The book reads well.

[svartnik]

Hello Casiopea

read = (intransitive verb) have qualities that affect understanding: to have particular characteristics that affect the way something is understood

This book reads well = This book has a quality that affects favourably the way it is understood.

Mediopassive voice is a passive voice in which the

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

I have a question here:

'What/Who is/are the actor(s) in the sentence that is not expressed? The readers? Could not be. The sentence tells us about a property of a given book.
I could not wade through all the posts you put in, so I am sorry if I ask you trivia.

 

[Dawnstorm]

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. 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.

If I'm not mistaken, the problem is this:

Agent (I) - works change on (wash) - patient (the clothes).

With a book, no change is worked on the patient. If the clothes are clean after being washed, what is the book? The only thing it is as a result of being read is "read" (familiar, etc.). But that "change" doesn't reside anywhere in the book; it's a property of the reader, not the book.

So, while the clothes being washed undergo a change, in the case of the book, it's the reader that undergoes the change, not the book.

If this is what Andrew means by it, I think I see the difference. But I'm not sure how this difference is fundemental, in a way that it should prevent people from saying "the book reads well." The data suggests people either don't see the problem, or don't find that it gets in the way.

I think the problem lies with philosophy rather than grammar:

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

How do we frame the difference between the book (physical object) and the book (ideal object)? I might say I've "read the book" if I read it on screen at Project Gutenberg. I might say I've "read the book", even if I read each chapter in a different format (chapter one - on screen, chapter two Audio-book [read?], chapter three library...). "Book" is both the medium and the message.

The book burns easily. vs. The book reads easily. "The book" isn't semantically equivalent (An electromagnetic pattern on some hard drive might compose a readable book - if translated by appropriate technology, but it doesn't burn easily.)

There may be world-views/philosophies that work against "The book reads easily," but mine doesn't, mostly because I can conceive of a book independent from either the physical object, or the psychological re-presentation (I tend towards phenomenology). If I tended to more idealistic or realist points of view, I might find the usage strange, too.

Am I making any sense?

 

[Andrew Whitehead]

If I'm not mistaken, the problem is this:

Agent (I) - works change on (wash) - patient (the clothes).

With a book, no change is worked on the patient. If the clothes are clean after being washed, what is the book? The only thing it is as a result of being read is "read" (familiar, etc.). But that "change" doesn't reside anywhere in the book; it's a property of the reader, not the book.

So, while the clothes being washed undergo a change, in the case of the book, it's the reader that undergoes the change, not the book.

Thats it - you understand! :up:

I'm not sure how this difference is fundemental, in a way that it should prevent people from saying "the book reads well." The data suggests people either don't see the problem, or don't find that it gets in the way.

That may be true, but it looks incongruous to me...

Right, and that's what we expect in passive constructs as well

As far as I understand it, a passive construct foregrounds the action received by an object. The reader of a book is not the object.

OK. Help me. How does wash have a 'stative reference' and read not have one?

In 'wash' the state of the clothes changes, the same applies to a peeled orange or a broken window, but not to a read book.

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.

Okay, I will try again.

A passive voice talks about what happens to the object of a verb, which is why we can ignore the actor.

A mediopassive, as I understand it (my field is literature, not linguistics!) differs from the usual passive by talking about an action that changes the state of the object.

Put simply

passive - the results of the action on the object - "the orange was peeled"
mediopassive - describe the action on the object - "the orange peels easily"

The first tells the result of the orange being peeled, which is why the verb is past participle. If we are talking about the result, then the act has to be in the past.

The second describes the act that changed the state of the orange.This is why the verb needs a stative quality (meaning 'describe a state'), and takes an active form in mediopassive, because the idea of the 'act' is carried by the verb.

In the case of reads, I have a problem.

'The book was read' - no problem - there was a book and somebody read it.

'The book reads easily' - problem - because the act is a mental activity there is no act that changes the state of the book, hence no stative reference, and no state-changing act to describe.

 

[Dawnstorm]

That may be true, but it looks incongruous to me...

And that's data, too. So is my reaction (and it should be weighted differently, as I'm not a native speaker). I think it's a question of style rather than grammar.

I'm terribly irked by "I could care less", or the American punctuation habit of placing placing fullstops and commas inside quotation marks (in an American publication I should have written "I'm terribly irked by 'I could care less,'. Ick!)

Still, usage matters. That doesn't mean every bit of usage is correct. If you correct someone who's mistakenly written "there" for "they're", they'll blush. If you correct someone for using "I could care less", they'll defend their usage (or shrug at you). That's one difference; there are others that could be looked at (such as social stigmatising by usage of double negations).

