The passive in English a perspective from cognitive semantics (with reference to Vietnamese)

The passive in English: a perspective from
cognitive semantics (with reference to
Vietnamese)

Nguyễn Tất Thắng

Trường Đại học Ngoại Ngữ
Luận án TS. Chuyên ngành: English Linguistics; Mã số: 60 22 15
Người hướng dẫn: Assoc. Assoc.Dr. Trần Hữu Mạnh
Năm bảo vệ: 2010

Abstract: The thesis provides a critical analysis of major schools of linguistics, e.g.
traditional grammar, transformational-generative grammar, and functional grammar, in
dealing with the passive-active relationship. Once the drawbacks of these schools of
linguistics have been detected, the thesis presents another way of analyzing the passive
structures under the light of cognitive semantics.
An exploration on cognitive linguistics in general and cognitive semantics in particular will
be displayed, thus providing a more interesting and convincing way of looking at the passive
voice. Major tenets of cognitive linguistics and features of cognitive semantics will be
thoroughly presented, making it possible to come to a conclusion for the betterment of the
new school of linguistics. Through the analysis of passive structures, the researcher attempts
to present another view of linguistic exploration, i.e. to interpret the use of language from the
understanding of our cognition, thus presenting a number of notions in cognitive linguistics,
and in cognitive semantics in particular.
The study discusses the possibility of the existence of passive structures in Vietnamese. A
prototype view will be applied in analyzing the structures, hopefully providing a way to settle
the debate of arguing about the existence of the so-called passive structures in Vietnamese.

Keywords: Tiếng Anh; Động từ; Dạng bị động; Ngữ nghĩa học tri nhận;

iv
Content:
CONTENTS
PART ONE – INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale 01
2. Aims of the study 04
3. Scope of the study 05
4. Research questions 06
5. Methodology 07
6. Contribution of the study 09
PART TWO - DEVELOPMENT
Chapter I: Passive voice
1.1. Introduction 12
1.2. Traditional grammar and passive voice 12
1.3. Passive from the perspective of transformational-
generative grammar 14
1.4. Passive voice from the perspective of functional
grammar ……… … 22
1.5. What needs to be discussed? 26
1.6. Passivity in Vietnamese 30
1.7. Summary 31
Chapter II: Cognitive Semantics
2.1. Introduction 32
2.2. Definitions of terms 32
2.2.1. Cognitive Science 33
2.2.2. Cognitive Linguistics 33
2.2.3. Cognitive semantics 34
2.2.4. Conceptualization 34
2.2.5. Embodiment 35
2.2.6. Experience 35

2.2.7. Construal 36
2.2.8. Frame (semantics) 36
2.2.9. Perspectives 37
2.3. Cognition and linguistics 37
2.4. Cognitive Linguistics 38
2.5. Major principles of cognitive linguistics 40
2.5.1. Embodiment in cognitive linguistics 40
2.5.2. Grammar and meaning 41
2.5.3. Language and its symbolic function 43
2.6. Cognitive semantics 44
2.6.1. Conceptual structure is embodied 45
2.6.2. Semantic structure is conceptual structure 45
2.6.3. The meaning of individual concepts – prototype 46
2.6.4. Meaning representation is encyclopedic 46

v
2.6.5. Meaning construction is conceptualization 47
2.7. Four major notions of cognitive semantics
in language analysis 48
2.7.1. Perspective 48
2.7.1.1. Introduction 48
2.7.1.2. Theoretical framework on perspective 50
2.7.2. Figure and Ground 60
2.7.2.1. Theoretical framework - Gestalt theory 60
2.7.2.2. Figure and Ground in Language 63
2.7.2.3. Figure and Ground in single sentences 65
2.7.2.4. Figure and Ground in complex sentences 68
2.7.3. Meanings and Encyclopedic Knowledge 69
2.7.3.1. Fillmore (1982) with frame semantics 69
2.7.3.2. Langacker (1987) with Profile and Base 72

