The book reads well.
- Thread starter Lenka
- Start date
- Views : 71,775
- Status
Andrew Whitehead
Member
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2005
- Member Type
- English Teacher
casiopea said:
In "the clothes wash well" there is a syntactical link between 'clothes' and 'wash' - 'wash' happens to the clothes.
In "the glass breaks easily" there is a syntactical link between 'glass' and 'breaks' - 'break' happens to the glass
In "the book reads well' there is no syntactical link between 'book' and 'reads' - reads doesn't happen to the book, it is performed by an actor. 'Read' requires an actor to be stated to form a coherent sentence.
casiopea said:
'Read' needs understanding. That means you have to have a mind present to do the understanding. Read can only be an action, performed by a thinking subject. IMO, read can't be stative, or even stative-like - a view supported by Dowty tests - and shouldn't be used in a mediopassive voice.
'Wash' requires no understanding, no mind, no thinking subject. A mindless washing- machine can wash your clothes.
Washing is something that happens to your clothes, breaking is something that happens to window for example, but reading is not something that happens to a book - the book doesn't change - it is something done by the reader.
If you are wondering why this matters...
"What happened to my blue shirt?" -> "Its in the wash!" - 'wash' describes the situation the shirt is in: it has a stative field of reference.
"What happened to the glass?" -> "It broke!" - 'broke' describes the situation the glass is in: it has a stative field of reference.
By comparison
"What happened to the book?" -> "It reads!" - nonsense: it has no stative foeld of reference.
"What happened to the book?" -> "its in the read!" - still nonsense: still no stative field of reference.
Last edited:
:lol: That was cute!
The preposition of is often omitted; e.g., on both (of) those sites. ;-)Lenka said:
All the best. :-D
Very nice explanation. However, that is exactly how mediopassive verbs (not middle verbs) are described. :-D
Wash and break can be either middle or mediopassive, whereas read cannot. The latter two admit ambiguity, read does not:
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:
In short, read is not a middle verb; it's mediopassive. It doesn't have a 'deep subject', whereas wash and break can in middle voice. We could, of course, interpret read as having a deep subject, but that would make it a middle voice verb, or rather a semantically awkward middle voice verb, as you well know. :-D
In English,
Ergative: This vase broke.
Who or what broke the vase isn't important. What's important is the vase didn't break by itself. It required something or someone to break it.
Middle: This vase breaks easily. <actually, not 'Middle' (although that term is used), but mediopassive> ;-)
Who or what broke the vase isn't important. What's important is the vase is easily breakable.
That's the short answer. For a longer answer click here.
All the best. :-D
Andrew Whitehead
Member
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2005
- Member Type
- English Teacher
Casiopea said:
Oh...thank you...
Is 'that' referring to 'with syntactical link' or to 'without syntactical link'?I think you are missing my point a little, as my issue is with the verb 'reads' specifically.
As far as I am aware, a middle verb describes a quality of the preceding noun, and a mediopassive has a stative(or stative like) verb and an unexpressed actor.
Transwicki:'a grammatical voice in which the actor of a stative verb is not expressed'
Reads is a dynamic verb. It fails the Dowty tests, and since it describes a mental action I can't sensibly see even a 'stative-like' quality - in short, it is a purely dynamic verb.
This appears important to me. If we are referencing a stative verb, or even a stative-like quality in a nominally dynamic verb, because we are talking about a state there is no need to mention an actor. This makes sense.
On the other hand, if there is no stative-like reference, then we are definitely talking about an act and we must have a stated (or at least implied) actor, which excludes it from being used in a mediopassive.
I believe this to be the situation with 'reads'.
Last edited:
Lenka
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 3, 2004
- Member Type
- Student or Learner
Oh, thank you for the explanation, indeed! I am just wndering... what is the difference between a middle verb and a mediopassive? I thought it was the same.
One might say I am going into too much detail about this (and it is probably the truth) but I am simply interested in it ;-) .
