ESL General English Grammar Questions

Re: how to explain the usage of the ergative verb?

Yankee — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 05:45:31 GMT

Hi Ganesh77

I've made a few comments in the quote below. Much of what I've written has already been mentioned by others. However, maybe my two cents will help:

ganesh77
Here is the incorrect sentence: Last year, turnover was increased by 20%. That sentence is fine in the right context. In that sentence, the verb 'increase' is a transitive verb and the sentence is written in the passive voice. In the active voice, it basically means this:
- Somebody increased turnover. (transitive)
However, without any explicitly defined agent, it would be more common to use the verb 'increase' as an intransitive verb in the active voice:
- Turnover increased. (intransitive)
How to explain that this is an ergative verb and so the passive voice isn't correct in this sentence?
An ergative verb is one that can be used either transitively or intransitively. In a transitive usage of an ergative verb, there will be a subject + a verb + an object:
- TV ads increased our sales by 20%.
If a verb is ergative, the object of the transitive verb can be used as the subject of the intransitive verb.
- Our sales increased by 20% (because we did a lot of advertising on TV).
Ergative verbs can be used in the passive voice, however the passive often is not necessary. Instead of using the passive voice of the transitive verb, you can turn the object into the subject and simply use the verb intransitively.
I previously taught: "turnover is an ergative verb, and so can be used both transitively (turnover increased) Unfortunately, this is an example of using the verb intransitively!
and intransitively (increase in turnover). This example contains no verb at all.

For this reason, the passive voice is not used." I might say this: 'For this reason, the passive voice is frequently unnecessary. Instead, it is often preferable to use the verb intransitively rather than transitively.'
Naturally this resulted in a lot of confused looking faces. My advice is to give them lots and lots of examples.

By the way, I agree with Jim that the "by 20%" part of your sentence may only serve to further confuse your students.

Re: how to explain the usage of the ergative verb?

CalifJim — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 05:34:03 GMT

Avangi
my salary was increased by my boss BOSS = AGENT

I think the original caution was made to block the following misinterpretation. (I realize I may be way off on this one, but I can just imagine a non-native thinking it through this way.)

My salary was increased by 20% 20% = AGENT.

Re: how to explain the usage of the ergative verb?

Goodman — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 05:33:47 GMT

Avangi

Hi Goodman,

Yes, maybe I'm getting a little too tired for this. How about, ^{"After the sun went down, the temperature dropped rapidly." "She dropped the dish, and it broke into a million pieces." "The money was dropped by a careless shopper."?} I

It's sort of interesting. The original issue was that verbs which have both transitive and intransitive applications may not be used in the passive voice. We've pretty much overturned that, but you seem to be objecting to their traditional intransitive uses. The window broke; the temperature dropped, the bus stopped.

I think I need some sleep.

Hi Avangi,
It's getting late here too but I promise this will be a "night cap".
In the Bay Area, ^{temperature dropped} sharply after dark. It's ok, no problem in this context.
The ^{bus stops} here around 7:05 every morning. this sounds good to me. But "^{the bus time table changed recently}" will not sound confortable to my ears.
Good night!

Re: how to explain the usage of the ergative verb?

Avangi — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 05:12:14 GMT

Hi Goodman,

Yes, maybe I'm getting a little too tired for this. How about, "After the sun went down, the temperature dropped rapidly." "She dropped the dish, and it broke into a million pieces." "The money was dropped by a careless shopper."?

It's sort of interesting. The original issue was that verbs which have both transitive and intransitive applications may not be used in the passive voice. We've pretty much overturned that, but you seem to be objecting to their traditional intransitive uses. The window broke; the temperature dropped, the bus stopped.

I think I need some sleep.

Hang in there! - A.

Re: how to explain the usage of the ergative verb?

Goodman — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 04:46:57 GMT

Hello Avangi,
MIDDLE VOICE the window broke my salary increased NO AGENT
Perhaps I was misinformed but I have problem agreeing with the above. I have no problem agreeing with the first 3 examples but logically, let alone grammatically, I can't seem to follow #4. Some man-made objects can break by themselves over time but most are said to be broken (either with an agent or otherwise). So I will likely agree if my wife said "my hair dryer broke" yesrterday and can you pick one up on the way home?" . But for a window, I can't see it breraks by itself. For that matter, I can't see "my address changed recently" nor "my salary increased" being correct without making it passive. I am not sure if you follow me.

Re: how to explain the usage of the ergative verb?

Avangi — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 04:00:49 GMT

Hi Goodman, I'd like to hear from experts too. In the meantime,

ACTIVE VOICE my boss broke the window my boss increased my salary BOSS = AGENT

PASSIVE VOICE the window was broken by my boss my salary was increased by my boss BOSS = AGENT

PASSIVE VOICE the window was broken my salary was increased AGENT IMPLIED

MIDDLE VOICE the window broke my salary increased NO AGENT

Do you have a problem with the "window" examples, or just the "salary" ones?

In English, there is a category of verbs known as Ergative Verbs. They are verbs which allow the three-voice option of active, middle or passive (Lock, 1996). Examples include close, evaporate, bend, increase, sink, shrink, drown, break, change, drop, etc (okay, I stole this last paragraph - I'm trying to find the ref.)

I'm not sure if it includes all verbs which may be both transitive and intransitive (not at the same time).

Best regards, - A.

Re: how to explain the usage of the ergative verb?