2.7.3.3. Cognitive domains 74
2.7.3.4 Embodiment and encyclopedic knowledge 77
2.7.4. Prototype theory 79
2.7.4.1. Introduction 79
2.7.4.2. Categorization 80
2.7.4.3. Major points of prototype theory 81
2.7.4.4. Why apply prototype theory? 83
2.8. Summary 86
Chapter III: Applying Cognitive Semantics to Analyzing Passive Voice
3.1. Active and Passive Sentences: Two Different Perspectives 89
3.1.1. Be – Passives 89
3.1.2. Get – Passives 94
3.1.3. Passives with introductory It 96
3.2. Applying Figure and Ground in analyzing passive sentences 97
3.2.1. Passive with the presence of Agent and Patient 97
3.2.2. Get Passive 100
3.2.3. Passive in complex sentences 101
3.2.4. Passive and embedding of Figure and Ground relations 103
3.2.5. Figure – Ground relation and its reversal 104
3.2.5.1. The possible, syntactically 104
3.2.5.2 The impossible, even syntactically 106
3.3. Implementing encyclopedic knowledge into explaining
the acceptability of active – passive alternation 109
3.3.1. The well-formedness and its acceptability 111
3.3.2 More appropriate in active than in passive 113
3.3.3. More appropriate in passive than in active 117
3.4. Summary 120

vi
Chapter IV: Toward a prototype for passive structures in Vietnamese

4.1. Introduction 122
4.2. A review on literature of passivity in Vietnamese 123
4.3. The term ‘passive’ and how passive voice is defined 128
4.3.1. The term passive 128
4.3.2. Transitivity and passive 128
4.3.3. The struggle for a common formula of passive structures . 130
4.3.4. The existence of passive structures in Vietnamese 132
4.4 Structures that may cause controversy 141
4.5. Summary 144
Chapter V: Integrating major notions of cognitive semantics in
analyzing passivity
5.1. Why broader view? 146
5.2. Why closer look? 146
5.3. The key notions having been discussed 147
5.3.1. Perspectives 147
5.3.2. Figure and Ground 148
5.3.3. Encyclopedic knowledge and experience 148
5.3.4. Prototype 149
5.4. Applying the notions in discussing the structures 150
5.5. Summary 163
PART THREE - CONCLUSION
1. Recapitulation 164
2. Implications 166
2.1. For English language learning and teaching 166
2.2. For language research 168
3. What has not been dealt with? 169
ARTICLES RELATED TO THIS STUDY 171
BIBLIOGRAPHY 172
1
PART ONE: INTRODUCTION

1. Rationale
Passive sentences are typical structures in Indo-European languages. A lot of
research about the passive phenomenon has been done, providing a wide variety of
features of passive structures cross-linguistically (e.g. Keenan, 1976; Freidin, 1975;
Permutter, 1978; Zaenen, 1983; Langacker, 1990; Tomlin, 1995.) Each school of
linguistics has displayed its own ways of analyzing the passive structures, thus
posing trouble for learners and for novice researchers in settling a standpoint in
grasping and understanding the fundamental semantic and syntactic structure of this
phenomenon in languages.
The following example illustrates this point. Sentences (a) and (b) below
describe a state in which a male person carries a box from one place to another:
(a) He moved the box into the room.
(b) The box was moved into the room (by him.)
Both sentences, (a) and (b), refer to one event with the same actor. Syntactically,
sentence (a) differs from sentence (b) in that the subject/doer in (b) is optional or
left out entirely, or optionally expressed obliquely via a by-phrase, and that the
object in (a) serves as the subject/patient in (b.)
Traditional grammar treats passive voice as the change of the morphology in
verbs, with the inversion of the subject and object of the sentences. Then, (b) can be
seen as a new version of (a) with a change in the verb ‘move’ and an exchange of
location in the subject and object of the original sentence (a).
It has been argued in transformational grammar that passive sentences derive
from a D-structure form of so-called active sentences. It is the NP-MOVEMENT
(c.f. Radford, 1988:420) that brings to life passive sentences. Generative grammar


2
offers an analysis of the change from active to passive structures, attributing the
shift through a ‘multilevel syntagmatic structure’ in which the ‘deep structure (or
initial stratum) is basically active in organization’ (Langacker, 1990.)

Passive structures are also argued to belong to a class of expression known as
idioms chunks (c.f. Radford, 1988:422.) And NPs in passive sentences do not have
the same syntactic freedom of distribution as other NPs. Another argument is
formulated in relation to thematic relations. It is claimed that active Objects (i.e.
Objects of active sentences) play the same thematic role as the corresponding
passive Subjects.
Another view on passive voice comes from Functionalism. Functional grammar
divides passive structure into three subcategories, depending on the functions that
the speakers would like to convey. It is called the pragmatic function of the
sentence. For example, when the Agent of the action is unknown to the writers or
speakers, passive structures are preferred. Or when the focus of the sentence is the
action and the effects of the action, not the doer of the action, passive constructions
are applied (c.f. Halliday, 1994; Lock, 1996; Downing and Locke, 1992; Givon,
1995.) Semantically, a functional grammarian analyzes constituents in passive
grammar based on the functions of the participants in the sentence, namely actor /
agent, goal, beneficiary, recipient, etc.
Previously mentioned views of linguistics on passive voice have left drawbacks
to language users and language teachers. For instance, traditional grammar states
that passive voice can be formed if the verb is a transitive one, i.e. the verb having a
direct object. However, not all transitive verbs can be conjured up in passive
structures. Or as stated by generative grammar, passive structures derive from their
active counterparts. In reality, no speaker describes an event by forming an active
sentence in his/her mind then ‘transforms’ it into passives. This will be further
discussed later in the study.


