The book reads well.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Sep 3, 2005
Member Type
English Teacher
Casiopea said:
Food, film, and job are inanimate; they cannot like, enjoy, or hate

That is one reason why I chose them, because that is exactly what I am saying about read. The book too is inanimate and cannot read.

If it is acceptable for an unseen actor to do the reading, can't an unseen actor also do the liking, enjoying, and hating?


In mediopassive voice it's the object that's promoted, not the subject. In other words, promote the object ball and the result is a mediopassive-voice reading. (Note, the symbol ? means semantically awkward):

This is the other reason for my choice of examples In your previous post you said it didn't matter because (according to Fagan) "the verb read in English is lexically derived (See bottom of page 58 and top of page 59 here.)" to avoid the semantic awkwardness of 'reads'.

If that is true for 'reads' is must also be true for like, enjoy, hate, or any other mental activity. There is no semantic problem with inanimate objects that can't do any of these things, because the verb is purely lexical.


In mediopassive voice it's the object that's promoted, not the subject.

Why can't the dog be the object being caught? 'Catch' acts on the dog, so the dog is the object of the unstated actor catching it. It looks awkward I agree - but it is meant to. ;-)


the book is experienced by an agent left unstated.

In my examples, the food is experienced by an agent left unstated, and so are the film, and the job. They are liked, enjoyed, and hated by unstated actors in the same way that the book is read by an an unstated actor.

I suspect that what is happening here is that you have seen 'the book reads well/easily' so often that you accept 'read' as a state, and as something that happens to the book.

Nothing happens to the book, which is why it is not the same as 'clothes wash easily' or 'glass breaks easily' where the clothes and the glass receive an action.

As mediopassive is essentially a passive voice this is important - an action has to be recieved for it to be passive. Something has to happen to the object.


Mediopassive: ?The vegetables hate easily. <Awkward because the vegetables are the ones doing the hating.>

How does that differ from "the book reads well"? You seem to be saying that it doesn't work because someone has to do the hating. That is true because 'hate' is a mental activity - and so is 'read'. Someone has to do the reading - but this doesn't matter in mediopassive because the unstated actor does it.

You seem to be switching mediopassive and middle at random... :-?


On a general note, you are going to great lengths to explain mediopassive, but my objection is with 'read' (or any other mental/sensory verb) not with the existence of mediopassive.
 

siruss

Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Member Type
Student or Learner
Both of you are linguistic experts!! :up:
I have read all of your replies.
I admit that most of them are too hard for me. :oops:
But it helps a lot. :up: :up:

I'm going to read agian and again until it is clear to me.

Bye~
 

Dawnstorm

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2007
Member Type
Other
"Like, enjoy, hate..." are, perhaps, not the best verbs to compare with "read", as read is an activity you have to make an effort for: You can say: "I'll read the book at five o'clock." You can't really say: "I'll hate you at five o'clock".

How about comparing:

1.a This sentence is strange to read.
1.b This sentence reads strangely.

2.a This puzzle is hard to solve.
2.b This puzzle solves hard.

I have no objection to 1.b whatsoever. 2.b sounds strange to me, though. Why is that?

***

Btw:
Casiopea said:
The clothes wash well.
middle: they wash themselves :tick:
mediopassive: they are washable :tick:

The glass breaks well.
middle: it breaks itself :tick:
mediopassive: it is breakable :tick:

The book reads well.
middle: it reads itself :cross:
mediopassive: it is readable :tick:

Would it be interesting to point out that the German version of "The book reads well," is, in fact, syntactically reflexive: "Das Buch liest sich gut" (Literally: "The book reads self well.") Now, I'm a native speaker of German, but I don't see any semantic reflexivity hear. The book doesn't read itself. The clothes wash well, would be rendered in the same way ("Die Kleidung wäscht sich gut.") Interestingly, "Glass breaks easily" takes a different pattern: "Glas (zer)bricht leicht."

