REZKIAWATI NAZARUDDIN PO 600211406

Which verbs from Primary types may passivise

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 significancein conjunction with the meaning of the verbfor a passive construction to be a felicitous alternative to the unmarked active. But very few (if any) verbs may passivise 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 lefta 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 itone could say Fred left the office at five oclock, but scarcely *The office was left (by Fred ) at five oclock. Verbs which are particularly open to passivisation 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 behaviour), 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. 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 passivised from (3), butfor most speakerseither 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) 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 maybe 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 entitieseither 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 off 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 passivisation (and even this would need considerable contextualisation, since a Werce battle is below John on the referential hierarchy (b) Verbs that refer to a static relationship Verbs such as contain, cost, weigh and lastas in The carton contains milk, This book costs ten dollars, My son weighs a hundred and fifty pounds, The meeting lasted all morningindicate 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 tensewe 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 offcial right to it; the Possession can be foregrounded as passive subject (but note that the Owner is invariably included, through a by phrase). 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 Toms time Toms 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 passivisedit is most likely to be when continuing an established topic, e.g. That concert, which was put on by the sixthgrade 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 possessunlike ownis 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 passivegenerally, 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.

How verbs from Secondary types passivise

Overall, Secondary verbs passivise much less readily than do Primary verbs. There are a number which occur in a be passive construction, but rather few that take a get passive. Secondary-D verbs, the seem and matter types, are essentially intransitive and thus not open to passivisation. Secondary-C verbs, from the making and helping types, can take a direct object (which is underlying complement clause subject). Some of these may passivise on this object NP, e.g. John was made/permitted/allowed/helped to fill in the form, Mary was prevented from seeing the doctor. A passive is scarcely possible, however, with let (save of the idiomatic let X go), since this verb focuses on the main clause subject (6.3.1), or with the causative sense of get, and quite impossible with the causative sense of have. Force may have a normal passive, e.g. The guerrillas forced John to walk home (by holding a gun to his back) and John was forced to walk home (by the guerrillas, holding a gun to his back). There is also a special passive of force

that cannot have a by phrase but which may include a subordinate clause stating a reason, e.g. John was forced to walk home, because his car has broken down (the corresponding active, something like Johns car breaking down forced him to walk home, feels somewhat strained). With the Secondary type wanting, the subject of a Modal (for) to complement clause is often identical with the subject of the wanting verb, and is then omitted. But they can be different, and with some wanting verbs for may be or must be omitted, so that the complement clause subject becomes surface object of the main verb. It should then theoretically be available for passivisation. A passive construction is used with some.

TAKSONOMY
Which verbs from Primary types may passivise

THREE MAIN REASONS

verbs from Primary types in English which do not allow a passive

How verbs from Secondary types passivise