6 ms·
What is "basic" grammar? The only details provided in this article discuss active v. passive constructions. An excellent question then is: does "basic" English
by asolove 16y ago
What is "basic" grammar? The only details provided in this article discuss active v. passive constructions. An excellent question then is: does "basic" English grammar include passive constructions?
Certainly we all expect that children speak in the active, pass through a period of school where they heavily adopt the passive as part of a larger attempt to "sound smart" while writing, and then eventually make it to the goal of writing fluently with the simplest language possible.
Is it possible that the passive is in some sense less basic to the brain's language processing than the active?
The research seems to have shown we should simply change the definition of "basic" rather than conclude that the Chomsky model is wrong.
- hugh3 16y agoHow many languages actually have a passive voice? Wikipedia says that passive voices are common in many languages, but it doesn't give any examples of languages which lack passive voices. It would be interesting if any languages lacked an active voice. I have my doubts. And of course, there are plenty of other possible constructions we don't get in English, like the zillions of possibilities presented by Latin. Wikipedia also notes the existence of an "adversative passive" voice in some Asian languages, only used when the action had adverse consequences. Weird. But really, maybe Microsoft Word grammar check was right all along: unnecessary use of the passive voice is confusing. The example "The sailor was hit by the soldier" really is a little more confusing than its active equivalent in which the soldier hits the sailor. The passive construction may be less confusing in the kinds of situations where it's actually used: ie where the actual hitter is not named "The sailor got hit".