The scope of study has limited this research to certain areas, leaving behind not a few issues that need to be addressed. One thing the researcher left unresolved in this study is a thorough investigation of other structures which relate to passive constructions, e.g. in the phrase need to be done. Also, the researcher left the phrase traditionally considered past participle phrase, e.g. Given a chance to study in the US, + a clause, which is worth being examined in another study. Also, a diversity of examples, i.e. from different sources, should be taken into consideration in future research.
Langacker states that in the structures of a passive construction, there are three types of perfect participle, i.e. PERF1 as in Jane is gone - designating a state characterized as the final state in a process; PERF2 as in The cathedral is totally destroyed - evoking a conception of a change of state or location; and PERF3 as in The town was destroyed (house by house) - designating the state within a process.
Regarding variants of perfect participle, this study owes itself a huge part of mentioning this aspect when referring to the semantics of the passive constructions.
Further research, especially in Vietnamese passive, should touch upon this issue to make sure full coverage of the passive is investigated. Another issue that future research needs to examine is the meaning of to be and by from the principles of cognitive semantics (c.f. Langaker, 1990: 127 ff.) Similarly, the meaning of được
Cognitive grammar has recently been serving as popular framework in the field of language studies. A combination of cognitive semantics and cognitive grammar for the analysis of passive voice would be interesting and worth carrying out in future research. This ambitious plan could yield surprising outcomes – more food for thought.
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: From perception to linguistic forms ... 51
Figure 2: Viewer’s two possible directions ... 53
Figure 3: Illustration of two major laws in Gestalt theory ... 61
Figure 4: Figure and Ground alternation ... 62
Figure 5: Hypotenuse and its profile and base organization ... 72
Figure 6: The shift in Figure and Ground ... 74
Figure 7: Tuesday and its cognitive domain ... 75
1. Trong phòng khách và ngoài phòng khách: vài điều thảo luận từ quan điểm của ngôn ngữ học tri nhận, Tạp chí khoa học, Đại học quốc gia Hà Nội, số 3, 2007.
2. Áp dụng lý thuyết về tính hiện thân trong việc phân tích một số hiện tượng ngôn ngữ, Tạp chí khoa học, Đại học quốc gia Hà Nội, số 4, 2007.
3. Áp dụng lý thuyết về khung nghĩa và nghĩa học bách khoa để phân tích mức độ phù hợp của một số câu ở dạng bị động trong tiếng Anh, Tạp chí Ngôn Ngữ, số 1, năm 2008.
4. Thị giác trong ngôn ngữ, Tạp chí Ngôn Ngữ, số 9, năm 2008.
5. Lý thuyết điển mẫu và nhóm động từ ngoại động. Tạp chí Ngôn Ngữ, số 7, năm 2009.
6. Passive In Vietnamese: A Prototype Point Of View. Monash Linguistics Papers, Vol. 6, No. 2; Melbourne, Australia; 2009.
7. Language and Embodiment. Tạp chí khoa học, Đại học quốc gia Hà Nội, số 4, 2009.
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.) Ngữ Pháp Kinh Nghiê ̣m Của Cú Tiếng Viê ̣t - Mô tả
theo quan điểm chức nă ng hê ̣ thống . (2nd 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
http://chd.gsc.gmu.edu/immersion.knowledgebase/strategies/cognitivsm/gesta 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