|
Job Discussion Forums "The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Students and Teachers from Around the World!"
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
johnslat

Joined: 21 Jan 2003 Posts: 13859 Location: Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
|
Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2014 6:09 pm Post subject: The passive voice should be avoided. Strunk and White :-) |
|
|
"The Elements of Style does not deserve the enormous esteem in which it is held by American college graduates. Its advice ranges from limp platitudes to inconsistent nonsense. Its enormous influence has not improved American students' grasp of English grammar; it has significantly degraded it."
For more, please use this link:
http://chronicle.com/article/50-Years-of-Stupid-Grammar/25497
Regards,
John |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
fluffyhamster
Joined: 13 Mar 2005 Posts: 3292 Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again
|
Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2014 8:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Pullum has posted dozens of articles on Language Log alone over the past decade or so condemning misunderstanding(s) of the passive. There's a certain crankiness about that, but somebody's got to do it, and I suppose it might as well be one of the world's leading linguists and grammarians!
Only the other day I stopped by his site looking for the link to Huddleston's 'Overview of English Syntax' for somebody (http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/SIEG/otherstuff.html , which is never easy to find on there!), and spotted this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/10692897/Are-grammar-Nazis-ruining-the-English-language.html
And this:
http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/passive_loathing.pdf
Then there's the "red-inked" student assignment here: (http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/SIEG/prescrip.html>) http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/SIEG/passives.html . It's worrying how many so-called teachers (of "composition" or similar) cannot even correctly identify genuine passive constructions (one wonders how they'd recast many of the "passives" they rail against). 70% of the so-called "errors" identified in that assignment are anything but. What to do? Fire such teachers?
I also enjoyed his 'Remarks on Chomsky's London lecture':
(http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/ > ) http://linguistlist.org/issues/22/22-4631.html
Anyway, there are loads of interesting papers in his list of publications:
http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/pubs.html
Yeah, I like the guy LOL. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Janiny

Joined: 31 May 2008 Posts: 199
|
Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 12:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
There is a passive voice for a reason. Three‘unreasons’, actually:
• When the subject is unknown
• When the subject is unimportant
• When the subject is understood
The sentence, ‘That window is broken’ may serve as an example of all three. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
johnslat

Joined: 21 Jan 2003 Posts: 13859 Location: Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
|
Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 12:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dear Janiny,
Actually, "The window is broken" isn't passive voice; "broken" is a past participle adjective describing "window."
So, it's like saying "The window is open" or "The window is closed."
The crux is whether it's descriptive or indicates an action.
For example:
The door is locked. = not passive voice/descriptive
The door is locked every day at 6 by the janitor. = passive voice.
Regards,
John |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Janiny

Joined: 31 May 2008 Posts: 199
|
Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 1:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
I knew you were going to say that. It is both. The passive can be any tense. The window will be/has been/had been/was/etc broken. Perhaps I should have said, 'The window's been broken (contracted present perfect) for naturalness' sake.
If I say, 'Robert and Linda were/are/have been married' (by the reverend) is 'married an adjective or the participle form of the verb? I would say either or both - yes, especially in the simple present - general truth sense of the word 'married' but passive nevertheless because the adjective (if you like) is describing what has been done to them, just as 'broken' describes what has been done to the window and I don't know who broke it, it doesn't matter who broke it, and you understand that it is unknown and unimportant because I have used the passive voice. Why did I not say, 'Johnslat broke the window.'? Because I don't know or even care if it was you. So the active voice is unnecessary. Just as in the sentence, 'Someone's broke the window.' I could have said that, but why lay emphasis on someone when of course it was someone, and I don't have any idea who it was? Hence in, 'The window is broken.' Someone is the unstated, unimportant, understood subject. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
buravirgil
Joined: 23 Jan 2014 Posts: 967 Location: Jiangxi Province, China
|
Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 1:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't read anyone arguing tense as an issue. John is correct in that your first example was overly simplified to illustrate an otherwise excellent criteria. Your amended illustration:The window's been broken. Would be edited for clarity.
Been broken for two years? John's contention of a past particple adjective.
Been broken by x,y, or z? Your illustration of passive.
I don't think arguing your example as "both" achieves much in the way of distinguishing your excellent summary of why passive is used. The illustration was too spare. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Janiny