How languages organise their syntax varies. The above distinction seems to be modelled on classical grammars (middle voice exists in Classical Greek, let's apply it to English). Not all grammatical terms transfer equally well (<- look a middle voice!), though.
 

Casiopea

VIP Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2003
Member Type
Other
That is one reason why I chose them, because that is exactly what I am saying about read. The book too is inanimate and cannot read.
Yes, I see that; however, the semantics of the structural subject (i.e., film, food, book), although important, are secondary to the issue at hand. The primary issue here is this. The verbs like, enjoy, and hate are different from the verb read in these ways:

1) read is not a stative verb; like and enjoy are stative verbs.
2) read does not subcategorize for a doer as subject; hate does.
3) read can be passive, like and enjoy cannot be.

A verb's category (i.e., transitive, intransitive, di-transitive, linking) and what it subcategorizes for (i.e., thematic roles) are separate from Voice (active, passive, middle, and mediopassive), and yet your examples marry the three. Like, enjoy, hate, and read are verbs, but there's more to them than that category heading. They are not the same.

Andrew said:
If it is acceptable for an unseen actor to do the reading, can't an unseen actor also do the liking, enjoying, and hating?
That's another way of saying why isn't passive "The food is enjoyed (by us)" grammatical? Not all verbs can undergo the passive, especially stative verbs, and yet you use stative verbs in your examples. Note that, a mediopassive verb get its name from the very fact that it is between active and "passive". It has both active and passive qualities.

Andew said:
This is the other reason for my choice of examples In your previous post you said it didn't matter because (according to Fagan) "the verb read in English is lexically derived (See bottom of page 58 and top of page 59 here)".
Lexically derived as opposed to movement (i.e., transformation). That like and enjoy are stative and that hate subcategorizes for a doer as subject is information that's housed within each verb's lexical make up. A verb carries its information with it into the syntax. That information is part of the verb. It is not derived via structure (i.e., movement), as is, say, passive and mediopassive voice.

Andrew said:
If that is true for 'reads' is must also be true for like, enjoy, hate, or any other mental activity. There is no semantic problem with inanimate objects that can't do any of these things, because the verb is purely lexical.
Apparently you have a different definition of "lexically derived". What does it mean to you?

Andrew said:
Why can't the dog be the object being caught? 'Catch' acts on the dog, so the dog is the object of the unstated actor catching it. It looks awkward I agree - but it is meant to. ;-)
It's not awkward at all, at least to me. You see, you just explained the mediopassive. :-D:up:

MedioP: The dog catches easily.
=> Meaning, people, in general, can catch the dog easily.
(It's a slow dog. :lol:)

Andrew said:
In my examples, the food is experienced by an agent left unstated,...
Verbs that subcategorize for an experiencer are the first ones I'd check, too, if I were looking at how mediopassive voice works. However, I wouldn't start with stative verbs. You see, they're not compatible with passive voice. ;-)

Andrew said:
I suspect that what is happening here is that you have seen 'the book reads well/easily' so often that you accept 'read' as a state, and as something that happens to the book.
I haven't seen or heard mediopassive verbs all that often, and the contexts in which they do pop up, especially read, are in some way or another related to advertising. (By the way, opportunity and exposure work the other way, too. It could be said that those who find mediopassive verbs awkward haven't had opportunity or exposure enough to get a handle on their semantics. I, for one, wouldn't use that argument, though, because the underlying assumption there is that mediopassive read is contrived, and as of yet, no one has offered evidence, substantial or otherwise that speakers don't know how to process the semantics of mediopassive read. That verb is different from break and wash, in that it is not privy to both middle and mediopassive constructs, but to say that it's contrived, well...prove it.) ;-)