3
It is not until recently that cognitive semantics (or more generally cognitive
linguistics) has postulated a different look at language structures. The focus in the
study of language shifts from external to internal, mentalist aspects of the human

language. Researchers in cognitive science argue that the linguistic structure is a
direct reflex of cognition in the sense that a particular linguistic expression is
associated with particular ways of conceptualizing a given situation (Lee, 2001: 1).
They believe that there exists an interrelationship between thought and meaning. It
is from this point of view that passive sentences are seen from a different angle.
The root of the differences mentioned above originates from the theory of
meaning. Generative grammar claims that the structure of linguistic expressions is
determined by a formal rule system that is largely independent of meaning. Or
rather, syntax is independent from meaning while cognitive linguistics claims that
language is not an autonomous cognitive faculty (c.f. Croft, 2004.)
It is therefore absolutely necessary for researchers as well as language learners to
take a standpoint in analyzing languages. In particular, a thorough understanding
and fully developed arguments for the explanation of the structure are crucial.
A note should be taken here regarding the title of the dissertation. Since the word
‘perspective’ in cognitive semantics embraces more than one meaning and has sub-
notions hanging with it, this word used in the title may result in misunderstanding.
However, the word ‘perspective’ in the title is used in purpose. The meaning of the
word ‘perspective’ the author wishes to express is that of ‘view point,’ ‘standpoint,’
‘angle,’ or the like. With the title as it is, the author wishes to analyze the passive
structures from the cognitive semantics point of view. More than that, the author
wishes to bring a metaphor of the word ‘perspective’ to the title, hoping to create a
profound and thoughtful meaning of the title of the dissertation.


4
2. Aims of the study
The study aims to provide a critical analysis of three major theoretical
approaches of explaining language phenomena. More particularly, different
approaches of linguistics, e.g. traditional grammar, transformational-generative
grammar, on explaining passive voice will be critically explored, thus indicating

their strengths and weaknesses, which will help determine more appropriate ways of
looking at this language phenomenon.
The study aims at presenting another way of analyzing language structures,
especially passive structures, based on cognitive linguistics, particularly cognitive
semantics, i.e. based on four major notions: Perspectives, Figure – Ground
relationship, Encyclopedic knowledge, and Prototype. An exploration of cognitive
linguistics in general and cognitive semantics in particular will be displayed, thus
providing a more interesting and convincing way of looking at the passive voice.
Major tenets of cognitive linguistics and features of cognitive semantics will be
thoroughly presented, making it possible to come to a conclusion for the betterment
of the new school of linguistics.
The study will also discuss the possibility of the existence of passive structures in
Vietnamese. A prototype view will be applied in analyzing the structures, hopefully
contributing another view to the debate over the existence of the so-called passive
structures in Vietnamese.
Through the analysis of passive structures, the researcher attempts to present
another view of linguistic exploration, interpreting the use of language from the
understanding of our cognition through a number of notions in cognitive linguistics,
and in cognitive semantics in particular, thus illustrating evidence for the possibility
of integrating notions in cognitive semantics in the task of language analysis.


5
3. Scope of the study
As stated previously, one of the aims of this research is to present our
understandings of cognitive linguistics and cognitive semantics in particular;
therefore, the focus is on displaying major notions of this school of linguistics. In
particular, the study confines itself to the notions of perspectives, figure and ground,
encyclopedic knowledge, and prototype since these four are fundamental in
cognitive linguistics.

Regarding passive voice and structures to be analyzed, the study restricts itself to
structures with passive form in the main verb, i.e. the passive form of the utterance
is in the head verb, leaving behind structures consisting of passive forms in other
parts of the sentence, e.g. in the to infinitive, such as need to be repaired. Also, most
sentences used as illustrations come from everyday language, thus setting aside
extensive complicated sentences found in academic texts or elsewhere.
It should be noted here that it is not possible to apply one notion of cognitive
linguistics, such as Figure and Ground, in analyzing all kinds of passive structures.
This means that for each sentence, we have different ways of approaching and
applying proper notions for explaining. This is due to the fact that language
phenomena are various, and as a result, the way to deal with them varies
accordingly. Consequently, it is impossible to apply one idea to the explanation of
all features of language. However, the study is not going to categorize or classify
which kinds of sentences are applicable for which types of notions since it is not the
goal of the study. The last chapter in Part II is an attempt of assembling as many
notions as possible in analyzing the phenomenon of passive structures, thus
providing a broader view on this feature of language - passive structures. In short,
the study will focus on the facets that are applicable in analyzing passive structures,
not an overall presentation of the theory of cognitive semantics.