Joined: 31 May 2008 Posts: 199
|
Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 2:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
As long as you think my summary is excellent, very well. I'll admit to my example being sparse. I blame Strunk and White. I remember them well from my college English major days.
And let's not call it 'argument'; let's say 'discussion'.
I was sparse in my example, but extravagant in my use of 'broken' being both adjective and participle verb, but John kind of admits 'broken' is a verb when he calls it a past participle adjective. So while 'both' may miss the mark, 'either' is surely correct. Our discussion is a search for the truth; however the truth isn't always cut and dry. There's often a fudginess about it.
To illustrate:
• The window was open.
• The window was opened
In the first sentence 'open' is an adjective plain and simple. In the second it is as John would say, a past participle adjective. He is right, but I think I am too. 'Was opened' is surely a passive voice verb, and it is also adjectival.
And here's the significant point: what is the difference in meaning between these sentences? The grammar is divergent. In the second we are emphasizing the understood 'someone but it doesn't matter who',but the meaning of the first sentence is indistinguishable from the second.
Oh, and my sentence, 'The window's been broken.'
Would not be edited for clarity because when I said 'naturalness' I meant that I am thinking of it as a spoken utterance. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
buravirgil
Joined: 23 Jan 2014 Posts: 967 Location: Jiangxi Province, China
|
Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 3:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Janiny wrote: |
As long as you think my summary is excellent, very well. I'll admit to my example being sparse. I blame Strunk and White. I remember them well from my college English major days.
And let's not call it 'argument'; let's say 'discussion'. |
Fluffy likely has a link to a recent article taking Strunk and White to task for contradicting their own advice within related passages. Argue does have a negative connotation in general use. My use of it comes from courses in rhetoric. I think of argument as an exercise in listening/reading to inform a response.
A problem I'm reading with your illustrations is they attempt to simplify a concept as sparingly as possible (a valuable quality in and of itself), but have led to alterative classifications. To emphasize the criterion of "someone, but it doesn't matter," what about:The window's been broken three times. Removing the possible treatment of the example as a clause:The window's been broken for two years.
The window's been broken by a thief.
Your illustrations are avoiding an agent to emphasize the 'why' of a passive voice, though the inclusion of an agent is still passive voice. I was taught the use of passive achieves an emphasis, which might only be a re-wording of your own "someone, but it doesn't matter", yet we're having this very discussion about clarity. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
johnslat

Joined: 21 Jan 2003 Posts: 13859 Location: Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
|
Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 3:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dear Janiny
"If I say, 'Robert and Linda were/are/have been married' . . ."
It's descriptive, like saying, "Robert and Linda are/have been single . . "
On the other hand, if you say, "Robert and Linda were married yesterday in a lovely ceremony . . ."
that's talking about the action that took place. And it's not "tense" that matters; it's whether the past participle form is being used descriptively (as an adjective = stative passive, not passive voice) or to show action (as a verb = passive voice.)
Stative Passive Constructions
"There exists in English an adjectival construction that resembles the passive voice superficially and is different in meaning; and it is important that teachers recognize it. It is a construction using the verb to be with an adjective that is identical in form to a past participle. See these examples:
The bank was closed all day yesterday. (= It was not open.)
I was married for ten years. (= I was not single.)
When I entered the room, I noticed that the chair was broken (= It was not intact)
My PC was connected to the internet all last year, and it never incurred a single virus. (=It had a connection; it was not disconnected)
Although these constructions look identical to a passive voice construction, they do not express an action carried out on the subject of the sentence, they do not contain an explicit or implied agent, and they cannot be rewritten in the active voice. They merely describe the state or condition of the subject of the sentence. And because they describe the state or condition of the subject of the sentence while resembling passive constructions superficially, some linguists call these constructions stative passives (Celse-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman, 1983). Most stative passives have true passive counterparts as well, as in the four examples below:
The bank was closed at exactly 3 o'clock. (=somebody closed it.)
This sentence clearly describes an action and can include a by-phrase, such as in "The bank was closed at exactly 3 o'clock by a security guard." Its active counterpart would be, "A security guard closed the bank at exactly 3 o'clock."
I was married in that chapel. (=I had a wedding ceremony.)
This sentence also describes an action and can accept a by-phrase: "I was married in that chapel by a justice of the peace." Its active counterpart would be "A justice of the peace married me in that chapel last year." This is a true passive voice construction.
The chair was broken by the weight of the sumo wrestler, when he sat down.
The active counterpart would be, "The weight of the sumo wrestler broke the chair when he sat down."
My PC was connected to the internet just a few minutes ago, and it already has a virus. (=received a connection; became connected)
The active variant would be "Somebody connected my PC to the internet. . ."
As you can see, the context is the determining factor as to whether an action or a state is being described.
A salient type of stative passive construction is the combination of the verb to be with adjectives that describe an emotional state. There are about three dozen of them in common use. They are derived from verbs and are identical in form to past participles, most of them ending in ed; but instead of indicating an action, they refer to the experiencing of an emotion. Note these examples:
I was bored
I was depressed
I was exhausted
I was interested
I was tired
I was relieved
I was satisfied
I was shocked
I was disgusted
(=I felt bored)
(=I felt depressed)
(=I felt exhausted)
(=I felt interested)
(=I felt tired)
(=I felt relieved)
(=I felt saitsfied)
(=I felt shocked)
(=I felt disgusted)
Analogous to an agent by-phrase, these adjectives most often take a range of prepositions to connect them to the cause of the emotion.
I was exhausted from so much work.
I was interested in computers.
I was bored with my classes.
I was tired of hearing so many excuses.
I was relieved at the outcome of the election.
I was depressed over my divorce.
I was satisfied with my progress.
I was shocked at your behavior
Occasionally, however, even some of these constructions may have a true passive interpretation.
I was shocked by your behavior
In which case it could have an active counterpart of "Your behavior shocked me.'
Summary of True Passive-Voice Constructions
Versus Stative-Passive Constructions
The important points to remember when you want to compare these two constructions are the following:
In true passive constructions,
an action is carried out on the subject of the sentence,
there is an agent either expressed or unexpressed,
there exists an active voice counterpart.
In stative passive constructions,
the state or condition of the subject of the sentence is described,
there is no agent,
there is no active voice counterpart.
Not all true passive voice constructions have stative passive counterparts, but many, many do. And as teachers, it is important that you perceive the distinction between these two identical-looking constructions. In that way, you can intervene more successfully if a student has difficulty interpreting them."
http://people.rit.edu/japnce/payne/teachers/passivevoice.html
Regards,
John |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Janiny