Andrew said:
Nothing happens to the book, which is why it is not the same as 'clothes wash easily' or 'glass breaks easily' where the clothes and the glass receive an action.
So, what you're saying is that the book doesn't undergo a visable change, right? OK. Let's change the object. What about, Faces read well, especially to visually impaired people. Consider this. When clothes are washed, they don't change form, but an agent (water) acts upon them. When a face is read, it doesn't change form; an agent (hands) acts upon it.
Andrew said:
As mediopassive is essentially a passive voice this is important - an action has to be recieved for it to be passive. Something has to happen to the object.
First, you seem to be aware that mediopassive has passive like qualities, and yet you chose stative verbs as examples of mediopassive voice. Why? I am missing something. :oops: Second, given Her face was read (passive), nothing 'happens' to the structural subject/semantic object. ;-)

Andrew said:
[?The vegetables hate easily] How does that differ from "the book reads well"? You seem to be saying that it doesn't work because someone has to do the hating.
Not 'seem to be saying' but saying. ;-) You can't get a mediopassive reading from ?The vegetables hate easily. That's the semantics of hate, not the semantics of the mediopassive. Again, lexical meaning and structural meaning are different. One is housed within the verb itself (i.e., transitivity, dynamic, stative, roles), the other is derived via structure (i.e., passive, mediopassive).
Andrew said:
That is true because 'hate' is a mental activity - and so is 'read'. Someone has to do the reading - but this doesn't matter in mediopassive because the unstated actor does it.
With the example, Her face reads well the structural subject Her hands do the reading, like water does the clothes.

Andrew said:
You seem to be switching mediopassive and middle at random... :-?
Please, point out where - so that I can address it. :-D

Andrew said:
On a general note, you are going to great lengths to explain mediopassive, but my objection is with 'read' (or any other mental/sensory verb) not with the existence of mediopassive.
OK. What other verbs are there like read that we can compare and contrast?:up:
 
Last edited:

Casiopea

VIP Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2003
Member Type
Other
Welcome, to the discussion, Dawnstorm. :hi:
How about comparing:

1.a This sentence is strange to read.
1.b This sentence reads strangely.

2.a This puzzle is hard to solve.
2.b This puzzle solves hard.

I have no objection to 1.b whatsoever. 2.b sounds strange to me, though. Why is that?
The choice of adverb, most likely. ;-)
Dawnstorm said:
Would it be interesting to point out that the German version of "The book reads well," is, in fact, syntactically reflexive: "Das Buch liest sich gut" (Literally: "The book reads self well.")
Here's something that might interest you (and others): Middles in German

All the best. :-D
 

Casiopea

VIP Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2003
Member Type
Other
I admit that most of them are too hard for me. :oops:
But it helps a lot. :up: :up:

I'm going to read agian and again until it is clear to me.

Bye~
I'll try to make it easier for you next time I post. If you have any questions, let us know. Join our discussion, siruss. :-D
 

siruss

Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Member Type
Student or Learner
I'll try to make it easier for you next time I post. If you have any questions, let us know. Join our discussion, siruss. :-D

No, thank you.;-) I don't have any knowledge on this issue.
I thought "The book reads well." was right just because my grammar book said so. ( There was not enough explanation about this issue. It just said the sentence can be used.)
So, I just memorized the sentence.

But after reading your debate on the matter, I've learned a lot.

Thanks a lot! :-D
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 3, 2005
Member Type
English Teacher
casiopea said:
1) read is not a stative verb; like and enjoy are stative verbs.

Why is that a problem? From your earlier post...
Casiopea said:
Mediopassive voice is a passive voice in which the

* verb has stative meaning, and
* actor is not expressed.

If anything, that should mean that like and enjoy can be used in mediopassive, but read can't be...

Casiopea said:
2) read does not subcategorize for a doer as subject;hate does.

How do they differ, exactly? They are both mental activities, and both need a doer.


Casiopea said:
3) read can be passive, like and enjoy cannot be.

The teacher was liked by the students
The show was enjoyed by all.

Check your Swan PEU, 412

"verbs that refer to wanting, liking, and similar ideas cannot usually be used in passive structures with following infinitives."