6
4. Research questions
Passive voice in English, or in Indo-European languages in general, has been
widely discussed from different points of view. Different papers present different
discussions on this language structure. This study attempts to seek answers to the
issues that have not been adequately discussed by many researchers from different
schools of linguistics. The questions that the study will investigate will be as
follows:
a. How is the passive voice seen from the point of view of cognitive semantics?

Different major notions of cognitive semantics are applied to discuss the
phenomenon, i.e. passive voice, resulting in 4 subquestions as follows:
Subquestion 1: Are passive sentences surface structures of their so-called
active counterparts? How are passive and active sentences seen from the
notion of ‘perspective’ in cognitive semantics?
Subquestion 2: How can the notion of Figure and Ground be applied to
explain passive structures?
Subquestion 3: How can the theory of Frame Semantics and
Encyclopedic Semantics be used to examine the acceptability of passive
sentences?
Subquestion 4: How can the theory of prototype be used to formulate a
passive prototype in Vietnamese?
b. Is it possible to integrate the four notions in analyzing passive voice,
providing a thorough and profound interpretation of the phenomenon?


7
5. Methodology
5.1. This work is not an empirical study which requires experimental and/or
experiential data, which is analyzed using quantitative or qualitative methods. In
contrast, the study applies the descriptive and analytical methods, presenting the
theoretical foundation which is then illustrated by examples with explanations and
discussions, thus hopefully reaching conclusions by deductive reasoning.
A theoretical framework, i.e. based on the major notions of cognitive semantics,
is established; then examples and illustrations are explored based on this
framework. In other words, major notions of the cognitive semantics theory are
used as principles from which examples are analyzed, thus helping the researcher
come to conclusions.
The examples and illustrations given in the discussion are utterances from
different specific situations in daily life. Sentences used as examples are cited from

either reliable sources or real life situations. All the examples from real life
situations, though not recorded and not put in the appendices, were sent to English
speaking people to test whether these sentences have a high acceptability in the
English language. More significantly, two native English speakers have been asked
to do the proof reading, providing high reliability and validity of the examples used
in the work.
5.2. The research design is presented as follows. First, in order to establish a
strong argument for the work to be done, all major points of views and the methods
of analyzing passive structures are critically illustrated. Then a framework is set up
from the light of cognitive semantics, i.e. a framework set up from four major
notions of cognitive semantics. Each of these four notions is presented with details
and illustrations, with which active and passive structures are analyzed and
explained. After that, an integration of these four notions is founded, from which
passive structures are analyzed from the overall examination of cognitive semantics.


8
This dissertation is divided into three parts. The first one is, as a rule of thumb,
the Introduction, which provides the rationale, aims, scope and research questions
of the study. This rationale provides arguments for the necessity of carrying out the
research; the aims presents the goals of the study and the scope restricts the study
into a certain aspects and leaves behind others for other future research.
The second part of the dissertation, the Development, presents a thorough review
of the literature about passive voice, in English and Vietnamese. More importantly,
a theoretical framework based on major notions of cognitive semantics is
established, providing foundation for the discussion and analysis of the passive
voice from the light of the cognitive semantics.
In part II, there are five chapters. Chapter 1 reviews major arguments and
analysis of passive voice from different schools of linguistics other than cognitive
linguistics. Chapter 2 presents the basic ideas about cognitive linguistics and

especially cognitive semantics. Chapter 3, 4, and 5 are for applying individual
notion of cognitive semantics to analyzing and discussing passive and active
structures. Regarding the necessity and vitality of the analysis of passive voice,
Chapter 1 presents different views of different schools of linguistics, and the
drawback of these methods in analyzing language. Chapter 2 displays how language
structures are seen from the perspective of cognitive semantics, providing a
foundation for a particular phenomenon, i.e. passive structures, to be analyzed.
Chapters 3, 4, and 5 discuss the passive phenomenon based on the notions of
cognitive semantics presented in the previous chapters.
The last part of the work, the Conclusion, summarizes what has been done, what
has not been covered, accompanied by suggestions for future study. This part also
indicates possible implications for the job of language teaching and learning,
hopefully providing an alternative method of analyzing other aspects of languages.