My thoughts:
1. How many people setting out to learn English have a clue, or even need to have a clue, about what 'medopassive', 'ergative', or any other of the strange linguistic terms invented by academics, means? I've lived quite happily and very productively through two millennia without ever either coming across or needing to use such terms.
2. If the person listening to what you say, or reading what you write, understands what you mean, it can't be wrong. Surely language is about getting your point across to others, not about how much your choice of style conforms to some unknown third party's ideas about 'correctness'.
I once employed someone who was byslexic (pun intended) and his speling was not gud, but he never rote anything that couldn't be understood by anyone....was he wrong? ...or just a normal communicator?
Who are the self-appointed judges who decide whether some particular use of English is acceptable? Why are they so often out of date with reality?
1. How many people setting out to learn English have a clue, or even need to have a clue, about what 'medopassive', 'ergative', or any other of the strange linguistic terms invented by academics, means? I've lived quite happily and very productively through two millennia without ever either coming across or needing to use such terms.
2. If the person listening to what you say, or reading what you write, understands what you mean, it can't be wrong. Surely language is about getting your point across to others, not about how much your choice of style conforms to some unknown third party's ideas about 'correctness'.
I once employed someone who was byslexic (pun intended) and his speling was not gud, but he never rote anything that couldn't be understood by anyone....was he wrong? ...or just a normal communicator?
Who are the self-appointed judges who decide whether some particular use of English is acceptable? Why are they so often out of date with reality?
mykwyner
Key Member
- Joined
- May 13, 2005
- Member Type
- English Teacher
- Native Language
- English
- Home Country
- United States
- Current Location
- United States
For some people, studying the complexity of human language usage is more fun than water skiing or digital home theater. True students of language (I fall far short of that class) know they cannot be rule-makers, but are content (or even ecstatic) just being observers and describers. Understanding human language is the key to understanding human thought. In that endeavor there can never be too much data.
Does it matter how many zuegmas can dance on the head of a metonym? Maybe not, but if you do the research, I'll be interested to hear the answer.
Does it matter how many zuegmas can dance on the head of a metonym? Maybe not, but if you do the research, I'll be interested to hear the answer.
Andrew Whitehead
Member
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2005
- Member Type
- English Teacher
People 'setting out' don't need to know. People who want a deep understanding of how grammar works do need to know them.
I will probably get through my entire life in complete ignorance of many legal and surgical terms, but if I wanted to be a lawyer or a surgeon I would need to know them.
If you, personally, have no interest in grammar then you don't need to know what mediopassive or ergative verbs are, but what makes you think that you are in a position to criticise others who have more interest than yourself, and do want to learn?
This is an example of why grammar rules are needed: this sentence means you are several thousand years old...
How do you know they understand? They may think they understand and even nod in agreement, but what they think you said and what you think you said can be two very different things.
One of the strengths of English is that it can be understood even when the grammar is mangled, but only as long as you stick to basic communication.
"Yesterday, I go shop" is as understandable as "Yesterday I went shopping."
If you want to convey only simple concepts you can get along by speaking bad English. If you want to convey more complicated ideas, where 'getting your point across' is not enough - you need to get it across clearly, precisely, and without ambiguity - then you need to learn the grammar. "He has learned to type" does not mean the same as "He learned to type".
The same argument you put forward here could be applied to any form of regulation.
" Surely driving is about getting from one place to another, not about how much your driving style conforms to some unknown third party's ideas about 'correctness'."
Should we abandon driving regulations? The logical flaw in this is that we drive safely, and communicate effectively, because we have regulations, and conform to a common idea of correctness.
You are making the mistake of viewing language as an isolated activity. It isn't, it is a social activity that only works if we all agree on what is correct and what isn't. To do that we need grammar rules that are written down and accessible to all. How is someone in Nigeria going to communicate effectively with someone in Canada if they start inventing their own local standards of correctness?
If you doubt this, then try to find an example of misunderstood communication that doesn't have a grammar mistake in it.