Like and enjoy may be unusual as passive, but it is not forbidden. The only verbs that cannot be passive are intransitive such as 'read' when used to mean "the ability to read" - in "the boy reads well" for example. ;-)


Casiopea said:
Like, enjoy, hate, and read are verbs, but there's more to them than that category heading. They are not the same.

No they are not. Nor, as I keep saying, are read, wash, and break. ;-)


Casiopea said:
Apparently you have a different definition of "lexically derived". What does it mean to you?

"Obtained from vocabulary", the meaning is derived from common usage. Similar to "lexical meaning" in which the sentence is ignored.


Casiopea said:
It's not awkward at all, at least to me. You see, you just explained the mediopassive.

I have no problem with mediopassive, only with reads in the mediopassive. From my last post:-

"On a general note, you are going to great lengths to explain mediopassive, but my objection is with 'read' (or any other mental/sensory verb) not with the existence of mediopassive."

[QUOTE+Casiopea]On a general note, you are going to great lengths to explain mediopassive, but my objection is with 'read' (or any other mental/sensory verb) not with the existence of mediopassive.[/QUOTE]


casiopea said:
You see, they're not compatible with passive voice.

Unusual Casi, but not incompatible.

'Some 'stative' verbs - verbs which describe states rather than actions - are almost never found in the passive. Examples include lack, fit, resemble. You can't say Sports facilities are lacked by the University; you need to say The University lacks sports facilities. Not all stative verbs are like this, however: check in your dictionary if you're not sure.'

This is a side issue though, as mediopassive requires a stative, as you said yourself.


speakers don't know how to process the semantics of mediopassive read.

People understand it, so that proves it is grammatically correct? :roll:


So, what you're saying is that the book doesn't undergo a visable change, right?

No, I am not saying that. I am saying that there is no 'act' on the book - no 'happening' - that the only 'act' is thought and this must occur in the actor. This shows that 'read' is 100% action. No stative reference at all, and should not be used in the mediopassive because mediopassive requires a stative reference.


You can't get a mediopassive reading from ?The vegetables hate easily.

I can't get one from 'the book reads easily' either, for exactly the reasons you state.


Please, point out where - so that I can address it.

You tell me to ignore semantics because the mediopassive reading of 'the book reads well" is lexically derived, and then object to my examples on semantic grounds.
 

MrPedantic

Key Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
Like Siruss, I've found this thread very informative (and will also have to reread it).

Two tangential points:

1. Middle voice: I agree that it's better to reserve this term for the reflexive/self-advantageous voice that we find e.g. in Greek.

2. "To read" in the sense "to bear reading", "to be readable" is recorded from 1668; in the sense, "to have a specified character when read", "to produce a certain impression on the reader", from 1731.

Unfortunately my dictionary only gives one example:

i) ...whose productions...read better than they act... (1789)

But here are some characteristic literary instances:

ii) This is typical: it reads like the germ of some kindly comedy. (Stevenson, in Memories and Portraits)

iii) For although I must confess it reads very much like an application or a testimonial or some such thing as that, I can assure you I am writing this in fear and trembling with a sinking heart. (Wells, in Ann Veronica)

iv) ...for the old gentleman's speech, considered as a lecture on pharmacy, is highly absurd; but considered as a hoax on Anastasius, it reads excellently. (De Quincey, in the Opium Eater)

v) This reads like the evasion of the national historians to disguise the fact discreditable to their hero. (Gibbon, in Decline & Fall)

vi) It reads like a wild fancy sketch, but the evidence of many witnesses, and likewise that of the official records of Esmeralda District, is easily obtainable in proof that it is a true history. (Twain, in Roughing It)

MrP
 

Casiopea

VIP Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2003
Member Type
Other
Why is that [i.e., 'read is not a stative verb]' a problem?
Where SIL describes mediopassive voice as "a passive voice in which the verb has a stative meaning", they are referring to the semantics of the mediopassive contruct, the syntax, not the verb's lexically housed semantics.
Andrew said:
How do [the verbs read and hate] differ, exactly? They are both mental activities, and both need a doer.
Not 'mental activities' per se, but rather psych(ological) verbs.