Goodman — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 03:37:18 GMT

ganesh77
Avangi -

That is precisely it: when I raised this grammatical point with the Director of English he replied, "increased is an ergative verb and so using the middle voice for the sentence 'Last year, turnover increased by 20%' is correct; although the trainees will mistakenly think the passive voice is used and believe that 'Last year, turnover was increased by 20%' is correct. However, it has nothing to do with the passive voice." That was the general conversation, leading me to explain exactly this language point to Ss who seemed as unclear on the explanation as I was unsure of giving it. The course materials are designed somewhere in England, by the way, and are full of British uses of language which are simply incorrect to us Canadians.

As has been pointed out, we don't know what sort of turnover is involved here: employee or inventory or what. If it were employee turnover then the use of the passive voice doesn't make sense but the middle voice does; if it were inventory turnover then either passive or middle voice works.

IMO The only logical way to explain why "Last year, turnover was increased by 20%" is incorrect usage is because it implies there is an agent that is trying to increase "employee turnover".

Ganesh77,
From the tone and fluency in which you wrote, I think youe English is very good. I am completely perplexed with what you said in the last thread however. In no way this is considered correct based on what I have learned from the past 20 years in the US and this is said with no disrepsect intended. I never heard of "middle voice" myself and this is the first time. I wish more experts will shed light on this.

Re: how to explain the usage of the ergative verb?

Avangi — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 03:01:28 GMT

Hi ganesh,

I'm really glad we were able to make some progress on this. I sensed it was the old battle between syntax and context, but until today I had no experience with the terms "middle voice" or "ergative verb." Thanks for leading me into a great learning experience.

Best wishes, - A.

P.S. Do you have a clear quote from your class book which says the passive voice may not be used with ergative verbs? (I understand the point that it's sort of redundant, but I haven't been able to confirm the rule as you've stated it.)

Re: how to explain the usage of the ergative verb?

ganesh77 — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 02:43:04 GMT

Avangi -

That is precisely it: when I raised this grammatical point with the Director of English he replied, "increased is an ergative verb and so using the middle voice for the sentence 'Last year, turnover increased by 20%' is correct; although the trainees will mistakenly think the passive voice is used and believe that 'Last year, turnover was increased by 20%' is correct. However, it has nothing to do with the passive voice." That was the general conversation, leading me to explain exactly this language point to Ss who seemed as unclear on the explanation as I was unsure of giving it. The course materials are designed somewhere in England, by the way, and are full of British uses of language which are simply incorrect to us Canadians.

As has been pointed out, we don't know what sort of turnover is involved here: employee or inventory or what. If it were employee turnover then the use of the passive voice doesn't make sense but the middle voice does; if it were inventory turnover then either passive or middle voice works.

IMO The only logical way to explain why "Last year, turnover was increased by 20%" is incorrect usage is because it implies there is an agent that is trying to increase "employee turnover".

Re: how to explain the usage of the ergative verb?

Goodman — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 21:47:29 GMT

Some higher level English text books written in Asian countries do have this kind of grammatical discrepancy.

I also have noticed that many Asian students do have a very confused view of passive voice whether it had something to with the text books or the way they were taught.

Re: how to explain the usage of the ergative verb?

Avangi — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 20:17:46 GMT

I've never been to Bangkok, but I find it hard to believe that companies would have that much control over the content of "class books," unless perhaps the "trainees" are taught at company facilities on company time.

Re: how to explain the usage of the ergative verb?

Marius Hancu — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 19:27:09 GMT

> Next, while employee turnover is a bad thing, inventory turnover is a good thing!

GG is absolutely right here.

Re: how to explain the usage of the ergative verb?

Goodman — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 19:16:37 GMT

Ganesh77,
This is quite an interesting discussion. Your reference book obviously either steered you wrong or somewhere there is a misinterpretaion.
<<<>>>I can imagine someone saying, "you know, last year turnover increased by 20%".

Yes, you can! Letâs look at this sentence structure from a different angle.

^{Last week, the price of gas jumped 20 % from a week before}. From glancing at it, it looks almost the same as your example. However, this is a valid active structure which is completely different than your. You may have attempted to make it an active sentence but it just does not work the way you had it. GG made a very good point, in passive structure, we donât have to have an agent, like âstupid managementâ. So âwas increasedâ implied an unspoken cause. But if you omit "was", the structure is invalid.

Re: how to explain the usage of the ergative verb?

Avangi — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 19:09:40 GMT

Here I go beating a dead horse one more time.

When you approach the ergative verb issue from the point of view of active voice, passive voice and middle voice (instead of transitive verb and intransitive verb) you come face to face with the "agent" business.

active I broke the window (I am the agent who broke the window)

passive The window was broken by me (I am the agent)

passive The window was broken (the agent is somebody - unspecified but clearly implied)

"middle voice" The window broke (there is no agent, nor is one implied, nor may one be accepted) designed to please management? ?

"middle voice" The window broke by me (this version is not possible - it's wrong - it's incorrect - nobody would ever say it) management is still safe

ganesh - Would you entertain the possibility that the discussion of agents in your class book may have had something to do with this, rather than agents conspiring to make workers leave?

Very best wishes - A.

Re: how to explain the usage of the ergative verb?

Grammar Geek — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 18:37:31 GMT

Okay, several points here.

Yes, employee turnover is something we try to avoid. If you recall, one of the reasons to use the passive is when you don't want to identify the agent - in other words, stupid management decisions. Avangi's example was perfect.

Next, while employee turnover is a bad thing, inventory turnover is a good thing!

Through an aggressive marketing program and retailer incentives, inventory turnover was increased by 20%.

There's nothing wrong with that.

I think the "rule" in your grammar book is wrong, and you can say simply that your conversations with native speakers affirmed your belief in that. What they need to work on instead is understand the difference between the transitive and ergative aspects of some of these verbs, and make sure they are using them the right way for their intended meaning.