Relating Causative and Passive ＂Bun＂ Constructions in Hakka

客語「分」字構式中致使與被動的關聯

10.6503/THJCS.2015.45(2).01

黃漢君(Han-Chun Huang)

致使 ； 被動 ； 歧意 ； 影響性 ； 客語「分」字構式 ； causative ； passive ； ambiguity ； affectedness ； Hakka bun construction

清華學報

45卷2期（2015 / 06 / 01）

167 - 200

英文

客語多功能詞「分」表給予、目的、致使與被動等意。「分」字致使構式可分為使役、非意願允讓以及描述性致使三類。「分」字被動構式可分為直接被動、領屬被動以及非人稱被動三類。這兩種構式在結構上無法區分，加上主語名詞詞組的意願性消失或心理動詞的作格性等因素，造成了歧意的可能。「分」後及物動詞若具低施事性，即使語法主語恰巧為此動詞的語意賓語，人們仍然傾向於將句子解釋為致使而非被動。除了非人稱被動構式外，「分」字致使構式與被動構式皆具有「影響」這個共同意。致使構式包含了影響者與事件，而被動構式則包含了受影響者與事件。這些次類構式都藉由多意連結相連，而非人稱被動構式則藉由次部件連結與非意願允讓構式相連。

Bun「分」is a versatile function word in Hakka which occurs in dative, purposive, causative, and passive constructions. Both causative and passive bun constructions have subtypes. Causative bun constructions can be interpersonal causatives, unwilling permissives, or descriptive causatives. Passive bun constructions can be direct passives, possessive passives, or impersonal passives. Structurally, causative and passive bun constructions are indistinguishable, which gives rise to the potential of ambiguity, caused either by the loss of willingness on the part of the subject NPs, or the ergativity of psych verbs. When a verb with low agentivity appears after bun, the reading tends to be causative rather than passive, even though the grammatical subject is the semantic object of the post-bun transitive verb. All the subtypes of causative and passive constructions with Hakka bun (except for impersonal passives) can be subsumed under an affectedness construction, with the causatives having an affector and an event and the passives having an affectee and an event. The affectedness construction leaves unspecified the semantic role (affector or affectee) of the subject NP. All the subtypes are connected via polysemy links, except for the impersonal passive construction, which is connected to the unwilling permissive via subpart links.

1. Huang, Han-chun(2012).Psych Predicates and Causation in Hakka: A Constructional Approach.Chinese Studies,30(1),309-340.
   連結：
2. Lai, Huei-ling(2004).The Syntactic Grounding and Conceptualization of Hakka BUN and LAU.Concentric: Studies in Linguistics,30(1),87-105.
   連結：
3. 張麗麗(2005)。從使役到致使。臺大文史哲學報，62，119-151。
   連結：
4. Comrie, Bernard(1989).Language Universals and Linguistic Typology.Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
5. Comrie, Bernard(ed.),Polinsky, Maria(ed.)(1993).Causatives and Transitivity.Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
6. Davidse, Kristin(ed.),Vandelanotte, Lieven(ed.),Cuyckens, Hubert(ed.)(2010).Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization.Berlin:De Gruyter Mouton.
7. Dixon, R. M. W.(ed.),Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.(ed.)(2000).Changing Valency: Case Studies in Transitivity.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
8. Dowty, David(1991).Thematic Proto-Roles and Argument Selection.Language,67(3),547-619.
9. Fillmore, Charles J.,Kay, Paul,O'Connor Mary Catherine(1988).Regularity and Idiomaticity in Grammatical Constructions: The Case of Let Alone.Language,64(3),501-538.
10. Goldberg, Adele E.(1995).Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure.Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
11. Hopper, Paul,Thompson, Sandra A.(1980).Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse.Language,56(2),251-299.
12. Huang, C.-T. James(1999).Chinese Passive in Comparative Perspective.Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studies,29(4),423-509.
13. Huang, Han-chun(2012)。從構式語法看客語給予句式。客家研究，5(1)，39-72。
14. Huang, Han-chun(2005).Causation Types and the Path to Passives: A Comparative Study of Hakka Pun and Mandarin Rang.2005 National Conference on Linguistics,Hsinchu:
15. Huang, Shuan-fan(1974).Mandarin Causatives.Journal of Chinese Linguistics,2(3),354-369.
16. Jackendoff, Ray(1990).Semantic Structures.Cambridge:The MIT Press.
17. Jackendoff, Ray(1997).Twistin' the Night Away.Language,73(3),534-559.
18. Kay, Paul,Fillmore, Charles J.(1999).Grammatical Constructions and Linguistic Generalizations: The What's X Doing Y? Construction.Language,75(1),1-33.
19. Lai, Huei-ling(2001).On Hakka BUN: A Case of Polygrammticalization.Language and Linguistics,2(2),137-153.
20. Lai, Huei-ling(2003).The Semantic Extension of Hakka LAU.Language and Linguistics,4(3),533-561.
21. Langacker, Ronald W.(1987).Foundations of Cognitive Grammar (Volume I): Theoretical Prerequisites.Stanford, CA:Stanford University Press.
22. Lien, Chinfa(1999).A Typological Study of Causatives in Taiwanese Southern Min.Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studies,29(4),395-422.
23. Liu, Feng-hsi(2006).Dative Constructions in Chinese.Language and Linguistics,7(4),863-904.
24. Nedjalkov, Igor V.(1993).Causative-Passive Polysemy of the Manchu-Tungusic -Bu/-V(u).Linguistica Antverpiensia,27,193-202.
25. Paul, Waltraud(1988).The Purposive Gei-Clause in Chinese.Cahiers de Linguistique Asie Orientale,17(1),25-65.
26. Schmidtke-Bode, Karsten(2009).A Typology of Purpose Clauses.Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
27. Shibatani, Masayoshi(1990).The Languages of Japan.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
28. Talmy, Leonard(2000).Toward a Cognitive Semantics (Volume I): Concept Structuring Systems.Cambridge:The MIT Press.
29. Teng, Shou-hsin(1989).The Semantics of Causatives in Chinese.Functionalism and Chinese Grammar,South Orange, NJ:
30. Tuggy, David(1993).Ambiguity, Polysemy, and Vagueness.Cognitive Linguistics,4(3),273-290.
31. Washio, Ryuichi(1993).When Causatives Mean Passive: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective.Journal of East Asian Linguistics,2,45-90.
32. Yap, Foong-Ha,Iwasaki, Shoichi(2003).From Causatives to Passives: A Passage in Some East and Southeast Asian Languages.Cognitive Linguistics and Non-Indo-European Languages,Berlin:
33. 江敏華(2006)。東勢客家話「同」與「分」的語法特徵及二者之間的關係。語言暨語言學，7(2)，339-364。
34. 李詩敏(2009)。再探客語「分」構式：致使式或被動式？。「詞彙語意與構式的互動」小型工作坊，臺北=Taipei:
35. 張麗麗(2006)。漢語使役句表被動的語義發展。語言暨語言學，7(1)，139-174。
36. 張麗麗(2004)。使役句表被動的語義發展。「第五屆國際古漢語語法研討會」暨「第四屆海峽兩岸語法史研討會」論文集（二），臺北=Taipei:
37. 湯廷池(2002)。漢語複合動詞的「使動與起動交替」。語言暨語言學，3(3)，615-644。

1. Yeh, Juichuan(2017).On the Origin of the Causative Use of bun1 in Hakka: Evidence from the Basel Mission Texts.同心圓：語言學研究,43(2),29-62.
2. (2021)。現代台灣客語與「分佢」相關的致使結構之語法和語意特點。語言暨語言學，22(3)，475-512。