Andrew said:
Check your Swan PEU, 412
Like and enjoy may be unusual as passive, but it is not forbidden.
That's very true, Andrew - what's with the word 'forbidden'? - but that's not the case with the examples you provided: mediopassive like and enjoy are ungrammatical. ;-) Do you know why?

Andrew said:
No they are not [the same]. Nor, as I keep saying, are read, wash, and break.
OK. So, we agree, then. The semantics of the verb read is different from that of wash, break, like, enjoy, and hate. Right? :-D Now, given that read is the odd one out of that bunch, why use that bunch as examples?

Andrew said:
"Obtained from vocabulary", the meaning is derived from common usage. Similar to "lexical meaning" in which the sentence is ignored.
Right. In other words, stative is lexically derived, whereas SIL's description 'stative meaning' means structurally derived.

Andrew said:
I have no problem with mediopassive, only with reads in the mediopassive. From my last post:

"On a general note, you are going to great lengths to explain mediopassive, but my objection is with 'read' (or any other mental/sensory verb) not with the existence of mediopassive."
The reason being, you are comparing read with verbs that can't and don't work in mediopassive voice. ;-) It's like saying, I think blue isn't a color. In fact, I can prove it: blue is not a color, because apples aren't colors. :roll:

Andrew said:
...mediopassive requires a stative, as you said yourself.
I did? :shock: Could you show me where?

People understand [the semantics of mediopassive voice], so that proves it is grammatically correct? :roll:
Uh, yeah. :lol:

Andrew said:
...there is no 'act' on the book - no 'happening' - that the only 'act' is thought and this must occur in the actor. This shows that 'read' is 100% action. No stative reference at all, and should not be used in the mediopassive because mediopassive requires a stative reference.
First, what about mediopassive Her face reads well? How does that sit with you? Second, sounds to me as if you're saying read is a psych verb, which would explain why you're using other psych verbs to compare it with.

Andrew said:
You tell me to ignore semantics because the mediopassive reading of 'the book reads well" is lexically derived, and then object to my examples on semantic grounds.
First, that the semantics of mediopassive verbs are lexically derived is not my idea. I believe I cited the source on that. In fact, you even referenced it in one of your posts. Second, where did I tell you to ignore the semantics of mediopassive voice? It's all about the semantics. :-D Third, I don't object to your using stative, psych verbs as examples; they just don't support your argument - blue is not a color, because apples are not colors. ;-)

All the best. :-D
 
Last edited:

Casiopea

VIP Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2003
Member Type
Other
MrP said:
2. "To read" in the sense "to bear reading", "to be readable" is recorded from 1668; in the sense, "to have a specified character when read", "to produce a certain impression on the reader", from 1731.
Lovely!
 

Casiopea

VIP Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2003
Member Type
Other
MrP said:
2. "To read" in the sense "to bear reading", "to be readable" is recorded from 1668; in the sense, "to have a specified character when read", "to produce a certain impression on the reader", from 1731.
Finally.:-D

Now, I wonder...

Given the wording here, "to produce a certain impression on the reader", the first thing that comes to mind is who or rather what is the semantic subject, the thing producing the impression. It's certainly not the reader, the person, nor is it 'the book' per se - Andrew's intuition speaks loudly, and tenatiously, against that. So then, could the true subject of mediopassive read be a projection or extension of the verb phrase itself;i.e., The book reads well means Reading the book produces a good impression on the reader?

All the best. :-D
 

svartnik

Key Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2006
Member Type
Student or Learner
Is the sentence below correct?

