被动语态，作为一类基础而又重要的语法，一直是语言学家们研究的重点。英汉被动构式的对比研究也是英汉比较语言学领域里较为常见的话题。几十年来，研究者们通过基于语料库和非语料库的方法对英汉被动构式进行了大量研究。然而，基于英汉可比语料库并利用多因素量化方法分析英汉语言中典型被动构式的使用特征异同的研究却很少。

因此，本研究聚焦于英汉两种语言中典型的被动构式，即“be”被动构式和“被”被动构式，从形态、句法、语义、语用等多个维度对两种构式的12个特征变量进行标注，从而分别刻画两种构式的使用特征，并利用多变量统计方法——多重对应分析和逻辑回归模型，探寻这两种构式在何种方面呈现出异同，并利用认知语言学的相关理论探寻英汉被动构式异同产生的认知动因，从而更好地理解这两种不同类型的语言。

研究发现，英汉被动构式在具体使用中既有相似，也有不同。两种被动构式在用法上的相似性表现为：被动构式中的谓语动词多为及物动态动词，可见两种语言中被动构式的概念基础都是参与者受到动词表示的事件的影响，并且从受影响的参与者的角度来建构事件。此外，无施事的被动构式都多于有施事的被动构式，突出受事，弱化施事。在语用方面，“be”被动构式和“被”被动构式都倾向于使用有生施事、传递旧信息的受事和传递新信息的施事。

从多重对应分析图上可以直观看出两种被动构式在使用模式上的差异: “被”被动构式倾向于与有生受事相关联，倾向于与人称代词受事和人/动物类名词短语受事共现，与博客和小说体裁、消极语义韵、带结果的动词结构以及动宾短语相关联；而“be”被动构式更多地与无生受事相关，与抽象概念/观点/时间、动作/事件/情景等名词短语受事与非人称代词受事共现，与新闻和学术体裁、中性语义韵和单个动词结构联系紧密。此外，逻辑回归模型的结果也证实了是否存在施事、语义韵、动词结构、动词语义、受事和施事的有生性、句法功能等因素有效区分了这两种构式的使用。这些区别对应于受事在英汉被动构式中展现出的不同程度的受影响性、两者的不同起源以及不同的编码策略。英汉被动构式的语言结构反映了构建被动概念含义的不同的编码策略，从而展现出对被动事件诠释的差异性：英语被动构式局限于“be + v-en”的语言结构，构建的事件更加固定，变化较少，而汉语被动构式中“被”处于较独立的地位，且不涉及动词形态结构变化，在构建被动意义时更具灵活性与可能性。此外，这两种构式所表现出的不同程度的受影响性与语义倾向突出了英汉两种语言对待被动事件的不同：英语更显静态和客观，而汉语则更显动态和主观。

本研究对外语教学与二语习得以及英汉翻译有一定指导意义。在方法上，本研究也突出了多重对应分析和逻辑回归模型等量化工具在对比语言学研究中的实用性。

Passive construction, being a fundamental structure in nearly all languages, has attracted significant attention from scholars worldwide. The contrastive analysis of passive constructions in English and Chinese constitutes a prominent and challenging research topic within the domain of English-Chinese comparative linguistics. For decades, researchers have extensively studied passive structures in English and Chinese through various approaches including corpus-based and non-corpus-based methods. However, limited attention has been given to exploring the similarities and differences of multifactorial features specifically in English and Chinese prototypical passive constructions based on comparable corpora.

Therefore, the present study aims to employ quantitative tools to analyze the usage patterns of be-passives in English and bei-passives in Chinese and uncover the underlying cognitive representations of the constructions in English and Chinese so as to generate a better understanding of the two typologically different languages. Through both quantitative and qualitative analysis, the usage patterns of the two constructions are examined with respect to the variables in terms of morphological, syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic aspects. Having annotated the twelve variables of the passives and resorted to the multifactorial techniques of Multiple Correspondence Analysis (MCA) and logistic regression model, it is found that the passive constructions in English and Chinese display both similarities and differences in usage patterns.

As a result, the similarities shown in the usage of the two passive constructions are as follows: the predicate verb in both construction are mostly transitive and dynamic, reflecting that the conceptual basis of passives in the two languages is that one participant is truly affected by the action and the event is construed from alternative perspective of the affected participant. Also, the agentless passives both outnumber the agentive ones, highlighting the patient and defocusing the agent in a similar way. As for the pragmatic usage, both be-passives and bei-passives tend to employ animate agent, discourse-old patient and discourse-new agent.

The difference in the usage patterns between be-passives and bei-passives is visualized in MCA map: bei-passives tend to correlate with animate patient typically represented by the form of personal pronoun and noun phrases of people/animal, blog and fiction writing, negative semantic prosody, resultative verb construction, and verb-object phrase; while be-passives are more associated with inanimate patient typically represented by the form of noun phrases of concept/idea/time, action/event/situation, and impersonal pronoun, correlated with news and academic writing, neutral semantic prosody, and the structure of bare verb. In addition, the result of logistic regression model confirms well that the variable of agency, semantic prosody, verb structure, verbal semantics, animacy of the patient and the agent, syntactic function differentiate the usage of the two constructions. Overall, the distinctions correspond to the different degree of affectedness of the patient in the passive constructions, different derivation and origins, and distinctive coding strategies of passive constructions in English and Chinese. The linguistic structures of passive constructions in English and Chinese reflect different coding strategies that profile conceptual meanings of passives, resulting in differences in how passives are construed: English passives construct more fixed and less varied events due to the linguistic structure of “be + v-en”, while the independent status of bei in bei-passives allows for more flexibility and possibilities in constructing passive meanings. Additionally, the varying degrees of affectedness and semantic meanings demonstrated by these two constructions highlight typologically distinctive perspectives on passive events in English and Chinese: English adopts a more static and objective viewpoint, whereas Chinese takes on a more subjective and dynamic position.

The present study holds practical significance and sheds lights on foreign language teaching and learning, and English-Chinese translation. Methodologically, this study emphasizes the usefulness of quantitative tools such as MCA and logistic regression models as valuable resources for contrastive linguistics.