Joined: 31 May 2008 Posts: 199
|
Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 4:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thank you, John. I never knew that. We're really into the highest upper reaches of English grammar now. This is Dave's ESL Cafe at its best.
Returning to the original article that you initiated this post with http://chronicle.com/article/50-Years-of-Stupid-Grammar/25497 and ending a phrase with a preposition... I kind of wish someone could refute Geoffrey K. Pullum. I'm afraid he's too right about Strunk and White's Elements of Style. Another couple of idols bite the dust
The only thing I myself can offer in Elements of Style's defense is that it seems a bit much when Pullum says:
Quote: |
Despite the post-1957 explosion of theoretical linguistics, Elements settled in as the primary vehicle through which grammar was taught to college students and presented to the general public, and the subject was stuck in the doldrums for the rest of the 20th century. |
Come now, sir! The great majority has always found English grammar eye-glazingly boring. To paraphrase a Monty Python skit, "I've seen grown men pull their own heads off rather than learn any English grammar." Neither William Strunk nor E.B. White can hardly be blamed for how deadly dull most people find grammar! The subject has always been in the doldrums and there it will remain except to the aficionados.
Also, I have to wonder when we live in a world where people may write such things as 'cray cray adorbs' if Strunk and White even matter anymore.
c u l8tr jslat! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
johnslat