9
6. Contribution of the study
The study hopes to contribute to the development of cognitive linguistics, and
cognitive semantics in particular, thus providing evidence for the claim that
cognitive linguistics is a convincing and appropriate way to explain language.
The study confirms the fact that it is feasible to apply notions in cognitive
semantics to analyzing and explaining problems in syntax, thus fostering the idea
that syntax and semantics are two sides of a coin, and should not be considered
divorced from one another.
The study provides a profound and convincing explanation, with illustrations and
examples in English and Vietnamese, to the controversy of whether passive voice
derives from active voice, which hopefully contributes to the aim of settling the
arguments referring to the phenomenon of passive voice.

172

BIBLIOGRAPHY
In Vietnamese (Tiếng Việt)
1. Nguyễn Thị Ảnh, (2000). Tiếng Việt Có Thái Bị Động Không? (Is There
Passive Voice in Vietnamese?) In Tạp chí Ngôn Ngữ (Language). No. 5, pp:
36-47.
2. Diệp Quang Ban & Nguyễn Thị Thuân, (2000). Lại Bàn Về Vấn Đề Câu Bị
Động Trong Tiếng Việt (Passives in Vietnamese: Revisited) In Tạp chí Ngôn
Ngữ (Language). No. 7, pp: 14-21.
3. Diệp Quang Ban, (2005). Ngữ Pháp Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese Grammar). Hanoi:
Publisher of Education.
4. Nguyễn Hồng Cổn & Bùi Thị Diên (2004). Dạng Bị Động và Vấn Đề Câu Bị
Động Trong Tiếng Việt (Passive voice and passive structures inVietnamese).
In Tạp chí Ngôn Ngữ (Language). No. 7, pp: 1-12 & No. 8.
5. Nguyễn Hòa. (2004.) Understanding English Semantics. Hanoi: VNU
Publishing House.
6. Trần Hữu Mạnh (2007.) Ngôn Ngữ Học Đối Chiếu: Cú Pháp Tiếng Anh –
Tiếng Việt. NXB ĐHQG Hà Nội.
7. Võ Đại Quang (2005.) Một Số Vấn Đề Cú Pháp, Ngữ Nghĩa, Ngữ Dụng, và
Âm Vị Học. NXB Văn Hóa Thông Tin.
8. Lý Toàn Thắng (2005.) Ngôn Ngữ Học Tri Nhận – Từ lí thuyết đại cương đến
thực tiễn tiếng Việt. Hà Nội: Nxb Khoa Học Xã Hội.
9. Hoàng Văn Vân . (2005.) Ngư
̃
Pha
́
p Kinh Nghiê
̣
m Cu
̉
a Cu

́
Tiếng Viê
̣
t - Mô ta
̉

theo quan điê
̉
m chư
́
c nă ng hê
̣
thống . (2
nd
Edition.) Nhà Xuất Bản Khoa Học
Xã Hội.
In English (Tiếng Anh)
10. Anderson, P. K. (1989). Remarks on the origin of the term „passive‟. In
Lingua. Vol. 79. pp. 1-16. ISSN: 0024 – 3841. Amsterdam.
11. Antovié, M. (2003). The Position of Semantics within Contemporary
Cognitive Science. In Linguistics and Literature. Vol. 2, No 10, pp 415-424.
12. Barcelona, A. (1997.) Cognitive Linguistics: A usable approach. In A.
Barcelona (Ed.) Cuadernos de Filología Inglesa 6.2: 7-32.
13. Bates, E. and MacWhinney, B. (1982.) Functionalist Approaches to
Grammar. In Language Acquisition: State of the Art. E Wanner and L.
Gleitman (Eds.) New York: Cambridge University Press, pp 173-218.

173
14. Bechtel, W. & Graham, G. (1998.) A Companion to Cognitive Science.
Oxford: Blackwell, page xiii.