The book reads well.

read =
a : to yield a particular meaning or impression when read
b : to be readable or read in a particular manner or to a particular degree <this book reads smoothly>
c : to consist of specific words, phrases, or other similar elements <a passage that reads differently in older versions>

Definition of read - Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

'(R)ead' may be used in mediopassive sense as we can see above, and 'read' has stative meaning.
.
 

MrPedantic

Key Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
So then, could the true subject of mediopassive read be a projection or extension of the verb phrase itself;i.e., The book reads well means Reading the book produces a good impression on the reader?

I suppose I look on "The book reads well" as a kind of "inversion with pathetic fallacy" of "The author writes well" (cf. "The music sounds nice"). But I will have to think about this.

At a tangent: it may be worth noting that passive constructions were much less common, in earlier forms of English; active constructions of this kind seem to have filled the gap.

For instance, the passive present progressive only swims into view at the beginning of the 19th century. Before then (and perhaps for some time after, as the p.p.p. wasn't warmly embraced by all), you would have said "The house is building", rather than "The house is being built".

When such constructions were commonplace, it would not presumably have seemed outlandish to transfer the structure of a phrase such as "The post-chaise drives well" to the phenomenon of reading a book – even while granting that, though the vehicle did at least "do" something, the book didn't.

MrP
 
Joined
Sep 3, 2005
Member Type
English Teacher
Where SIL describes mediopassive voice as "a passive voice in which the verb has a stative meaning", they are referring to the semantics of the mediopassive contruct, the syntax, not the verb's lexically housed semantics.

You can't simply ignore the properties of the verb. If the mediopassive construct is going to carry the idea of 'stative', then the verb that carries the action in the construct has to carry the idea of 'stative' too.

If it doesn't, then you are effectively altering the meaning of the verb to suite the construct.


The semantics of the verb read is different from that of wash, break, like, enjoy, and hate. Right?

Wrong. You are implying that wash, break, like, enjoy, and hate are all identical and that reads is the only one that differs. That is not true: they all differ from the rest in some way, and I suspect that you know that as well as I do. Lets not play rhetorical games...


Now, given that read is the odd one out of that bunch, why use that bunch as examples?

1) wash and break are not my examples, and I have already pointed out that they differ fundamentally from reads

2) As I said previously, I chose them because, like read, they are all mental activities. A passive voice is about what happens to an object. With mental activities nothing happens to the object, so they shouldn't be used in mediopassive.


The reason being, you are comparing read with verbs that can't and don't work in mediopassive voice. It's like saying, I think blue isn't a color. In fact, I can prove it: blue is not a color, because apples aren't colors.

What do you expect me to do?!

I object to mediopassive 'read' because it is a mental activity, so I compare it to other verbs that we both agree can't be used in the mediopassive because they are mental activities. That makes sense to me...


It's like saying, I think blue isn't a color. In fact, I can prove it: blue is not a color, because apples aren't colors.

Arguing that like and wash work in the mediopassive so read must too is like saying apples are green and I can prove it: apples are green because grass is green. This is a silly argument Casi, words are ideas, not objects.

That is not the basis of my argument though. The basis, as I have said several times before, is that the mediopassive requires a stative quality in the verb.

Transwicki:'a grammatical voice in which the actor of a stative verb is not expressed'

You cite SIL that agrees with this, so I assume you do too. Yet, reads is an active verb - don't you agree? - and arguably intransitive in this use.

I did? Could you show me where?

I did, in my previous post.
Originally Posted by Casiopea
Mediopassive voice is a passive voice in which the

* verb has stative meaning, and
* actor is not expressed.


Uh, yeah.

Oh oh... the 'people say it so that makes it right' argument?


First, what about mediopassive Her face reads well? How does that sit with you?

It sits as possibly irrelevant, possibly a rhetorical device. Reading a face is a different field of reference to reading a book, but that is hidden behind the idea of reading with hands instead of eyes.

If the question is about reading by touch, then lets use the example 'the braille book reads well' - and here nothing changes.