I like live language more than rules, so I tend to be quite lenient. That doesn't mean I won't correct usage that irks me, but I'll usually add a ;-) into the mix.

***

Out of interest, what do you think of related usage:

The sign reads, "Do not disturb!"

The sign says, "Do not disturb!"

It says on the sign, "Do not disturb!"

***

And to those who accept "reads well", what adverbs are acceptable? All of them? Some?

The book is easy to read. - The book reads easily. [Probably]

The book is sad to read. - The book reads sadly. [I'd rather not...]

Hm...

 

[Andrew Whitehead]

I like live language more than rules, so I tend to be quite lenient. That doesn't mean I won't correct usage that irks me, but I'll usually add a into the mix.

As a native speaker living and working in Asia, I tend to dislike the 'usage makes it right' view. "I no like..." definitely gets plenty of usage around here, undoubtedly measured in millions, but I don't believe that makes it right.

Out of interest, what do you think of related usage:

The sign reads, "Do not disturb!"

The sign says, "Do not disturb!"

It says on the sign, "Do not disturb!"

'The sign reads...' is not right. You read the sign, but the sign doesn't read anything.

The other two are okay, as 'says' carries the idea of information going from the sign to you.

 

[Dawnstorm]

As a native speaker living and working in Asia, I tend to dislike the 'usage makes it right' view. "I no like..." definitely gets plenty of usage around here, undoubtedly measured in millions, but I don't believe that makes it right.

I can appreciate this. I certainly would never say "I no like..." (although I might slip into the habit if "I don't like..." makes me stand out as a "snob", who knows?). At best, I'd treat it as a local (and perhaps informal) variation.

And I'd like to point out that I'm not in favour of "usage makes it right", either; there are common mistakes (my favourite example being "their/there/they're" confusion). The difference is in the attitude of the users towards the usage.

'The sign reads...' is not right. You read the sign, but the sign doesn't read anything.

The other two are okay, as 'says' carries the idea of information going from the sign to you.

Thanks for the reply. Given your position, this makes perfect sense.

 

[Andrew Whitehead]

At best, I'd treat it as a local (and perhaps informal) variation.

This is a very big 'local'... bigger than Europe! ;-)

 

[Dawnstorm]

This is a very big 'local'... bigger than Europe! ;-)

Hehe, that's very true. :lol:

 

[Casiopea]

read = (intransitive verb) have qualities that affect understanding: to have particular characteristics that affect the way something is understood

'What/Who is/are the actor(s) in the sentence that is not expressed? The readers? Could not be. The sentence tells us about a property of a given book.

Very good observation, svartnik. :-D The implication is that someone had to have read the book to know that it was readable. The subject is not important syntactically, as you have said, but it is required semantically in order to understand that it is the reader, not the book, that reads well. ;-)

 

[winston]

I think there is no end point to this thread.Now the book only reads well.I don't know what will happen, if the book sings and dances well.

 

[Casiopea]

...while the clothes being washed undergo a change, in the case of the book, it's the reader that undergoes the change, not the book.

But I'm not sure how this difference is fundemental, in a way that it should prevent people from saying "the book reads well."

That's kind of where I am, too. Nice summary, though. :-D:up:

As for philosophy, interpretations, as you have so skillfully shown, abound, so what say we stick to pragmatics, if that's OK with you? ;-)

 

[Dawnstorm]

As for philosophy, interpretations, as you have so skillfully shown, abound, so what say we stick to pragmatics, if that's OK with you? ;-)

Pragmatics is best. :-D When, where, how often, in what situations, reactions when corrected.

That's complicated enough without looking for "authority" in intangibles.
;-)

 

[Philly]

Links trading is a futile excercise, but to put a perspective on it I get 1,190, 000 hits if I Google my own name, which would suggest that the world talks about me more than it talks about "the book reads well"... ;-)
To be more specific, counting Google hits is as a measure of use is about as unscientific as you can get. Many links are multiple references to the same phrase - something that is fairly obvious if you use Google Preview.
How many documents are there on the web? 19, 100 of them mentioning "the book reads well" is a very small percentage. Compare this with
"a good book" 456,000,000 hits
"a good book to read" 330,000,000 hits
"a well written book" 102,000,000 hits
These phrases are obviously far, far more common than 'the book reads well', not just slightly more common but by several orders of magnitude - to be precise "a good book" is used 24,000 times more often than 'the book reads well"! Such a huge difference cancels fudging by multiple references, and shows that it is a little used colloquialism. Wikipedia supports this view, describing mediopassive as:-
"... hardly ever used in English with the active voice or passive."

