The book reads well.

[Casiopea]

Originally Posted by Andrew Whitehead

You say [mediopassive reads] is describing a 'state', but where is the stative quality in the verb 'reads'? I have asked this several times now but it has not been answered.

OK. Let's try this from a different angle.

The structural subject of mediopassive constructs that are housed with the verbs break and wash doesn't have to be interpreted as having undergone a physical change in state. Rather, something like it had at one time undergone a process that changed its physical state:



[1] Mediopassive: This pane of glass breaks easily.

No change in state: It's not broken, though, but I or someone else has experienced breaking panes like it; therefore, that kind of glass breaks easily

Change in state: It's broken. I or someone else broke it and I am showing it to you now.

[2] Mediopassive: These dirty clothes wash easily.

No change in state: They haven't been washed, though, but I or someone else has experienced washing clothes like them; therefore, those kinds of clothes wash easily

Change in state: They have been washed. I or someone else washed them and I am showing them to you now.

Now, just as the structural subjects of mediopassive wash and break don't have to be interpreted as undergoing a change in state, the structural subject of mediopassive read doesn't have to be interpreted in that way either. The book is either unread or read. Change of state: an unread book becomes a read book. No change of state: an unread book is left unread with the knowledge that something like it had at one time undergone a change of state, notably, having been read.



Mediopassive: This book reads well.

No change of state: It hasn't been read by me, personally, but someone has experienced reading it; therefore, books like it read well.

Change of state: It has been read by me.

In short, read is a psychological verb. Nothing physical happens to its semantic object (i.e., the book doesn't change physically). Mediopassive read, like its adjectival counterparts in an unread book and a read book expresses a state. It describes the present state of the noun book. And that's how mediopassive read has a 'stative quality'.

Andrew, please note that, I'm not trying to force any reading on you. My intentions are good.

All the best.

[MrPedantic]

Originally Posted by Casiopea

I should have made that clearer at the time.

No, that's ok, I think it was my fuzzy late-night wits, on rereading the thread!

MrP

[MrPedantic]

Originally Posted by Andrew Whitehead

You too are not understanding the issue with 'reads'.
You say it is describing a 'state', but where is the stative quality in the verb 'reads'? I have asked this several times now but it has not been answered.

Here are some examples of "the X reads well". (Note how often it turns up in an academic context, by the way. This is by no means a slangy, new construction: if anything, it's slightly formal.)

If you examine the examples, you'll find that the phrase "the X reads well" almost always implies "X has the quality of being well written, fluently written, smoothly written, attractive, worth reading, etc."

Naturally, the speaker will have had to read the text in question, to perceive that quality. But the phrase doesn't directly relate to that particular act of reading. It relates to a quality that the speaker believes will be present for all readers. (That's why the present tense is used.)

Therefore it relates not to an act, but to a state.

MrP

PS: Earlier in this thread, I mentioned the use of active progressive constructions with passive meaning in previous centuries. For those who find such things interesting, I came across an example today:

1. Our garden is putting in order by a man who bears a remarkably good character. (Jane Austen, Letters, 1807.)

(= "...being put in order...")

[Casiopea]

Originally Posted by MrPedantic

...the phrase "the X reads well" almost always implies "X has the quality of being well written, fluently written, smoothly written, attractive, worth reading, etc."

Ooh, I like that interpretation because it flips the semantic field on its edge (i.e., it's lateral thinking at its best.) Mr P! Very nice.

Why 'almost always' and not always?

[Andrew Whitehead]

Change of state: It has been read by me.

Mediopassive read, like its adjectival counterparts in an unread book and a read book expresses a state. It describes the present state of the noun book. And that's how mediopassive read has a 'stative quality'.

I look at that, and I ask myself "What is an unread book? Does such a thing even exist?"

All books are read, even if the sole reader is the author. Before you brush this aside as philosophy or semantics-gone-mad, it does matter. If all books are 'read', then the quality of read or unread cannot lie in the book.

This is revealed in your own comment: 'It has been read by me'. You have to add 'by me' because we both know that 'it has been read' in isolation is a statement of the obvious to such a degree that it becomes meaningless.

If read/unread quality cannot lie in the book, where does it lie? The simple way to find that is to ask what changes. You say the book changes: I disagree. The book is a text; you pick it up, you read it, you put it down, and the text is exactly the same as it was before you picked it up. You have changed though. You hadn't read the text but now you have. You didn't know what ideas the text contained but now you do.

This seems to be a concept you have trouble with, but it is central to my objection to reads in a mediopassive.

When glass breaks easily, the change of state is in the glass (or theoretical/potential change of state if you insist), when jeans wash well the change of state is in the jeans. That, Cassi , is why we need no actor - the actor is not involved because the reciever (patient in your terms) is the glass/jeans.

