With forming a passive-voiced sentence out of an active-voiced sentence, certain elements of a situation shall be emphasized. By making the recipient of the active-voiced form the grammatical subject of the passive-voiced sentence, its focus becomes reinforced due to the sentence-initial position. The passive is thus favoured over the active form when the receiver of an action (recipient) should be focused rather than the performer (agent) of the action. Next to the greater emphasis of the active-voice object, the passive is used to stress the result of an action (which is supported by the possibility of omitting the agent).
The structure be + past particle can be considered as the norm for English passives. Since the passive meaning is essentially expressed by past participles, be in the structure can also be replaced by other verbs such as get, become, remain etc. Considering be- and get-passives, there seems to be no obvious difference between the two forms. However, the get-passive would not be used at all unless it had a different meaning in comparison to the be-passive.
This paper aims to explore what the distinctive feature of the get-passive is. A major contribution to answer this question comes from Hübler who claims that the get-passive is used as means of an emotive language device. I will focus mainly, though not exclusively, on his contribution The Expressivity of Grammar. While many authors (Hatcher, Lakoff, Collins etc.) have tried to analyse the difference in meaning of the two passive forms, Hübler seems to have covered and united most of the theories, leading to the conclusion that the get-passive is used to express emotional attachment. His theory is depicted in detail in the following chapter.
This paper should furthermore serve to test Hübler’s (somehow vast and seemingly to far spread) claims in contrasting both, be- and get-passives. On a corpus based study I will analyse 100 examples of each type of passive for their emotional content.
Finally the results of this analysis will be discussed and the two passive forms are compared in order to describe their differences in meaning.
At a glance
- Grade: 2.0 (1.0 is the best grade)
- Original corpus analysis compares 100 examples of each passive form
- The appendix reproduces the selected examples of both passive forms
- 16 sources in the bibliography
- 5 tables
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Be versus Get
2.1 Remarkable Content
2.2 Attachment
2.3 Dynamicity
2.4 Weaknesses of the theories
3. Methodology
4. Results
4.1 Remarkable Get-Passives vs. Remarkable Be-Passives
4.2. Non-Remarkable Get-Passives vs. Non-Remarkable Be-Passives
4.2.1 Shift of perspective I – Progressive aspect
4.2.2 Shift of perspective II - Outer forces
5. Conclusion
Objectives and Topics
This study investigates what distinguishes English get-passives from be-passives and tests Hübler’s claim that get-passives function as an emotive language device. It compares examples of both constructions to examine emotional attachment, remarkable content and dynamicity.
- Differences between get-passives and be-passives
- Emotional attachment and remarkable propositional content
- Dynamicity and change of state
- Corpus-based classification of passive constructions
- Perspective, progressive aspect and external forces
Excerpt from the Book
2.4 Weaknesses of the theories
In this chapter I want to point out the weaknesses of the above approaches to the meaning of the get-passive which as well describe the tasks of this work. First, and most important is to state what is meant with emotional and remarkable content. The following chapter deals with the operationalisation of these terms.
Second, I doubt that it is helpful to classify the examples of the corpus analysis into negative/neutral/positive categories. Since the focus lies on the question whether something is generally remarkable or not, it is not of interest, whether that is in a positive or negative way. Otherwise - just like the example of getting paid - there may turn out to be neutral verbs which nevertheless have the quality “remarkable” and a great emotional meaning. Furthermore, the whole proposition has to matter and not merely the verb following get.
Third, the notion of attachment bears some problems. The main difficulty lies in defining its boundaries: one cannot tell where attachment begins and ends. It is impossible to define a) what is “remarkable enough” (Hübler, 1998) in order to get emotionally involved and b) whether a person is attached or not. Hence, the possibility to analyse the following corpus examples are limited and somehow simplified.
To explain this problem in more detail: considering Hübler’s work there are two distinct points of view to look at the get-passives. The first (and less problematic) is to consider the content as the independent variable and the use of the get-passive as the dependent one, thus the use of get-passives is the result of remarkable content. Beyond some objective features to define what is remarkable, it is an interpretational act to reconstruct the implicit attachment, hence a matter of subjectivity.
The second is to consider the occurrence of the get-passive construction as the independent variable and the attachment as the dependent one. This is due to Hübler’s claim of a reversed view of attachment. Hence, occurrences of get-passives serve as an indicator for a speaker’s attachment, even without an obvious remarkable content. However, since it can never be absolutely ruled out that a speaker is not attached to his utterances this cannot be proved.
Chapter Summaries
1. Introduction: The author introduces the distinction between get-passives and be-passives and sets out the question of whether the former express emotional attachment.
2. Be versus Get: This chapter reviews accounts of passive meaning, including remarkable content, attachment and dynamicity, and examines difficulties in defining these concepts.
3. Methodology: The author describes the corpus sample and a staged procedure for classifying and comparing examples according to their content and context.
4. Results: The analysis contrasts remarkable and non-remarkable examples of both passive forms, considering subject types and shifts in perspective.
5. Conclusion: The final chapter discusses the implications of the comparison for emotional attachment, dynamicity and the use of passive constructions.
Keywords
get-passive, be-passive, English grammar, passive voice, emotional attachment, emotive language, corpus linguistics, remarkable content, dynamicity, change of state, speaker perspective, progressive aspect
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this work about?
It examines differences in meaning between English get-passives and be-passives, particularly their relationship to emotion.
What are the central topics?
The main topics are emotional attachment, remarkable content, dynamicity and differences in perspective between passive constructions.
What is the primary research question?
The author asks what distinguishes the get-passive from the be-passive and whether the get-passive serves as an emotive language device.
What method does the author use?
The author conducts a corpus-based comparison of 100 examples of each passive form, classifying them by their verbal and contextual content.
What does the main analysis cover?
It compares remarkable and non-remarkable examples, examining their subjects, context and possible shifts in perspective.
Which keywords characterize the work?
Key terms include get-passive, be-passive, emotional attachment, remarkable content, dynamicity and corpus linguistics.
How does the author define remarkable content for the analysis?
The classification considers expressions of feeling and content related to health, liberty, status, certainty and purposes, as well as the wider proposition.
What role does Hübler’s theory play?
Hübler’s account of the get-passive as a marker of emotional attachment provides the central theoretical claim tested in the corpus comparison.
Why does the study consider progressive aspect and external forces?
These concepts provide ways to examine how a get-passive may shift attention towards an event in progress or towards forces acting on its subject.
- Citar trabajo
- Norman Knabe (Autor), 2008, The Get-Passives as an Emotive Language Device, Múnich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/120909
