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.
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 Key Themes
This paper aims to investigate the distinctive features of the get-passive in English, focusing on Hübler's theory that it functions as an emotive language device. The study will analyze the emotional content of be- and get-passives through a corpus-based study, comparing 100 examples of each. The analysis will test Hübler's claims and explore the differences in meaning between the two passive forms.
- The distinguishing characteristics of get-passives compared to be-passives.
- The role of emotional involvement in the selection of get-passives.
- The significance of "remarkable content" in determining the use of get-passives.
- Analysis of existing theories regarding the semantic differences between be- and get-passives.
- Testing Hübler's theory through a corpus-based study.
Chapter Summaries
1. Introduction: This introductory chapter establishes the core focus of the paper: the exploration of the get-passive's function as an emotive language device. It highlights the difference in emphasis between active and passive voice, noting the passive's tendency to emphasize the recipient of an action. The chapter introduces Hübler's theory, which posits that the get-passive conveys emotional attachment, and outlines the paper's methodology, which involves a corpus-based analysis of 100 instances of each passive type to examine their emotional content. The introduction sets the stage for a deeper investigation into the nuanced differences between be- and get-passives, focusing on the emotive aspects that distinguish them.
2. Be versus Get: This chapter examines existing literature on the distinction between be- and get-passives. It summarizes various studies, including those by Hatcher, Lakoff, Collins, Stubbs, and McEnery & Xiao, which generally agree that get-passives often express negative consequences. However, the chapter points out that these studies primarily focus on consequences, neglecting other aspects of meaning. It introduces Hübler's more comprehensive theory, suggesting that the get-passive indicates a speaker's emotional involvement or attitude, a more nuanced perspective than simply focusing on positive or negative outcomes. The chapter provides examples of how get-passives are employed to convey varying degrees of emotional engagement.
2.1 Remarkable Content: This section delves deeper into Hübler's concept of "remarkable content." It explains that the get-passive is utilized when the propositional content is significant enough to evoke emotional response from the speaker. The chapter discusses how this concept interacts with the emotional loading of words accompanying the get-passive. It addresses counterarguments suggesting that the frequency of get-passives in neutral contexts contradicts Hübler's theory, emphasizing the importance of considering context and the inherent emotional significance of certain topics, like money, even in seemingly neutral scenarios.
Keywords
Get-passives, Be-passives, emotive language, emotional attachment, corpus linguistics, Hübler's theory, remarkable content, English grammar, passive voice.
Frequently Asked Questions about "Be versus Get Passives: An Analysis of Emotive Language"
What is the main focus of this paper?
The paper investigates the distinctive features of the get-passive in English, particularly focusing on Hübler's theory that it functions as an emotive language device. It analyzes the emotional content of be- and get-passives through a corpus-based study, comparing their usage and exploring the differences in meaning.
What are the key themes explored in the paper?
Key themes include the distinguishing characteristics of get-passives compared to be-passives; the role of emotional involvement in choosing get-passives; the significance of "remarkable content" in determining get-passive use; an analysis of existing theories on the semantic differences between be- and get-passives; and a test of Hübler's theory using corpus linguistics.
What methodology is used in the research?
The research employs a corpus-based approach, analyzing 100 examples of both be-passives and get-passives to compare their emotional content and usage patterns. This quantitative analysis allows for a systematic comparison of the two passive forms.
What are the existing theories regarding be- and get-passives discussed in the paper?
The paper reviews existing literature, including studies by Hatcher, Lakoff, Collins, Stubbs, and McEnery & Xiao, which generally agree that get-passives often express negative consequences. However, the paper argues that these studies are limited in scope, neglecting other aspects of meaning beyond simply negative consequences.
What is Hübler's theory, and how is it tested in this paper?
Hübler's theory proposes that the get-passive indicates a speaker's emotional involvement or attitude, offering a more nuanced perspective than simply focusing on positive or negative outcomes. The paper tests this theory through the corpus-based analysis, examining whether the get-passive correlates with emotional content and "remarkable content."
What is "remarkable content" in the context of this paper?
"Remarkable content" refers to propositional content significant enough to evoke an emotional response from the speaker. The paper explores how this concept interacts with the emotional loading of words accompanying the get-passive and addresses counterarguments regarding its use in seemingly neutral contexts.
What are the main findings or conclusions of the study (as previewed)?
The previewed chapter summaries suggest a detailed comparison of be- and get-passives, focusing on their emotional connotations and the role of "remarkable content." The final conclusion (not detailed in the preview) would presumably synthesize the findings from the corpus analysis and assess the validity of Hübler's theory.
What are the key words associated with this research?
Key words include Get-passives, Be-passives, emotive language, emotional attachment, corpus linguistics, Hübler's theory, remarkable content, English grammar, and passive voice.
What is the structure of the paper?
The paper is structured into five chapters: an introduction, a chapter comparing be- and get-passives (including a subsection on "remarkable content"), a methodology chapter, a results chapter, and a conclusion. The table of contents provides a detailed breakdown of the sections.
- Quote paper
- Norman Knabe (Author), 2008, The Get-Passives as an Emotive Language Device, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/120909
