The Pragmatic Motivation Behind the Generating Mechanism of New “Bei +X” Construction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, the new “bei +X” as a catch phrase has been gained much attention of researchers, such as “被代表” (being represented), “被幸福” (being happy), 被高铁 (being high speed rail) etc.. The new “bei+X” construction adopts the form of traditional “bei+X” construction, but applies the words and expressions which are not allowed in traditional “bei+X” construction in order to achieve pragmatic negation with distorted language form and a stressed “bei”. Based on this new construction, people can satirize some abnormal social phenomena and express their impotence. Previous studies of this construction mainly centered on forms and usages, and with more and more such kind of phrases appear, researchers began to study the generating mechanism of this construction. However, most previous studies of it are based on construction grammar and the study from the perspective of pragmatics mainly focuses on pragmatic effects and values while the generating mechanism is less explained. Therefore, this paper aims to explore the pragmatic motivation behind the generating mechanism of new “bei +X” in some specific principles: contexts constrain, requirement for the maxim of minimization, and face-saving. The findings will provide a complementary explanation of the generating mechanism of new “bei +X” construction and enable us to have a better understanding of this new construction.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.060 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".