I've got a small bone to pick with you, Andrew. I cannot reproduce the Google results for any of your phrases. I can't get anything that even comes close when I search for the complete phrases. However if I do a Google search for "book reads well" in the same fashion that I presume you must have done your searches (i.e. without the quotation marks), the number of Google hits is 138,000,000 for the phrase that you dislike so much. Oops! That's more than you got for "a well written book". ;-)
.
Don't get me wrong, though. Despite the incorrect numbers, I've found the discussion very interesting. :up:

 

[pedant]

Tdol said (10th March) that 'it would not be a great start to an interview to use "hiya".

I must strongly disagree. I'm a world class contractor who has probably had a great many more interviews than most, and my opening line (either by phone, by email, or in person) is, and always has been, "hiya, how are you doing. I've read your blurb, worrissit you want me to sort out for you?"

People really appreciate the normality of it, most people want to employ normal people, not linguists!

Then again, I do market myself as a 'fan cleaner'.

...and as far as signs go...they've got around 10 words max to get an important message across. In Australia you can readily see signs stating 'No standing in the middle of the road'. Linguists will probably either

(a) struggle to comprehend it
(b) complain about it to the authorities
(c) stand in the middle of the road to see what is wrong with doing so
(d) get a $300 fine

 

[Tdol]

'worrisit'- this would incomprehensible in many contexts; if you tried to clean fans in China, you might have to adjust your notions of normality
hiya- this maybe fine for a fan cleaner, but in many contexts it would be completely inappropriate- try starting a viva this way
:-D

 

[Andrew Whitehead]

As for philosophy, interpretations, as you have so skillfully shown, abound, so what say we stick to pragmatics, if that's OK with you?

I would say the 'philosophy' (to use that somewhat condescending term...) is pragmatic. A sequence of marks or sounds has no intrinsic meaning, so the only meaning a word has is the ideas or 'philosophy' attached to it by society. Take that away, and you have no language.
.

I cannot reproduce the Google results for any of your phrases

I would be surprised if you could! Do the same search 5 times and you get 5 different results - that is normal.

However if I do a Google search for "book reads well" in the same fashion that I presume you must have done your searches (i.e. without the quotation marks), the number of Google hits is 138,000,000 for the phrase that you dislike so much.

You presume wrongly... I used quotation marks.

 

[MrPedantic]

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

Yes, indeed: you and I know that "the book" is the subject, but not the agent, in this usage.

But if you were new to English, you might well interpret the sentence with "the book" as the agent of the action. In which case, you would naturally take "easily" to mean that the manner of the action performed by the book was "easy".

It would be a puzzling interpretation, of course; but you would have arrived at it in a rational way.

(I'm not sure why "easily" should be an indicator, by the way: it points to the manner of the action, not the identity of the agent.)

MrP

PS Actually, though, my point wasn't that the fact that "the book" doesn't do anything should be a criterion: it was that even though "the book" doesn't do anything, the structure might have naturally arisen by simple transference from contexts where the subject does do something, e.g. "The carriage drives well".

 

[MrPedantic]

A passive voice talks about what happens to the object of a verb, which is why we can ignore the actor.

A mediopassive, as I understand it (my field is literature, not linguistics!) differs from the usual passive by talking about an action that changes the state of the object.
Put simply
passive - the results of the action on the object - "the orange was peeled"
mediopassive - describe the action on the object - "the orange peels easily"

1. The orange peels easily.

— "orange" is the subject here, and the patient in the action; the agent is unexpressed; there is no object.

Cf.

2. Bill read the book.

— active, transitive; Bill is the subject and the agent in the action; the book is the object.

3. The book was read.

— passive; the book is the subject and the patient in the action; the agent is unexpressed; there is no object.

4. The book reads well.

— intransitive; the book is the subject; there is no object, as the verb expresses not an action, but a state. (It also requires an adverbial complement to complete its sense.)

#3 expresses an action, while #4 expresses a quality.

MrP

 

[Andrew Whitehead]

the verb expresses not an action, but a state

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.

As far as I can see there is a circular argument going on here: a verb in a mediopassive construction has to have a stative quality, and it gets that quality by being used in a mediopassive construction.

 

[Casiopea]

Actually, though, my point wasn't that the fact that "the book" doesn't do anything should be a criterion: it was that even though "the book" doesn't do anything, the structure might have naturally arisen by simple transference from contexts where the subject does do something, e.g. "The carriage drives well".

Your explanations are, as always, Mr P, very clear. :-D:up:

I was trying to narrow the scope of the discussion. My intention was to support your example by explaining further (to those who might assume "do" could be a criterion) that is wasn't and couldn't be.

I should have made that clearer at the time. My apologies for adding to the semantics-gone-mad this thread seems to have taken. :lol:

All the best. :-D