I was preparing classes the other day and I came across this sentence:
"Mary Ann ________ herself some tea in the living room when the riot started.
a) poured
b) had poured
c) was poured"
The book gives as answer 'a' and 'c' as possible answers, what do you think about b, could it be possible for you?
Thanks
José
Poured, had poured, was poured
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
-
Metamorfose
- Posts: 345
- Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2003 2:21 pm
- Location: Brazil
-
fluffyhamster
- Posts: 3031
- Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:57 pm
- Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again
Hi José!
Surely the possible answers are only 'a and b' (so yes, b is certainly fine in my book). I think '(a and) c' must be a printing mistake - that is, 'herself' doesn't seem in the passive to comfortably follow the main/lexical verb (p.p) (compare the phrases below, in which the last variation in each line is the only one possible in the test item gap as printed):
1a) herself poured; poured herself
1b) herself had poured; had herself poured; had poured herself
1c) herself was poured; was herself poured; ?/*was poured herself
Truly ditransitive sentences (as opposed to those where the recipient isn't possibly only implicitly the same person as the agent e.g. 'She poured (herself) some tea'), where a direct object is present and can precede the indirect, show a complementary patterning:
2a) She poured some tea for him/She poured him some tea
2b) He was poured some tea (himself) (by her)
(2c) She was (then) poured some tea herself (by him or sb else); See 1c set)
3a) She poured some tea for/?by herself (see 1a and 1b sets)
3b) She was poured some tea ?for herself/*by herself
So an "indirect object" will at least seem to clutter up the usual/expected word ordering, if not prove completely wrong (excessive, an 'argument' too many), in a passive sentence. Or one could say that there is at least a slight semantic clash of sorts when one reaches 'herself' after an unbroken passive verb phrase (when one was expecting a direct object instead, with potentially no other agent/human mentioned at all). Or simply that if things seem to be in the process of being done for us, then anything that suggests we are suddenly doing it ourselves or for ourselves will seem a contradiction.
Surely the possible answers are only 'a and b' (so yes, b is certainly fine in my book). I think '(a and) c' must be a printing mistake - that is, 'herself' doesn't seem in the passive to comfortably follow the main/lexical verb (p.p) (compare the phrases below, in which the last variation in each line is the only one possible in the test item gap as printed):
1a) herself poured; poured herself
1b) herself had poured; had herself poured; had poured herself
1c) herself was poured; was herself poured; ?/*was poured herself
Truly ditransitive sentences (as opposed to those where the recipient isn't possibly only implicitly the same person as the agent e.g. 'She poured (herself) some tea'), where a direct object is present and can precede the indirect, show a complementary patterning:
2a) She poured some tea for him/She poured him some tea
2b) He was poured some tea (himself) (by her)
(2c) She was (then) poured some tea herself (by him or sb else); See 1c set)
3a) She poured some tea for/?by herself (see 1a and 1b sets)
3b) She was poured some tea ?for herself/*by herself
So an "indirect object" will at least seem to clutter up the usual/expected word ordering, if not prove completely wrong (excessive, an 'argument' too many), in a passive sentence. Or one could say that there is at least a slight semantic clash of sorts when one reaches 'herself' after an unbroken passive verb phrase (when one was expecting a direct object instead, with potentially no other agent/human mentioned at all). Or simply that if things seem to be in the process of being done for us, then anything that suggests we are suddenly doing it ourselves or for ourselves will seem a contradiction.