Passives - thematic agents

[Dave M]

> 1a The bread cuts easily.
2a The book fell off the table.
...
1d I cut the bread.
2d He pushed the book off the table.

But how are 1d and 2d different from 1a and 2a? They are both active. Your advice does not distinguish between them. <

Well ... my advice (borrowed from Sue) was that, where it is important to know WHO carried out the action, it is better to say so in the active voice, rather than in the passive. (It won't ALWAYS be true, as we've covered in earlier comments in the "passive" thread.)

In that context, 1a differs from 1d in that 1a doesn't even mention who did the cutting (nor does it actually say that any cutting was done). It is a sentence dealing with the characteristics, rather than the history and status, of the bread. I cannot see that that is a better way of putting across who did the cutting.

2a and 2b are nearer, one to another, in that we know the book did indeed descend, but again the former does not mention whether anyone did any pushing. It's a poor example of a sentenced to be used "where it is important to know who carried out the action", as it fails to mention the action, let alone who did it.

It's interesting to note the separation, sometimes, between thematic agent and syntactic subject, but then it's interesting to note that Kyoto used to be the capital of Japan - and neither is relevant to the point that was being made. ;D

[goofy]

Jun 20, 2008 19:48:01 GMT Dave M said:

It's interesting to note the separation, sometimes, between thematic agent and syntactic subject, but then it's interesting to note that Kyoto used to be the capital of Japan - and neither is relevant to the point that was being made. ;D

Was it not relevant to the point you made? You said

where the "doer" IS relevant, for reasons of fact or to give the text the appropriate immediacy, the active voice works better.

But if "doer" simply means "subject", which is what I think you said it meant, then since most sentences have subjects, you can form an active sentence like "the book fell off the table" which may not convey the relevant information.

And if "doer" means "thematic agent", then you can still form active sentences that are vague as to agency, like "the bread cuts easily," so simply creating an active sentence is not sufficient.

Jun 20, 2008 19:48:01 GMT Dave M said:

Well ... my advice (borrowed from Sue) was that, where it is important to know WHO carried out the action, it is better to say so in the active voice, rather than in the passive.

ok, that's a lot clearer, but I still like "participant that is responsible for the action or causes the action to happen" since it might not always be a human.

[Moby_Dick]

> So according to your advice, the A sentences are better than the B sentences, even though the subject is identical in both.

The trouble is that your pairs of sentences aren’t active/passive equivalents – it’s a bit like comparing apples and oranges. For example consider this pair

>3a I was afraid.
>3b I was frightened by a monster.

The first is active. There is no passive equivalent because the verb “to be” is an intransitive verb and does not take an object.

The second is passive: the active equivalent is, “The monster frightened me”. (Let us call this 3x.)

Certain authorities (e.g. MS Word) argue that 3x is always better than 3b. They mean exactly the same thing: the only difference between them is that 3b is passive, so it is better to use 3x.

There is, however, a difference in meaning between 3a and 3b so we cannot make a direct comparison. We might argue that 3b is better than 3a because it gives more information, but that isn’t a stylistic or grammatical consideration.

MS Word certainly does get hung-up on passive sentences, but this particular feature of the grammar checker can be turned off.

I have a friend who swears that MS Word once told him that one of his sentences was too pretentious. I have never seen that message though.

[goofy]

Jun 20, 2008 20:27:18 GMT Moby_Dick said:

The trouble is that your pairs of sentences aren’t active/passive equivalents – it’s a bit like comparing apples and oranges.

I wasn't trying to make direct comparisons between active-passive pairs. My point was to show that simply writing in the active voice doesn't always solve the problem of specifying what you want to specify.

Unrelated, but here's something weird about the passive: not all active-passive pairs are synonymous. The first sentence in each of these pairs is ambiguous, and the second is not.

Everyone pleases his wife. (each one's own wife, or a certain wife?)
His wife is pleased by everyone.

No one is liked by his wife. (each one's own wife, or a certain wife?)
His wife likes no one.

Just a few people attended each wedding. (the same or a different group at each wedding?)
Each wedding was attended by just a few people.

[Moby_Dick]

I wasn't trying to make direct comparisons between active-passive pairs. My point was to show that simply writing in the active voice doesn't always solve the problem of specifying what you want to specify.

No, but I think the general advice that is given by Gowers and others, and which underlies the rules in MS Word, is that if you can use the active voice instead of the passive voice, then it is better to do so. It makes for more interesting reading.

Sometimes, we have no choice: as when we don't know, or want to hide, who is the subject of the verb. Or, as in your examples, when the sentence would be ambiguous.

It helps to give the text a nice mix of verbs instead of using "to be" all the time. Similar advice is some times given (you see, I have to use the passive voice there because, I can't say who gives the advice) to avoid constructions like

I did the painting. (Should be I painted something).
I made an analysis. (I analyzed something).
I performed an operation. (I operated).

(However, I don't see the distinction in meaning, between your third pair.)

[Dave M]

> But if "doer" simply means "subject", which is what I think you said it meant <

Ah. I think that's not what I said. In Sue's example of "the bridge was built in 1864", there are unmentioned builders (the ones doing the building) and it's not important to mention them, since the point of the sentence is the year, not the builders. All that Sue and I have been saying is that that is a case where the passive IS preferred, BUT, if the builder (my "doer") IS important, then an active sentence usually deals with it better.

> My point was to show that simply writing in the active voice doesn't always solve the problem of specifying what you want to specify. <

OK. I agree - and I don't think anyone else writing here would disagree, or has yet said anything which disagrees.

[Bertie]

It's somewhat like the difference between a major and minor key in music.

[Barry]

Oo-er, that's fightin' talk, Bertie. Not quite sure I take your point, although, mayhap, with the 'grey area', the major/minor distinction might be close (minor isn't necessarily 'sad', and major isn't necessarily 'happy'; and then there are modes ...)

[Dave M]

I'm no musician, but perhaps I can see a connection with secondary versus tertiary colours.

I'm not sure that that's any help, though: it's difficult to use keys or colours as analogy, since the rather mystical connection is not sufficiently formal or structured to move back to the original, having come to some conclusion by considering the analogy ...

[Vadim]

Any comments on the second part of my original question?

.. about the Flesch reading age/ease etc? I'm unfamiliar with their use,measurement method or validity.

[Paul Doherty]

Not big in the UK as far as I know.

[Moby_Dick]

Any comments on the second part of my original question?

.. about the Flesch reading age/ease etc? I'm unfamiliar with their use,measurement method or validity.

This site explains how the Flesch-Kincaid readability index is calculated: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flesch-Kincaid_Readability_Test and there's a bit more information here: csep.psyc.memphis.edu/cohmetrix/readabilityresearch.htm

The Wikipedia article says that some government agencies require documents to achieve certain readability levels. I assume that this means US government agencies. Personally, I regard it in much the same way that I regard horoscopes - that is, I read what it says, think, "that's nice", and then forget about it. I might take it more seriously though, if I were writing for a US government agency.

[Tone]

>It's somewhat like the difference between a major and minor key in music.<

Wossat, then?

Tone

[Bertie]

Jun 23, 2008 21:04:04 GMT Tone said:

>It's somewhat like the difference between a major and minor key in music.<

Wossat, then?

Tone

It's "in yourears".

[Tone]

>It's "in yourears".<

Tone is, rather aptly, tone deaf.
(And worked in a recording studio in the '70s. )

Tone