Which verbs from Primary types may passivize

For the great majority of transitive verbs it is possible to find some O NP (or some particular combination of O and A NPs) which has the right sort of semantic significance—in conjunction with the meaning of the verb—for a passive construction to be a felicitous alternative to the unmarked active. But very few (if any) verbs may passivize with equal facility on any kind of O. Consider leave, for instance. This verb can have as object a person, place or thing. A person or thing can be affected or potentially affected by being left—a person may refuse to be left, may run after the person who is trying to leave them somewhere; a thing might become liable to be stolen if left in a certain place. Corresponding to Fred left Mary at the station and Fred left your bicycle at the station we can have passives Mary was left at the station (by Fred) and Your bicycle was left at the station (by Fred). However, if leave has a place description as object there is not likely to be a corresponding passive, simply because the place is not affected in any way by someone departing from it—one could say Fred left the office at five o’clock, but scarcely *The office was left (by Fred) at five o’clock.

 

Verbs which are particularly open to passivization are those whose object is likely to be human, or else something with specific reference that is being particularly focused on. ANNOYING verbs, for instance, have the Experiencer in O relation and this is generally human. Verbs from this type are very frequently used in passive form, e.g. John was pleased (by that concert). Most ANNOYING verbs may take either be or get, e.g. He was annoyed (by her behavior), or He got annoyed, which could be used when he worked himself up into a state of being annoyed. Those which would seldom be used with get include delight, please, satisfy, amuse and astonish, verbs referring to feelings that tend to be experienced naturally, with the Experiencer having little or no role in bringing them about.

 

We described how, with certain verbs, if the referent of a peripheral NP marked by a preposition is particularly salient in that instance of the activity, it may drop its preposition and move into direct object slot, e.g. They climbed up a little hill (preposition included) but I climbed a high mountain (preposition omitted). Such an NP is, by virtue of its salience, a good candidate for passivization, and this is particularly likely when it is nearer the beginning of the referential hierarchy described under condition than is the A NP, e.g. That tall mountain hasn’t yet been climbed (by anyone) alongside the active No one has yet climbed that tall mountain. Note how negation appears in the A NP of the active; this becomes an optional by- phrase in the passive, so that the negator must transfer to an obligatory constituent, here the predicate.

 

When there is already an object NP, as in example (3), this remains when a peripheral NP is promoted into the first object slot, as in (4):

(3) John gave a single red rose to Mary

(4) John gave Mary a single red rose

 

Only the object NP a single red rose may be passivized from (3), but—for most speakers—either of the objects from (4) can become passive subject:

(3a) A single red rose was given to Mary (by John)

(3b) *Mary was given a single red rose to (by John)

(4a) Mary was given a single red rose (by John)

(4b) A single red rose was given Mary (by John)

 

(As mentioned, when the preposition is omitted from a measure phrase this does not become direct object and is not open to passivization. We also discussed cognate NPs which can follow CORPOREAL and WEATHER verbs and decided that these have only weak object properties, largely because they can only become passive subject in rather special circumstances.)

 

We can now consider those transitive verbs from Primary types in English which do not allow a passive, or else have one in very limited circumstances. There appear to be three main reasons for this: a verb may be symmetrical, it may refer to a static relation, or it may inherently focus on the subject. Taking these one at a time:

 

a. Symmetric verbs

These are verbs referring to a state or activity that relates equally to two entities—either could be subject and the other will then be object. Thus, if it is the case that Mary resembles John it must also be the case that John resembles Mary. Alternatively, we can use a reciprocal construction, John and Mary resemble each other or Mary and John resemble each other. Either of the roles may be placed in subject slot, and so there is no possible need for a passive construction.

 

Some verbs, such as resemble and look like, must be symmetrical. Others have two senses, one with a symmetrical meaning and one without. John met Mary at the station is, for instance, ambiguous between (i) he went to the station to meet her oV a train, and (ii) they just happened to meet each other there. Sense (ii), but not (i), could be paraphrased Mary met John at the station. The passive Mary was met (by John) at the station is not ambiguous; it can only relate to the non-symmetrical sense, (i). Similarly, fight may be symmetrical, with a human as O, e.g. John fought Tom in 1979/ Tom fought John in 1979, or non-symmetrical with an activity noun as O, e.g. Tom fought a fierce battle. Only the second sense is open to passivization (and even this would need considerable contextualization, since a fierce battle is below John on the referential hierarchy).

 

b. Verbs that refer to a static relationship

Verbs such as contain, cost, weigh and last—as in The carton contains milk, This book costs ten dollars, My son weighs a hundred and fifty pounds, The meeting lasted all morning—indicate a static relationship between two things. Nothing ‘happens’ and so a passive construction, which normally describes the result of an activity, could not be used. (Note also that in a passive construction the by phrase is always omissible, and for these verbs both poles of the relationship must be stated.) Other verbs of this kind include fit, suit, comprise, depend on, result from, relate to. Some symmetric verbs, like resemble, specify a relationship, and their lack of a passive is due to (b) as well as to (a).

