{"title":"说话者对逆境的主观评价","authors":"Danjie Su","doi":"10.1075/cld.22002.su","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Adversative passives like Mandarin Chinese bei-passives are known to convey adversity, but what\n “adversity” means specifically for speakers of bei- in conversational discourse remains unknown. Whereas previous\n studies examine adversity within the bei- clause, this study uses the lens concept to investigate speakers’\n subjective evaluations of the event attested by the larger context beyond the bei- clause. Using a subjectivity\n coding scheme and the discourse adjacent alternation method, I analyzed 4,203 values of event valence of 1,401\n bei- utterances and 65 alternations in spontaneous talk show conversations. Results show that: (1) The same event that a speaker evaluates as “adverse” using bei- is sometimes evaluated as “non-adverse” using non-bei structures. (2) The same bei+verb phrase that previous studies may deem “adverse” can be evaluated as “adverse” or “positive” by actual speakers. (3) 84.5% (1,184/1,401) of the time, bei-passive in\n conversation expresses speakers’ evaluation that a causative event is adverse for the affectee, regardless of what reality is. (4)\n Adversity means undesirable, disadvantageous, morally or socially wrong, empathy-deserving, and/or sympathy-deserving for speakers\n of bei-. The findings indicate that the adversity that bei- conveys is not an objective\n description of reality but a subjective evaluation independent of reality–the Adversity lens. This study sheds light on\n subjectivity and specific manifestations of adversity in conversational discourse.","PeriodicalId":42144,"journal":{"name":"Chinese Language and Discourse","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Speakers’ subjective evaluation of adversity\",\"authors\":\"Danjie Su\",\"doi\":\"10.1075/cld.22002.su\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Adversative passives like Mandarin Chinese bei-passives are known to convey adversity, but what\\n “adversity” means specifically for speakers of bei- in conversational discourse remains unknown. Whereas previous\\n studies examine adversity within the bei- clause, this study uses the lens concept to investigate speakers’\\n subjective evaluations of the event attested by the larger context beyond the bei- clause. Using a subjectivity\\n coding scheme and the discourse adjacent alternation method, I analyzed 4,203 values of event valence of 1,401\\n bei- utterances and 65 alternations in spontaneous talk show conversations. Results show that: (1) The same event that a speaker evaluates as “adverse” using bei- is sometimes evaluated as “non-adverse” using non-bei structures. (2) The same bei+verb phrase that previous studies may deem “adverse” can be evaluated as “adverse” or “positive” by actual speakers. (3) 84.5% (1,184/1,401) of the time, bei-passive in\\n conversation expresses speakers’ evaluation that a causative event is adverse for the affectee, regardless of what reality is. (4)\\n Adversity means undesirable, disadvantageous, morally or socially wrong, empathy-deserving, and/or sympathy-deserving for speakers\\n of bei-. The findings indicate that the adversity that bei- conveys is not an objective\\n description of reality but a subjective evaluation independent of reality–the Adversity lens. This study sheds light on\\n subjectivity and specific manifestations of adversity in conversational discourse.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42144,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Chinese Language and Discourse\",\"volume\":\"3 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Chinese Language and Discourse\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1075/cld.22002.su\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chinese Language and Discourse","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/cld.22002.su","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Adversative passives like Mandarin Chinese bei-passives are known to convey adversity, but what
“adversity” means specifically for speakers of bei- in conversational discourse remains unknown. Whereas previous
studies examine adversity within the bei- clause, this study uses the lens concept to investigate speakers’
subjective evaluations of the event attested by the larger context beyond the bei- clause. Using a subjectivity
coding scheme and the discourse adjacent alternation method, I analyzed 4,203 values of event valence of 1,401
bei- utterances and 65 alternations in spontaneous talk show conversations. Results show that: (1) The same event that a speaker evaluates as “adverse” using bei- is sometimes evaluated as “non-adverse” using non-bei structures. (2) The same bei+verb phrase that previous studies may deem “adverse” can be evaluated as “adverse” or “positive” by actual speakers. (3) 84.5% (1,184/1,401) of the time, bei-passive in
conversation expresses speakers’ evaluation that a causative event is adverse for the affectee, regardless of what reality is. (4)
Adversity means undesirable, disadvantageous, morally or socially wrong, empathy-deserving, and/or sympathy-deserving for speakers
of bei-. The findings indicate that the adversity that bei- conveys is not an objective
description of reality but a subjective evaluation independent of reality–the Adversity lens. This study sheds light on
subjectivity and specific manifestations of adversity in conversational discourse.