Joined: 21 Jan 2003 Posts: 13859 Location: Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
|
Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 4:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dryden made that "no preposition at the end of a sentence" into a "rule." Latin can again be blamed, as in the "never split an infinitive 'rule.'"
MIKE: It turns out that this objection to preposition "stranding," as it's sometimes called, has been around consistently for a very long time. In the 1760s, for example, Robert Lowth, who was a Bishop in the Church of England and a kind of self-styled English-language scholar, published a book called A Short Introduction to English Grammar. In it he wrote that placing a preposition inside the sentence, not at the end, is "more graceful, as well as more perspicuous" and agrees much better with the "solemn and elevated style." He then went on to name names, writers who had violated this rule of sorts, including Shakespeare. "Who servest thou under?" King Henry V asks of Williams, a soldier in his army. In As You Like It, Rosalind asks Orlando, "Who do you speak to?"
BOB: Yeah, that Shakespeare, he was so sloppy.
MIKE: It's a scandal that he's even still part of the curriculum.
BOB: [laughing]
MIKE: A full century later, in the 1860s, Henry Alford—also a preacher, also a language scholar—published a book called The Queen's English in which he wrote, "There is a peculiar use of prepositions which is allowable in moderation but must not be too often resorted to. It is the placing them at the end of a sentence, as I have just done in the words 'resorted to.' " If we skip ahead to the early 20th century, the Fowler brothers, Henry and Francis, published The King's English, in which they referred to the, "modern superstition against putting a preposition at the end." Of course, that superstition wasn't modern, even then.
BOB: Now, I happen to know because we've had this conversation before, Mike, that there is a long and winding path to get to Henry Fowler's view on prepositional stranding. It begins a little after Shakespeare, right?
MIKE: Fifty or so years after Shakespeare, exactly. The whole saga of this objection to preposition stranding begins with a guy named John Dryden, who was a poet and a critic and a playwright in the 1600s. Before we talk about Dryden, though, let's establish what was happening politically in England at the time. In the mid-1600s, there was a civil war that pitted the Parliament against the monarchy of King Charles I. Long story short, the parliamentarians win, Charles I was put on trial, ultimately beheaded, and a period of parliamentary rule replaced the monarchy. Now, many members of Parliament and their supporters were Puritans. And Puritans were famous for being puritanical.
BOB: They were fundamentalist Protestants.
MIKE: Yes, and they banned many of the traditional vices—drinking, gambling. They also banned what many considered a vice at the time, the theater.
BOB: You know I don't know about theater per se but I know that actors and playwrights were considered vulgarians and little above thieves and prostitutes. They were an underclass.
MIKE: Not unlike today.: In Latin, which many writers of this day considered the ideal model of a language—it did everything a language should—in Latin, there's an awful lot of flexibility about word order. You can put the words in many sentences in any number of orders, and they're all perfectly grammatical in Latin. But in Latin there's one thing you can't do. You cannot have a preposition that comes after its object. And that shows up even in the name of the part of speech—"preposition," pre-position. It has to come before, so in Latin you could not say "the bodies that those souls were frighted from." That would simply be ungrammatical in Latin. On the other hand, it had long been grammatical in English, and countless great English writers had done it. Dryden himself had done it.
BOB: Dryden himself ended sentences with prepositions?
MIKE: Yeah.
BOB: But he just made a big production out of despising that practice.
MIKE: He decided that preposition stranding was so objectionable that he actually went back and, you know, "corrected" all of them that he could find in his own writing.
BOB: Like the de-Stalinization of Russia. Revisionist literature.
MIKE: Sure. Of course, if you talk to any credible linguist today, he or she will tell you that Dryden's time revising his own work would have been much better spent, that there's nothing grammatically incorrect, there's nothing linguistically wrong with stranding prepositions. If fact, there are many times when it’s preferable to do so. Lynch cited for me the example of another linguist: "Her father had a similar problem with which he simply lived."
http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/lexicon_valley/2012/02/lexicon_valley_why_we_think_we_can_t_end_a_sentence_with_a_preposition_.html
Regards,
John |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Sashadroogie

Joined: 17 Apr 2007 Posts: 11061 Location: Moskva, The Workers' Paradise
|
Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 6:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dear Johnslat
De-Stalinisation?!
With Communist greetings
Sasha  |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
johnslat

Joined: 21 Jan 2003 Posts: 13859 Location: Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
|
Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 7:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dear Sasha,
"De-Stalinisation?!
"
You know, that thing that happened before Putin and the ensuing re-Stalinization.
Regards,
John |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
fluffyhamster
Joined: 13 Mar 2005 Posts: 3292 Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again
|
Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2014 4:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Pages 16-18 in the following are quite interesting and relevant:
(http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/schools/edacs/departments/englishlanguage/research/resources/index.aspx >http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/schools/edacs/departments/englishlanguage/research/resources/lexical-syllabus.aspx >)
http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/Documents/college-artslaw/cels/lexicalsyllabus/lexsch2.pdf
The same author (Dave Willis) then presented more or less the same stuff again, in a 1991 BAAL grammar conference paper entitled 'A Lexical Approach', reprinted in Bygate et al's Grammar and the Language Teacher (Prentice Hall, 1994). |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Sashadroogie

Joined: 17 Apr 2007 Posts: 11061 Location: Moskva, The Workers' Paradise
|
Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2014 4:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
johnslat wrote: |
Dear Sasha,
"De-Stalinisation?!
"
You know, that thing that happened before Putin and the ensuing re-Stalinization.
Regards,
John |
Dear Johnslat
I thought you of all people wouldn't have fallen for that trick. There was no de-, so there is no need for re-
With Stalinist greetings
Sasha  |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling. Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|