15. Boeree, C. G. (2000). Gestalt Psychology. [Online]. Available at:
www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/gestalt.html
16. Bolinger, D. (1977.) Meaning and Form. New York: Longman.
17. Carter, R. and McCarthy, M. (1997). Get – passive in a conversational corpus.
Paper presented at the American Association of Applied Linguistics, Orlando,
March.
18. Chomsky, N. (1957.) Syntactic Structures. The Hague, the Netherlands:
Mouton
19. Chomsky, N. (1964.) Current issues in linguistics. In The Structure of
Language, Ed. by J.A. Fodor and J. J. Katz, 50-118. Englewood Clifffs, N.J:
Prentice Hall.
20. Chomsky, N. (1981.) Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
7th edition (1993), Berlin: Mouton.
21. Clark, E. V. (1989.) Speaker Perspective in Acquisition. Linguistics, 28, pp
1201-1220.
22. Clausner, T. and Croft, W. (1999.) Domains and image schema. Cognitive
Linguistics, Vo. 10, No. 1, pp 1-31.
23. Coleman, L. and Kay, P. (1981.) Prototype Semantics: The English word Lie.
Language 57 (1): 26-44.
24. Croft, W. (1988.) Linguistics evidence and metal representations. In
Cognitive Linguistics 9-2, pp. 151-173.
25. Croft, W. & Cruse, D. A. (2004.) Cognitive Linguistics. UK: Cambridge
University Press.
26. Cruse, D. A. (1992) Cognitive Linguistics and Word Meaning: Taylor on
Linguistic Categorization. In Journal of Linguistics, 28, 165 – 183
27. Cruse, A. (2000.) Meaning in Language – An Introduction to Semantics and
Pragmatics. Oxford University Press.
28. Cuenca, M. J. (2003.) Cognition, pragmatics and grammar. In Noves SL.
Revista de Sociolingüística. Universitat de València.
29. DeLanceley, S. (2001) Figure and Ground in Argument Structure. LSA

Summer Institute. UC Santa Barbara.

174
30. Downing, A. and Locke, P. (1992.) A University Course in English Grammar.
Great Britain: Prentice Hall.
31. Evans, V, Green, M. (2006). Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction.
Edinburgh University Press.
32. Evans, V, and Tyler, A. (2005.) Applying Cognitive Linguistics to
Pedagogical Grammar: The English Prepositions of Verticality. Revista
Brasileira de Linguistica Aplicada, 5, 2, 11-42.
33. Evans, V., Bergen, B. K., & Zinken, J. (2006.) The Cognitive Linguistics
Enterprise: An Overview. In The Cognitive Linguistics Reader. Equinox
Publishing Company
34. Fauconnier, G., & Turner. (2002.) The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending
and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York, NY.: Basic Books.
35. Fauconnier, G. (2005). Cognitive linguistics. In Encyclopedia of Cognitive
Science. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
36. Fillmore, C. J. (1982.) Frame Semantics. In Linguistics in the Morning Calm,
ed. by The Linguistic Society of Korea, Soeul: Hanshin. Pp 111-137.
37. Fillmore, C. J. (1985a). Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni
di Semantica 6.2: Pp 222-254.
38. Fox, B. and Hopper, P. J. (Eds.) (1994.) Voice: Form and Function.
Amsterdam: Benjamins.
39. Freidin, R. (1975.) The Analysis of Passives. In Language, Vol. 51, No 2, pp.
384-405.
40. Gardenfors, P. (1994.) Some Tenets of Cognitive Semantics. In Cognitive
Science. Sweden: Lund University.
41. Gardenfors, P. (1997.) Meaning as Conceptual Structures. In M. Carrier and
P. Machamer (1997.) Mindscape: philosophy, science, and the mind.
Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh University Press.

42. Geeraerts, D. (1988). Prototypicality as a Prototypical Notion. In
Communication and Cognition, 21 (1) pp. 343 – 355
43. Givón, T. (1995.) Functionalism and Grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:
John Benjamins Publishing Company.
44. Givón and Talmy (Eds.) (1994.) Voice and Inversion. Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
45. Goddard, C. (1998.) Semantic Analysis – A Practical Introduction. OUP.

175
46. Gries, S. T. (2003.) Cognitive Linguistics: A Sketchy Overview. Paper
presented in Seminar, University of California: Santa Barbara.
47. Grundy, P. and Jiang, Y. (2001). Ideological Ground and Relevant
Interpretation in a Cognitive Semantics. In Dirven, Hawkins and Sandikcioglu
(Eds.) Language and Ideology: Theoretical Cognitive Approaches. John
Benjamins Publishing.
48. Halliday, M. A. K. (1994.) An Introduction to Functional Grammar (2nd
Edition.) ISBN: 0 340 57491 7. Published by Edward Arnold, a member of
the Hodder Headline Group.
49. Hilfery, J. (2000.) Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction Sketch. Barcelona:
Universiata de Barcelona. Facultat de Filologia, Departament de Filologia
Anglesa, Gran Via de les Corts Catalanes, 585.
50. Hsiao, Y. E. (2003.) Semantics and Cognition: An Introduction. In Language
and Linguistics, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp 197-205.
51. Hopper, P. J. and Thompson, S. A. (1980.) Transitivity in Grammar and
Discourse. Language 56, 251-299.
52. Ibarretxe-Antunano, I. (1999.) What’s cognitive Linguistics? A new
framework for the study of Basque. UCLA at Berkeley. Paper presented at
conference.
53. Inglis, D. (2004.) Cognitive Grammar and Lexicography. Payap University.
54. Jacobs, R. A. (1995). English Syntax: A Grammar for English Language