Second, sounds to me as if you're saying read is a psych verb, which would explain why you're using other psych verbs to compare it with.

So, you want me to categorise 'reads' so you can quote a dictionary at me that says reads isn't a psych verb?

I use the phrase 'mental activity' because that is what I mean. 'Reads', used to mean 'enjoy reading a book' (as in 'the book reads well') carries the idea of understanding. Understanding is a mental activity.


First, that the semantics of mediopassive verbs are lexically derived is not my idea. I believe I cited the source on that. In fact, you even referenced it in one of your posts.

If you cite a source to support your PoV, it is reasonable to assume that the idea expressed by that source agrees with your own ideas, right?


Second, where did I tell you to ignore the semantics of mediopassive voice? It's all about the semantics.

You cited a source telling us that in 'the book reads well' the meaning is lexically derived, and commented that 'they are still using it. It's entered the wet-wear, it's been processed; it's now part of their grammar, the rules. The question now is, where do they house that new information? It has to have some sort of semantics to it. So, what are those semantics?'

I took that to mean that your PoV is that people are using 'the book reads well' so we should ignore the current semantics of 'read' and invent a new set that matches use. That is also what Fagan is saying, and I presume you agree with the source you cite.
 

Casiopea

VIP Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2003
Member Type
Other
MrPedantic said:
When such constructions were commonplace, it would not presumably have seemed outlandish to transfer the structure of a phrase such as "The post-chaise drives well" to the phenomenon of reading a book – even while granting that, though the vehicle did at least "do" something, the book didn't.
Should that be a criterion though, that the verb's object "do" something?

Consider this. Mediopassive is just another way of promoting the verb's object. Like passive voice, the verb phrase is inverted, but unlike passive voice, which requires passive morphology;i.e., periphrastic BE +ed/en (e.g., is peeled, was eaten), in mediopassive voice a verb requires active morphology (i.e., peels).

Active: X peels Y
Passive: Y is peeled by X
Mediopassive: Y peels Adverb (by X) Ex: Ripe oranges peel easily.

Note, in all three voices the adverb easily modifies the verb, not the object:

Active: X easliy peels Y
Active: X peels Y easily
Active: Easily, X peels Y
Passive: Y was peeled easily.
Mediopassive: Y peels easily.

In other words, Y does not "do" anything, nor does it have to "do" anything. It's acted upon. Pragmatics tells us that: oranges can't peel themselves. In sum, why should the fact that the book doesn't do anything here be a criterion?

Mediopassive: The book reads well.

All the best. :-D
 

Casiopea

VIP Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2003
Member Type
Other
If the mediopassive construct is going to carry the idea of 'stative', then the verb that carries the action in the construct has to carry the idea of 'stative' too.
Which it does. The verb's theta roles don't change here:

Active: X reads Y (Y is acted upon)
Mediopassive: Y reads well (Y is described as having been acted upon)

Now, if you're saying the verb read has to be lexically stative in order to be compatible with mediopassive voice, then given that logic, wash, a dynamic verb, shouldn't work in mediopassive voice, and yet it does; e.g., The clothes wash easily.

Andrew said:
With mental activities nothing happens to the object, so they shouldn't be used in mediopassive.
Why should "do" be a criterion? You need to explain that more.

Andrew said:
Transwicki:'a grammatical voice in which the actor of a stative verb is not expressed'
You're reading lexically stative. It's not. It's structurally stative. An intransitive verb that appears active in its morphology but expresses a passive action in its theta roles characterizes mediopassive voice; e.g., The braille book <patient> reads well.

Andrew said:
...your PoV is that people are using 'the book reads well' so we should ignore the current semantics of 'read' and invent a new set that matches use.
Don't do that. :-D Don't ignore the sematics of read, ignore the urge to interpret the structural subject (e.g., The book reads well) as the agent. The book is not the agent, right? How could it be? Lexically, it's the verb's semantic object, that is, the verb read subcategorizes for a <patient> role as its object) which makes The book a <patient> and acted upon - which is how speakers interpret it (See Fagan).