When the book reads well, the change of state is in the actor, not in the book. Reads needs an actor, an actor is intrinsic to the concept of read, so they cannot be divorced in the way that breaks/washes can.

We seem to have two points of disagreement here.

1) You are starting from a premise that all verbs can be used in the mediopassive. That lies behind your frequent comment that washes/broken/peels/etc. can be used in mediopassive, therfore all verbs can be used in the mediopassive.

It is a similar argument to "I can drive a car and you can drive a car, therefore he must be able to drive a car", and fails for the same reason. Verbs are not identical, they are not a homogeneous group. Like people they all have different ideas attached and work in different circumstances.


2)The stative quality of reads. You and Mr. pedantic are using the same circular argument - that reads somehow, magically, develops a stative quality simply by being inserted into a mediopassive construct. That is essentially "it has a stative quality because we want it to have one", and you back it up with endless explanations of how mediopassive works - which says nothing about reads specifically.

I see that as confusion over cause and effect. Words reflect the world, hold up a mirror to nature. You seem to see it the other way round, that reads can be altered so you can crowbar it into the construction.

It relates to a quality that the speaker believes will be present for all readers

Exactly. It is a quality connected to all readers, not to the book.

If you, me, and Casiopea all read the same book, would you expect us to all have the same ideas about the book? I think it very doubtful. We would probably have very different ideas about it - because the 'read' is a quality in us as individuals, not in the book.

1. Our garden is putting in order by a man who bears a remarkably good character. (Jane Austen, Letters, 1807.)

This is a writers device, that is common now and has been through recorded history. It basically involves using a grammatically suspect construction to attract attention. Dylan Thomas was good at this, and there are some good examples in his wonderful magnus opus "Under Milkwood" - 'pelicaned his food' for example. For this technique to work well, the ideas have to be congruent even though the grammar isn't.

The problem is that over-use kills the effect, the phrase is no longer dissonant and as a result no longer noticeable.

Because the primary function is to grab attention, it most common modern use is in commercial texts and advertising. I am very tempted to offer 'the book reads well' as an example...

[Casiopea]

Originally Posted by Andrew

You are starting from a premise that all verbs can be used in the mediopassive.

So far, we've discussed wash, break, peel, and read, so I can't see how that limited number of verbs jumps to "all verbs". To my knowledge, no one has said that all verbs are privy to mediopassive voice. To be clear, all verbs are not privy to mediopassive voice. We can agree on that.

Andrew, it's clear The book reads well is unacceptable to you, and that no matter what is said or how it is said, you're going to stick t'yer guns. Good on ya and the more power to you. The results of your labor have served well to make your argument more visible, not to mention provided us with a meaty discussion on mediopassive voice, that many of our readers have enjoyed and learned from. As for whether your opinion is valid or not, time will tell. Your argument is still developing. As it stands, no one as of yet seems to share your personal opinion that The book reads well is unacceptable. Now, I mention that for this reason. The point of contention that started this 9 pages, and still going strong, thread, was your response to Lenka's question about whether The book reads well is 'correct' or not. Your response was that it is unacceptable, or rather you used the symbol . That kind of response is welcome; your evidence, however, stems from your own personal opinion and that in itself is the point of contention: a teacher's personal opinion is welcome as long as it offers the student the whole picture.

All the best.

[Dawnstorm]

Okay, another take:

1. The book looks good.
2. The book seems good.
3. *The book reads good. --> The book reads well.

If the English language viewed "reading" as a purely mental activity, with no objective counterpart in the book (physical or otherwise), I'd expect "read" to function as a linking verb. So why, then, did "The book reads well," catch on, instead of "The book reads good."?

[Casiopea]

Originally Posted by Dawnstorm

Okay, another take:

1. The book looks good.
2. The book seems good.
3. *The book reads good. --> The book reads well.

If the English language viewed "reading" as a purely mental activity, with no objective counterpart in the book (physical or otherwise), I'd expect "read" to function as a linking verb. So why, then, did "The book reads well," catch on, instead of "The book reads good."?

Good tends to be used as an adverb these days by North American speakers, not all though; e.g., The student reads good, Cf. The student reads well is standard.

[Dawnstorm]

Originally Posted by Casiopea

Good tends to be used as an adverb these days by North American speakers, not all though; e.g., The student reads good, Cf. The student reads well is standard.

That's interesting. Perhaps I should have used "bad/badly" to avoid ambiguity?

Is the point I'm trying to make clear, at all?

[Casiopea]

I came across the following phrase, reads poorly, found in Sir Eric Geddes: Business and Government in War and Peace by Keith Grieves (1991), cited here.

"In a series that sets out to be "readable," this book reads poorly. Sentences bear an uneasy relationship with their fellows; characters, events, ..."

There's also a very interesting article called Middles and Movement here.

All the best.