Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T13:11:12.442Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Constraints on the agentless passive

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

E. Judith Weiner  and
William Labov
E. Judith Weiner
Affiliation:
Temple University and University of Pennsylvania
William Labov
Affiliation:
Temple University and University of Pennsylvania
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This paper is a quantitative study of the factors that determine the selection of passive constructions over active ones by English speakers. By examining a large body of passives used in spontaneous speech, together with the sentences that show an opposing choice, we are able to throw light on the crucial question of which syntactic and which semantic features of the environment act to constrain the choice and whether syntactic or semantic factors predominate in this case. In the course of the analysis, we will also have something to say about the social factors that have been reported to determine the use of the passive.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , March 1983 , pp. 29 - 58
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1983

References

REFERENCES

Bach, E. (1967). Have and be in English syntax. Lg 43. 462–485.Google Scholar
Baltin, M. (1977). Quantifier-negative interaction. In Fasold, R. and Shuy, R. (eds.), Studies in language variation. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown U.P.Google Scholar
Bernstein, B. (1971). Class, codes and control. New York: Schocken.Google Scholar
Bloom, L. (1970). Language development: form and function in emerging grammars. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Brown, R. (1973). A first language. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, J. (1978). A realistic transformational grammar. In Halle, M., Bresnan, J. & Miller, G. (eds.), Linguistic theory and psychological reality. Cambridge: MIT Press. 1–59.Google Scholar
Cedergren, H. (1973). The interplay of social and linguistic factors in Panama. Unpublished Cornell University dissertation.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. (1970). Meaning and the structure of language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. (1974). Language and consciousness. Lg 50. 111–133.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Feagin, C. (1979). Variation and change in Alabama English. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, J., Bever, T. & Garrett, M. (1974). The psychology of language. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1967). Notes on theme and transitivity in English, Part 2. JL 3. 199–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harwood, F. (1959). Quantitative study of the speech of Australian children. L&S 2. 236–270.Google Scholar
Horgan, D. (1978). The development of the full passive. JChL 5. 65–80.Google Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P. (1968). The interpretation of the passive voice. Quarterly J. of Experimental Psych. 20. 69–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Katz, J. & Postal, P. (1964). An integrated theory of linguistic descriptions. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Klein, W. & Dittmar, N. (1979). Developing grammars: the acquisition of German syntax by foreign workers. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. (1966). The social stratification of English in New York City. Washington. D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1969a). Contraction, deletion, and inherent variability of the English cpula. Lg 45. 715–762.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1969b). The logic of non-standard English. GURT 22. 1–44.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1975). What is a linguistic fact? Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. (1978). Where does the sociolinguistic variable stop? A response to Beatriz Lavandera. Working Papers in Sociolinguistics. Austin: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.Google Scholar
Labov, W., Bower, A., Dayton, E., Hindle, D., Kroch, A., Lennig, M. & Schiffrin, D. (1982). Social determinants of sound change. Final Report to NSF on SOC75–00245. Philadelphia: U.S. Regional Survey.Google Scholar
Labov, W., Cohen, P., Robins, C. & Lewis, J. (1968). A study of the non-standard English of Negro and Puerto Rican Speakers in New York City. Cooperative Research Report 3288. Vols. I and II. Philadelphia: U.S. Regional Survey.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1970). Linguistics and natural logic. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, R. (1971). Passive resistance. PCLS 7. 149–162.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. & Munro, P. (1975). Passives and their meaning. Lg 52, 789–830.Google Scholar
Lavandera, B. (1978). Where does the sociolinguistic variable stop? LiS 7. 215–238.Google Scholar
Lawton, D. (1968). Social class, language and education. London: Routledge, Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Linde, C. (1974). The linguistic encoding of spatial information. Unpublished Columbia University dissertation.Google Scholar
McConnell-Ginet, S. (1982). Adverbs and logical form: a linguistically realistic theory. Lg 8. 144–184.Google Scholar
Poplack, S. (1980). The notion of the plural in Puerto Rican Spanish: competing constraints on /s/ deletion. In Labov, W. (ed.), Locating language in time and space. New York: Academic Press. 55–68.Google Scholar
Prince, E. (1979). On the given/new distinction. PCLS 15.Google Scholar
Sankoff, D. & Labov, W. (1979). On the uses of variable rules. LiS 8. 189–222.Google Scholar
Shuy, R., Wolfram, W. & Riley, W. (1966). A study of social dialects in Detroit. Final Report, Project 6–1347. Washington, D.C.: Office of Education.Google Scholar
Silva-Carvalan, C. (1977). A quantitative study of subject deletion and subject placement in spoken Spanish. Paper given at the Winter Meeting of the LSA, Chicago.Google Scholar
Tannenbaum, P. & Williams, F. (1968). Generation of active and passive sentences as a function of subject or object focus. JVLVB 7. 246–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trudgill, P. (1972). Sex, covert prestige and linguistic change in urban British English. LiS 1. 179–195.Google Scholar
Turner, E. & Rommetveit, R. (1968). Focus of attention in recall of active and passive sentences. JVLVB 7. 543–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van den Broek, J. (1977). Class differences in syntactic complexity in the Flemish town of Maaseik. LiS 6. 149–182.Google Scholar
Weinreich, U. (1958). Travels through semantic space. Review of Osgood, C. E. et al. , The measurement of meaning. Word 14. 374–379.Google Scholar