Professionals. New York: Longman.
55. Jackendoff, Ray. (1983.) Semantics and Cognition. The MIT Press,
Cambridge, Massachusetts; and London, England.
56. Jackendoff, Ray. (1989.) What is a Concept, that a Person May Grasp It? In
Mind and Language. Vol. 4, No. 1 and 2 (Spring/Summer,) pp 68-102.
57. Janda, L. (2000, revised 2006). Cognitive Linguistics. University of Carolina.
58. Jensen, K. E. (2004). Language and Cognition. Odense: University of
Southern Denmark.
59. Johnson, M. (1987.) The Body in the Mind. The bodily basis of Meaning,
Reason and Imagination. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
60. Keenan, E. (1976). Some Universals of Passives in Universal Grammar.
Chicago Linguistics Society, 11. 340 – 352.

176
61. Keenen, E. L. (1985). Passive in the World‟s Languages. In T. Shopen (Ed.)
Language typology and Syntactic Description. Vol. 1, 243 – 281. Cambridge
University Press.
62. Kempson, R. M. (1995.) Semantic Theory. Cambridge University Press.
63. Kortlandt, F. (1989.) On the Meaning of the Japanese Passive. Acta
Linguistica 24, pp 97-108.
64. Kristiansen, G. et al. (2006.) Cognitive Linguistics: Current Applications and
Future Perspectives. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
65. Lakoff. G. (1987.) Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. What Categories
Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
66. Lakoff. G. (1991.) Cognitive versus Generative Linguistics: How
commitments influence results. In Language & Communication, Vol. 11, No.
1/2, pp 53-62.
67. Langacker, R. W. (1982) Space Grammar, Analysability, and the English
Passive. Language, 58, 1, 22 – 80
68. Langacker, R. W. (1987.) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Volume I.

California: Stanford University Press.
69. Langacker, R. W. (1987.) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Volume II.
California: Stanford University Press.
70. Langacker, R. W. (1988.) A View of Linguistics Semantics. In Rudzka-Ostyn
(Ed.) 1988. Topics in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam: NJ Benjamins.
ISBN: 9027235449.
71. Langacker, R. W. (1990). The Passive. In Concept, Image, and Symbol: The
Cognitive basis of Grammar. Pp. 101 – 147. Berlin and New York: Mouton
de Gruyter.
72. Langacker, R. (1995). Cognitive grammar. In J. Verschueren, J-O, Ostman, &
J. Blommaert (Eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics Manual (pp. 105-111).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
73. Lee, D. (2001.) Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
74. Li, Chao-lin. (2005.) Frames of Spatial Reference in Paiwan. USTWPL, Vol.
1, pp 161-186.
75. Lock, G. (1996.) Functional English Grammar An Introduction for second
language teachers. United States of America: Cambridge University Press.

177
76. Maratsos et al. (1985.) Semantic restrictions on children‟s passives.
Cognition, Vol. 19, pp. 167-191.
77. Marchman, V. A. et al. (1991.) Functional constraints of the acquisition of the
passive: toward a model of the competence to perform .First Language, 11, pp
62-69.
78. Martinovski, B. (1995.) Three cognitive theories: major differences and
similarities – Talmy, Langacker, Jackendoff. Paper presented at Department
of Linguistics. Gothenburg University.
79. Mercia, C. (1999). The Grammar Book. New York: McGraw Hill.
80. Murphy, P. M. (2004). Passive Prototypes, Topicality and Conceptual Space.

Dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Department of
Linguistics, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
81. Nuyts, J. and Pederson, E. (1997.) Language and Conceptualization.
Cambridge University Press.
82. Perlmutter, D. M. (1978). Impersonal Passives and the Unaccusative
Hypothesis. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 4, 157 – 189.
83. Petruck, M. R. L. (1996.) Frame Semantics. University Proceedings.
California: University of California, Berkeley.
84. Radford, A. (1988). Transformational Grammar – A first Course. Cambridge
Textbooks in Linguistics. UK: Cambridge University Press.
85. Rice, S. (1987.) Towards a Transitivity Prototype: Evidence from Some
Atypical English Passive. In BLS, 13, pp. 422-434.
86. Rosh, E. (1978). Principles of Categorization. In Rosh, E and Lloyd, B. B.
Cognition and Categorization. New York: Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
87. Rosh, E. (1983). Prototype Classification and Logical Classification: The
Two Systems. In E. Scholnik (Ed.) New Trends in Cognitive Representation:
Challenges to Piaget’s Theory. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate,
pp. 72 – 86
88. Shibatani, M. (1985). Passives and Related Constructions: A Prototype
Analysis. In Language, 61, 821 – 848
89. Schroeder, H. (2005.) The Meaning Of “Nature”: Insights From Cognitive
Linguistics. In Proceedings of the 2005 Northeastern Recreation Research
Symposium. North Central Research Station. IL, USA
90. Sinclair, J. (Ed.) (1990.) Collins Cobuild English Grammar. London: Rupa. Co.