Both terms are used synonymously; I came across a site that says "mediopassive" is another word for "middle" :?: They shouldn't be used synonymously, though. In the majority of human languages spoken in the world, middle voice is often reflexive.
With; e.g., break happens to the glass; wash happens to the clothes, and read happens to the book. The verbs in question are both active and passive: syntactically active (i.e., their morphology) but semantically passive (i.e., their roles). Break, wash, and read are done to the glass, the clothes, and the book, respectively, by someone. Someone experienced those acts.
What about the implied doer here?Andrew said:
Ex: The book reads well (for me).
All three verbs (wash and break and read) are dynamic, and all three are transitive, yet only read "feels" awkward. Could the reason for that be that read is not all that common in both passive voice?
All the best. :-D
Andrew Whitehead
Member
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2005
- Member Type
- English Teacher
This is where we differ. Read, as a mental activity, cannot be seen as symantically passive. Read is not something you do to a book: the book never changes. Glass breaks: the glass changes. Wash clothes: the clothes change. Read a book: the book stays the same while the reader changes.
The implied doer is the book, and we are back to square one. Books can't read!
Casiopea said:
It feels awkward because it is a mental activity that acts on the person doing the reading, making it different to verbs like wash and break - it has no stative quality.
In mediopassive the verb has to have a stative quality. Not every verb has that, so not every verb can be used in mediopassive. My view is that 'reads' is one of those non-passive verbs that shouldn't be used this way.
Last edited by a moderator:
OK. No argument here, but how do we account for it - given that it is used that way?
Andrew Whitehead
Member
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2005
- Member Type
- English Teacher
It is accounted for in the same way that many other popular but grammatically unsound phrases are. Most people simply use the language with very little thought given to the structure or grammar. It is only a small bunch of weird folk like us that discuss things like this! :cheers:
OK. So what about the other people - you know, the ones who are not "most people"?
Andrew Whitehead
Member
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2005
- Member Type
- English Teacher
OK. So what about the other people - you know, the ones who are not "most people"?
You mean "Why do some grammar books say "The book reads well" is acceptable?" You can ask directly: I don't mind.
You would probably be better asking them, as I am not privy to their thoughts, but deduction (or cynicism!) comes up with four reasons:
1) They consider, as you do, that 'reads' has a stative quality.
2) They assume, by analogy, that if the structure is correct any verb can be inserted in there, stative quality or not.
3) They follow the herd and think it is acceptable because the grammar book says so.
4) If a lot of people are using it, it must be right.
Acceptability... Open that cans of worms and this thread'll go on for years with this one says and that one says. :lol: My question was more along the lines of, where did mediopassive read come from? ;-)
OK. So, where do you think they got it from?Andrew said:
Do I assume that?Andrew said:
OK. Explain this to me, because it sounds as if you're saying grammarians make up words and, moreover, in doing so they don't use rules.Andrew said:
First, what herd are they following? Aren't they, the grammarians, the supposed shepards?Andrew said:
And, yet, you don't seem to run with that pack, so why assume that "they" do?Andrew said:
It'd be more enlightening to find out how, when, and where mediopassive read originated and, most importantly, why.
I recently read a chapter on Morphology, sematics and argument structure in which Fagan (1988) argues the verb read in English is lexically derived (See bottom of page 58 and top of page 59 here.) Now, the reason she, Fagan, is accounting for that verb, and others like it, is to find out how speakers are using it. That is, even if, let's say, people use "The book reads well" because they think it's posh, 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?
All the best. :-D
Andrew Whitehead
Member
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2005
- Member Type
- English Teacher
My hunch, guess, gut feeling, is that it came from some advertising blurb somewhere.
Casiopea said:
That is what I heard when you said:-
I don't know where you get that idea from.
What I am saying is that they follow the same argument you have presented in this thread: 'the clothes wash well' is acceptable, 'the glass breaks easily' is acceptable', so by analogy 'the book reads well' must be acceptable because it follows the same structure.
