Article published in:Non-Canonical Passives
Edited by Artemis Alexiadou and Florian Schäfer
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 205] 2013
► pp. 43–62
The get-passive at the intersection of get and the passive
On the surface, the English get-passive looks just like a be-passive, with a form of get replacing the auxiliary be, resulting in a more informal passive construction. However, the meaning of the get-passive has been described as different from the meaning of the be-passive in a manner that goes beyond just stylistics. This paper examines claims that have been made about the differences between the English get-passive and the canonical be-passive on the basis of corpus-based data, specifically the secondary agent or responsibility reading of the subject, the adversity reading ascribed to the construction, and the presence or absence of an implicit argument. Corpus-based data show that the get-passive is not as uniformly different from the be-passive as is often claimed, which either means that flexibility must be built into the construction or that there are two structurally different get-passives.
Published online: 28 March 2013
Cited by 1 other publications
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 july 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.