

SMOOTH SHIFT + CONTINUATION

Overt1

Overt2

Ba

Overt3

02

144

SMOOTH SHIFT + CONTINUATION

01

Overt2

Ba

Overt3

02

171

SMOOTH SHIFT + CONTINUATION

Overt1

Overt2

Ba

Overt3

02

238

SMOOTH SHIFT + CONTINUATION

Pronoun1

Overt2

Ba

Overt3

02

201

ROUGH SHIFT + CONTINUATION

Overt1 …overt2

Overt3

Ba

Overt2

Overt2

236

ROUGH SHIFT + CONTINUATION

Pronoun1 … Pronoun2

Pronoun2

Ba

Overt3

Pronoun1

42

SMOOTH SHIFT + RETAIN

Overt1

Pronoun2

Ba

Overt3

Overt4 …pronoun2

227

SMOOTH SHIFT + SMOOTH SHIFT

Overt1

Overt2

Ba

Overt3

Overt1

228

SMOOTH SHIFT + SMOOTH SHIFT

pronoun1

Overt2

Ba

Overt3

Pronoun1

164

SMOOTH SHIFT + SMOOTH SHIFT

Pronoun1

Pronoun2

Ba

Overt3

Overt3

197

SMOOTH SHIFT + SMOOTH SHIFT

Pronoun1

Overt2

Ba

Overt3

Overt3

165

SMOOTH SHIFT + SMOOTH SHIFT

Overt1

Pronoun2

Ba

Overt3

Overt4

194

SMOOTH SHIFT + SMOOTH SHIFT

Pronoun1

Pronoun2

Ba

Overt3

Overt4 (continued)

Appendix A

187

(continued) Original No.

Transition states

Uba−1

Sub. of ba

BA

Obj. of ba

Uba+1

205

ROUGH SHIFT + SMOOTH SHIFT

Overt1 …pronoun2

Overt3

Ba

Overt4

03

240

ROUGH SHIFT + SMOOTH SHIFT

01 …overt2

Pronoun3

Ba

Overt4

03

28

Cb Branching

Pronoun1+2

Overt1

Ba

Overt3

Pronoun1+2

Appendix B

“Violators” against the Zero-anaphora Rule in narrative ba data. 1. Ø mai-wan bai shaqun, Shi Jing you ba wo ladao xifu guitai, Ø buy-finish white dress Shi Jing again BA I draw to suit counter dian-le yi-tao zui gaoji-de xifu. buy_LE one_CL most exclusive-DE suit After buying her white dress, Shi drew me to the suit counter and ordered a most exclusive suit for me. (CONTINUATION + CONTINUATION) 2. Lao Lin yi-jia zhengzai chifan, jian wo jinai, Lao Lin mang ba wo rang-jin wu-li. Lin’s family in course of dining see I enter Lao Lin rush up to BA I invite into room Baokuo shangwu na-ge xiaohuozi zainei-de yidui lanzai zheng zai chouyan, hecha, liaotian the gangsters including the guy from this morning ZAI smoking drink tea chat Lao Lin’s family were having dinner. He rushed up to invite me in when he saw me enter. The gangsters, including the guy from this morning, were chatting with each other in the inner room—smoking and drinking tea. (CONTINUATION + SHIFT) 3. Qita lanzai ye bei jingcha yiyi buhuo luxu ya shangche, jingcha ba wo he nage shoushang-de jingcha songdao yiyuan, daifu gei wo jiandan qingli-le chuangmian. (CONTINUATION + ROUGH SHIFT) 4. ……zhao-zhao yi-ge yan dianshang xi, diyi kou jiu ba wo qiang-de kesou, Find one_CL cigarette light smoke first puff already BA I cause coughing Wo ehenhen-de huitou kanta, ...... I savagely look back at her I found a cigarette and lit it. The first puff started me coughing. I looked back at her savagely,…… (RETAIN + CONTINUATION) 5. Li Bailing congcong erlai.Wo ba zuowan-de shi dui Li Bailingjiang-le yibian. Li tingwan, … © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 S. Wuyun, Where Centering Meets Chinese Discourse, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8666-8

189

190

Appendix B

Li Bailing hastily come I BA what happened last night to LI tell Li listen_finish chenyin-le pianke, ...... Muse_LE for a moment Li hurried to us and I told her what happened last night. She mused for a while when I finished, …… (RETAIN + CONTINUATION) 6. Pang guniang shang lou lai-le. Wo guang gu-zhe yingfu jingcha, zao ba pang guniang fat girl come upstairs_LE I concentrate on play with policemen have BA fat girl wang-le. Dang qiaomen sheng xiangqi shi wo he jingcha yiyang mangran. forget when knocking start I and policemen the same be wildered That fat girl came upstairs. I was concentrating on playing with the policemen and had already forgotten her. So when I heard knocking, I was as bewildered as those policemen. (RETAIN + SHIFT) 7. Jingcha men zou shi tian yijing liang-le, ……wo ba jingcha men song-dao jipuche pang Policemen leave day come I BA policemen walk to jeep beside qinre-de he tamen huishou gaobie. Tamen lia ba xingdou gaosu-le wo, yige xing Zhao, ... heartily with them shake hands they two both BA name tell_LE me one name Xiao When the policemen left it was already dawn. I walked them to their jeep and shook hands with them heartily. Both of them told me their names—one was Xiao, and …… (RETAIN + ROUGH SHIFT).