Ideally they would be shepherds, but I don't think they are in reality. Do you blindly accept everything you read in a grammar book?
I suspect that too many grammar books are little more than rehashes of other grammar books. Have you never wondered why the same examples (such as 'the book reads well'...) keep reappearing? The writers take the safe option - follow the herd, then nobody will challenge them and if they do, they have a thousand references they can quote in defence.
You are quoting that argument right now
'That is, even if, let's say, people use "The book reads well" because they think it's posh, they are still using it. It's entered the wet-wear, it's been processed; it's now part of their grammar, the rules.'
and Tdol used it earlier. It is not my assumption.
I don't particularly agree with it, given that the majority of Anglophones are second-language users.
If we accept the argument that in 'the book reads easily' is purely lexical, and that
"middles [...] are not used to
report events, but to attribute a specific property to some object"
so that 'read' is therefore, somehow, agentless so
The book reads easily = the book is easy to read
then by the same argument,
The food likes easily = the food is easy to like
the film enjoys easily = the film is easy to like
the job hates easily = the job is easy to hate
the dog catches easily = the dog is easy to catch
are all grammatically correct.
The first three are suspect: the data is contrived. Food, film, and job are inanimate; they cannot like, enjoy, or hate and, moreover, the verbs like and enjoy are linking verbs, whereas hate is not (See note below), so the first three sentences are not examples of mediopassive voice. They are not 'grammatical', to use your word.Andrew said:
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):
Active: The dog catches the ball easily.
Passive: The ball is caught easily.
MedioP: The ball catches easily. (Dogs, in general, can catch the ball easily.)
Compare MedioP with:
Active: ?The ball (itself) catches (things) easily.
Middle: ?The ball catches, itself, easily.
Active: Max catches the dog easily.
Passive: The dog is caught easily.
MedioP: The dog catches easily. (People, in general, can catch the dog easily)
Compare MedioP with:
Active: The dog (itself) catches (things) easily. <The dog is the agent>
Middle: ?The dog catches (itself) easily.
Notice that, in active The dog (itself) catches (things) easily, the agent is the dog; the dog does the catching, whereas in mediopassive The dog catches easily, the dog doesn't do the catching; it is the thing being caught.The agent is left unstated. Active and mediopassive, and even
middle, might look the same on the surface, but they're structurally different. That's why your last example, mediopassive The dog catches easily works.
Active: People read the book well. <Note, you could use easily (enough)>
Passive: The book is read well by People.
MedioP: The book reads well. (People, in general, can read the book well.)
Compare MedioP with:
Active: ?The book (itself) reads well. <The book is the agent>
Middle: ?The book reads (itself) well.
Notice that, mediopassive The book reads well, the book is not the agent; the book doesn't do the reading; the book is experienced by an agent left unstated. In active ?The book (itself) reads well, the book is the agent; it does the reading, which is why it's semantically awkward: books don't read themselves.
In short, those examples (active, mediopassive, and middle) are identical on the surface level (i.e., what we see and/or hear) but they are structurally different at the underlying level. Now, could that non-linear factor be the reason you seem to be getting an active or middle voice reading from mediopassive The books reads well? The reason I ask: up to this point no one has been able to support the argument that mediopassive read is not contrived.
All the best. :-D
Note, Sam hates easily is active voice (Sam hates people/things easily), and not mediopassive voice. If it were, it would be paraphrased as People, in general, can hate Sam easily, which is a different meaning.
In fact you can't get a mediopassiev reading at all. The verb hate subcategorizes for a doer as subject; i.e., the one doing the hating. So, as long as the verb is active in appearance, which is the case with mediopassives and middles in English, the subject will always be interpreted as the one doing the hating, even if the object is promoted:
Active: People hate vegetables easily.
Mediopassive: ?The vegetables hate easily. <Awkward because the vegetables are the ones doing the hating.>
Active: Sam hates Max easily.
Mediopassive: ?Max hates easily. <It has an active reading only: Max is the one doing the hating.>
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