 

Verbs in the OWN subtype of GIVING refer to the relationship between Owner and Possession roles. The verb own can form a passive, e.g. John owns that car, That car is owned by John. Why is it that have does not form a corresponding passive, *That car is had by John? In fact the corresponding active is inadmissible, at least in the present tense—we would not say John has that car (where have has a meaning similar to own; there is another sense of have, ‘be using’, and in this sense we can say John has that car today). Have refers to a general property of the Owner, e.g. John has a car. Own, in contrast, focuses on the Possession and implies that the Owner has legal or some other official right to it; the Possession can be foregrounded as passive subject (but note that the Owner is invariably included, through a by phrase). Belong to is effectively the converse of own and have, with Owner in object slot, after to; if a speaker wishes to focus on the Owner, putting it in subject slot, they will use own or have, rather than a passive of belong to. Lack is never used as a passive participle since it does not refer to the result of an activity (contrast with is owned by, which could be used to describe the result of a purchase or bequest, say); the present participle is used instead, e.g. Brains are sorely lacking in that family, alongside the active That family sorely lack brains.

 

The verb equal generally describes a static relationship, e.g. Two and two equals four, and cannot then be used in a passive construction. But it can also be used with a more dynamic sense, to describe something getting into a relationship of equality with something else. Suppose Tom runs a mile in three and a half minutes and then Fred repeats the feat the following month; we can say Fred equalled Tom’s time—Tom’s time existed first, and then Fred came along and clocked a time that was equal to it. In this circumstance it is permissible to use a passive, especially if the O of equal is an established topic: Tom set a new world record, but it was equalled by Fred the next month.

 

c. Verbs that inherently focus on the subject

The LIKING type is the converse of ANNOYING in terms of role-relation correspondence. LIKING verbs have the Experiencer (which is normally human) in A relation and the Stimulus as O; they express a feeling that the Experiencer has about a Stimulus. It is thus scarcely plausible to avoid stating A, or to focus more on the identity of O than of A. The object of a LIKING verb will seldom be passivized—it is most likely to be when continuing an established topic, e.g. That concert, which was put on by the sixth-grade pupils, was thoroughly enjoyed

 

Possess, from the OWN subtype, differs from own in that it implies a strong emotional or mental connection between Owner and Possession, e.g. She possesses a fine sense of loyalty/a good brain. It is because of this focus on the Owner that possess—unlike own—is seldom used in the passive. (The verb be possessed by (e.g. the devil) is best considered a separate lexeme.)

 

Know and believe are further verbs that focus on the subject and are only occasionally found in the passive—generally, when the original A NP has non-individual or indefinite reference, e.g. His testimony was believed by every person in court that day. For know, the past participle is used, with an NP introduced by to, and this is often preferred over a passive construction, especially when the underlying A is human, e.g. John is known to/?*by everyone in the room.

 

The verb join, in the sense ‘become a member of’, has as subject an NP referring to a person (or perhaps a few people) and as object the name of an organization, e.g. John joined the Catholic Church, Mary joined our film society. The object refers to a group of people; the important point is not that the group became slightly enlarged (what does it matter if the film society has fifty members or fifty-one?), but that Mary joined it. For this activity, the subject must be more important than the object, and that is why a passive construction would not be appropriate.

 

In summary, those Primary verbs which are seldom or never found in the passive fall into three classes, (a)–(c), which can be accounted for in terms of conditions.

الاكثر قراءة في Semantics

Semantic features

Hierarchies of hyponyms

Hyponymy

Lexical relations

Primary and Secondary verbs

Polysemy

Adverbs with manner but not sentential function

Antonymy

Hyponymy and the has-relation

Semantic roles

Types associated with the Adjective class

Adjective types and derived adverbs

Agent and theme

Situation types

Words and clitics

اخر الاخبار

اخبار العتبة العباسية المقدسة

جمعية كشافة الكفيل: المجالس الحسينية تعلّم الفتية قيم نهضة الإمام الحسين (عليه السلام)

عَبرَ المجالس الحسينية.. المجمَع العلمي يقدّم محاضرات دينية وتلاوات قرآنية في بغداد والنجف وميسان

برعاية العتبة العباسية المقدسة.. موكب قناديل السماء يُحيي مراسم اليوم الثالث عشر من المحرّم

بعد انتهاء مراسم ذكرى دفن الأجساد الطاهرة قسم رعاية الصحن يباشر بحملة تنظيف واسعة لصحن مرقد أبي الفضل العباس (عليه السلام)

المزيد

الآخبار الصحية

لكبح الجوع وخسارة الوزن.. "سر بسيط" في نظام جوكوفيتش ؟

هل يساعد الرجيم في علاج الأمراض العقلية؟

لحماية أسنان طفلك.. هذا الفيتامين يقلل خطر التسوس

أكل الطعام بسرعة.. طريق سريع إلى أمراض خطيرة

المزيد

الآخبار التكنلوجية

ما هي أفضل درجة حرارة لتكييف الهواء في السيارة؟

ذوبان الأنهار الجليدية يوقظ "عمالقة نائمة"!

9 يوليو يشهد أقصر يوم في التاريخ المسجل ؟!!

راتبه عشرات ملايين الدولارات.. زوكربرغ يخطف "عقل أبل"

المزيد

مواضيع ذات صلة

Consequences of modifying Gunlogsons 2001 model

A case study of the semantics of clear - Factivity revisited

A case study of the semantics of clear - The analysis

A case study of the semantics of clear - Vagueness

Adjective/adverb semantics and verb semantics

Semantics Gradability and degree modification

Semantics

Some lexical structures and their empirical validity Conclusion

Metaphor and the form of lexical entry

Systematic and accidental lexical gaps explained by lexical hierarchies

Hierarchies are non-convergent

COMPARATIVES