The book doesn't switch its semantic role from <patient> to <agent> in passive voice, so why should it switch roles in mediopassive voice?

As a <patient> The book doesn't act, it is acted upon - no matter where in the sentence it sits. Its sematic role (as part of the verb read's subcategorizational frame) is constant; it's the syntax (i.e., the word order) that's variable. That interplay between syntax and semantics is the very reason a mediopassive verb is understood as expressing a stative meaning: The book <patient> reads well. The book cannot act. So, ignore the urge to interpret it as an <agent> that can act. ;-)

All the best. :-D
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 3, 2005
Member Type
English Teacher
Should that be a criterion though, that the verb's object "do" something?

No, because we are discussing passive. The verbs object should have something done to it by the unstated actor.


Pragmatics tells us that: oranges can't peel themselves. In sum, why should the fact that the book doesn't do anything here be a criterion?
You need to explain that more.

No, the oranges don't peel themselves, but they do receive a peeling, and the clothes receive a washing, and the glass receives a breaking. The problem with the book is that it doesn't receive anything. Isn't that a criteria for any passive voice - that there is a receiver?


Mediopassive: Y reads well (Y is described as having been acted upon)

Exactly! In 'the book reads well' the book is not acted on. 'read' doesn't happen to the book, it happens in the actors mind - a mental activity.


if you're saying the verb read has to be lexically stative in order to be compatible with mediopassive voice, then given that logic, wash, a dynamic verb, shouldn't work in mediopassive voice, and yet it does; e.g., The clothes wash easily.

No, I am not saying it has to be lexically stative - though that would help. I am saying that the verb needs a stative reference, as wash does, to be used in mediopassive.


You're reading lexically stative. It's not. It's structurally stative.

No Casi, I am not reading lexically stative. Where did I ever say that? From my previous post

'If the mediopassive construct is going to carry the idea of 'stative', then the verb that carries the action in the construct has to carry the idea of 'stative' too.'

The verb needs to carry the idea of stative, have a stative reference. I did not say the lexical meaning had to be stative.


ignore the urge to interpret the structural subject (e.g., The book reads well) as the agent. The book is not the agent, right?

Did I ever say the book was the agent? You seem to be seriously misunderstanding my objection here!


the verb read subcategorizes for a <patient> role as its object) which makes The book a <patient> and acted upon

This is where we differ: the book is not acted upon. Nothing 'happens' to the book. The only act happens to the actor - he receives knowledge/pleasure/information/whatever from the book.


The book cannot act. So, ignore the urge to interpret it as an <agent> that can act.

I have never had that urge...
 

Casiopea

VIP Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2003
Member Type
Other
That ripe oranges peel easily implies someone experienced peeling a ripe orange or two and therefore knows that oranges like that, even
though they haven't received a peeling yet, peel easily. Similarly, that book reads well implies someone experienced reading it and therefore knows that it reads well. It has 'received' a reading.

Andrew said:
'read' doesn't happen to the book, it happens in the actors mind - a mental activity.
Right, and that's what we expect in passive constructs as well. (I can't seem to figure out what you want me to see. :oops: )

Andrew said:
No, I am not saying it has to be lexically stative - though that would help. I am saying that the verb needs a stative reference, as wash does, to be used in mediopassive.
OK. Help me. :oops: How does wash have a 'stative reference' and read not have one?

Andrew said:
Did I ever say the book was the agent? You seem to be seriously misunderstanding my objection here!
Actually, I'm starting to realize that myself at this point. :-? From where I stand, I don't understand all that clearly what it is, exactly, you find problematic with mediopassive read. :oops: I know it has something to do with read being, to use your words, a mental activity, but I don't get why that is a problem. :oops:


All the best. :-D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top