178
91. Sinha, C. (1999.) Grounding, mapping and acts of meanings. In Cognitive
Linguistics, foundations, scopes, and methodology. Janssen, Redeker, and
Gisela (Eds.) New York: M. de Gruyter. Vol 15, Pp.223-256.
92. Sudo, Kami (2000.) Transitivity and Passivization: Object Affectedness as

Cognitive Basic of English Passive. Paper presented in conference at Tokyo
University and Keio University.
93. Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics. The MIT press.
94. Talmy, L. (1988.) The Relation Of Grammar To Cognition. In Topics in
Cognitive Linguistics. Rudzha-Ostyn (Ed.) Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp 165-205
95. Talmy, L. (1996.) The windowing of Attention. In Grammatical
constructions: Their form and meaning. Shibatini, M and Thompson, S.A.
(Eds.) Oxford University Press, pp 235-287
96. Taylor, J. R. (1995). Linguistics Categorization – Prototypes in Linguistic
Theory. (2nd Edition.) Oxford: Clarendon Press.
97. Taylor, J. R. (1998.) Syntactic Constructions as Prototype Categories. In
Michael Tomasello (Ed.) The New Psychology of Language, 177-202.
Mahwah, N. J., London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate Publishers.
98. Taylor, J. R. (2002). Cognitive Grammar. New York: Oxford University
Press.
99. Thompson, L. C. (1965). A Vietnamese Grammar. Seattle: University of
Washington Press.
100. Tomasello, M. (1995.) Language is not an instinct. In Cognitive
Development, Vol 10, pp 131-156.
101. Tomasello, M. (1998.) Introduction: A Cognitive-Functional Perspective on
Language Structure. In Tomasello, M. (Ed.) The New Psychology of
Language. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
102. Torrans, C. (1999). Gestalt and Instructional Design. [Online]. Available at:
/>lt/gestalt.htm.
103. Thagard, P. (1996.) Mind: Introduction to Cognitive Science. Cambridge,
Mass,: MIT Press, page ix.
104. Thomson, A. J., Martinet, A. V. (1960.) A Practical English Grammar.
London: Oxford University Press.
105. Tomlin, Russell S. (1995). Focal Attention, Voice, and Word Order: An
Experimental. Cross-linguistic Study. In Downing, Pamela and Noonan,

179
Michael (Eds.). Word Order on Discourse. Pp. 517 – 554. Amsterdam and
Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
106. Tyler, A. and Evans, V. (2004.) Applying Cognitive Linguistics to
Pedagogical Grammar: The Case of Over. In M. Achard and S. Niemeier.
Cognitive Linguistics, Second Language Acquisition, and Foreign Language
Teaching, pp. 257-280. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
107. Ungerer, F & Schmid, H-J. (1996). An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics.
London and New York: Longman.
108. Van Dijk, T.A. (1977.) Text and Context: Explorations in the Semantics and
Pragmatics of Discourse. Longman, London.
109. Verhagen, A. (2005). Construal and Perspectivization. Netherlands Institute
for Advanced Study. [Online.] Available at
/>hagen.pdf
110. Zaenen, A. Joan Maling. (1983). Passive and Oblique Case. In Lori Levin,
Malka Rappaport, & Annie Zaenen (Eds.) Papers in Lexical Functional
Grammar. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club, pp. 159 – 191.
111. Wallace, S. (1982.) Figure and Ground: The interrelationships of Linguistic
Categories. In Tense-Aspect: Between semantics and pragmatics. Hopper P. J.
(Ed.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp 201-223.
112. Wasow, T. (1977.) Transformation and the Lexicon. In T. W. Peter, W.
Culicover, and A. Akmajian (Eds.) Formal Syntax. New York: Academic
Press. Pp. 327 -360.
113. Wierzbicka, A. (1988). The Semantics of Grammar. Philadelphia: John
Benjamins B.V.
114. Wierzbicka, A. (1996). Semantics – Primes and Universals. Oxford and
New York: Oxford University Press.
115. Williams, E. (1982.) Another Argument that Passive is Transformational.
Linguistic Inquiry, Vol. 13, pp. 160-163.