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;
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

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

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

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.

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

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

́
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.

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.

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.

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


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.