Grammar

A sentence with passive voice consists of an object of an action that is into the subject of a sentence.

" Look for a form of "to be" (is, are, am , was, were, has been, have been, had been, will be, will have been, being) followed by a past participle. (The past participle is a form of the verb that typically, but not always, ends in "-ed." Some exceptions to the "-ed" rule are words like "paid" (not "payed") and "driven." (not "drived"). Here's a sure-fire formula for identifying the passive voice:

form of "to be" + past participle = passive voice"

Quoted from Passive Voice.
 
missywinks said:
i would say there is a passive voice in asl. how about this:

BOY THROW BALL (the subject is the topic, so you are using "active voice"- SVO)
BALL? BOY THROW (the object is the topic, so you are using "passive voice"- OSV)
Click to expand...

Agreed. Just because passive voice is not demonstrated in ASL utilizing the same grammatical rules that apply to passive voice in spoken English, does not mean that passive voice does not exist in ASL. A visual language simply uses different grammatical rules than does a spoken language to allow for differences in cognitive processing. One is meant for the ears, one is meant for the eyes. Those two senses to do not process information in the same way. Hence, differences in grammatical guidelines.
 
deafbajagal said:
A sentence with passive voice consists of an object of an action that is into the subject of a sentence.

" Look for a form of "to be" (is, are, am , was, were, has been, have been, had been, will be, will have been, being) followed by a past participle. (The past participle is a form of the verb that typically, but not always, ends in "-ed." Some exceptions to the "-ed" rule are words like "paid" (not "payed") and "driven." (not "drived"). Here's a sure-fire formula for identifying the passive voice:

form of "to be" + past participle = passive voice"

Quoted from Passive Voice.
Click to expand...

I think this is more for English, and not ASL. But I might be wrong?
 
missywinks said:
i would say there is a passive voice in asl. how about this:

BOY THROW BALL (the subject is the topic, so you are using "active voice"- SVO)
BALL? BOY THROW (the object is the topic, so you are using "passive voice"- OSV)
Click to expand...

jillio said:
Agreed. Just because passive voice is not demonstrated in ASL utilizing the same grammatical rules that apply to passive voice in spoken English, does not mean that passive voice does not exist in ASL. A visual language simply uses different grammatical rules than does a spoken language to allow for differences in cognitive processing. One is meant for the ears, one is meant for the eyes. Those two senses to do not process information in the same way. Hence, differences in grammatical guidelines.
Click to expand...

Mountain Man said:
That's not passive voice because you're still identifying a subject and an object even if the object happens to be the topic of the sentence. Passive voice would be:

"The ball was thrown."

Is it possible for this sentence to exist in ASL, where the subject of the sentence is also the object?
Click to expand...


Passive construction in asl is different than in english. I think the confusion lies with the fact that we can use either a subject or object as the topic in a sentence as seen in my previous examples.

BOY THROW BALL - This would be translated into "The boy threw the ball". This would be considered active voice because the subject is the topic.

BALL? BOY THROW - This would be translated into "The ball was thrown by the boy." This would be considered a passive voice because I used the object as my topic.

I am not an ASL instructor but this is what I understand from my readings. Let me know if you want me to cite my references and I will look this week.
 
jillio said:
Just because passive voice is not demonstrated in ASL utilizing the same grammatical rules that apply to passive voice in spoken English, does not mean that passive voice does not exist in ASL.
Click to expand...
So what is the identifiable difference between a passive voice sentence in ASL and an active voice sentence? For instance, missywinks suggested "BALL? BOY TROW" as an example of a passive voice sentence, but what would compel, say, an interpreter to translate the sentence as "The ball was thrown by the boy" instead of "The boy threw the ball"? And surely you're not suggesting that all topic/comment sentences are passive voice? For instance, "HOUSE? ALL-DAY ME CLEAN" would never be understood as "The house was cleaned all day by me." I also want to know how an interpreter could translate the sentence "The ball was thrown" into ASL without inventing an actor to do the throwing.

I'm not saying that passive voice can't exist in ASL. It's just that as far as I know current linguistic research suggests that it doesn't, and nobody here has been able to present a compelling case that it does.

(Please understand, I'm not trying to be a rabble rouser. ASL is a subject that interests me greatly, and I'm just trying to learn as much as I can about it.)
 
Last edited:
missywinks said:
Passive construction in asl is different than in english. I think the confusion lies with the fact that we can use either a subject or object as the topic in a sentence as seen in my previous examples.

BOY THROW BALL - This would be translated into "The boy threw the ball". This would be considered active voice because the subject is the topic.

BALL? BOY THROW - This would be translated into "The ball was thrown by the boy." This would be considered a passive voice because I used the object as my topic.

I am not an ASL instructor but this is what I understand from my readings. Let me know if you want me to cite my references and I will look this week.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't necessary to cite references. You are absolutely correct.
 
Mountain Man said:
So what is the identifiable difference between a passive voice sentence in ASL and an active voice sentence? For instance, missywinks suggested "BALL? BOY TROW" as an example of a passive voice sentence, but what would compel, say, an interpreter to translate the sentence as "The ball was thrown by the boy" instead of "The boy threw the ball"? And surely you're not suggesting that all topic/comment sentences are passive voice? For instance, "HOUSE? ALL-DAY ME CLEAN" would never be understood as "The house was cleaned all day by me." I also want to know how an interpreter could translate the sentence "The ball was thrown" into ASL without inventing an actor to do the throwing.

I'm not saying that passive voice can't exist in ASL. It's just that as far as I know current linguistic research suggests that it doesn't, and nobody here has been able to present a compelling case that it does.

(Please understand, I'm not trying to be a rabble rouser. ASL is a subject that interests me greatly, and I'm just trying to learn as much as I can about it.)
Click to expand...

Again, you are concentrating too much on the translation. Just because it is translated into an active voice does not mean that the original communication was made in active voice. When translating from ASL into English, English grammatical rule must apply to the translation. However, those same rules do not apply to the original ASL. ASL grammatical rules apply to the original ASL. It is the difference in what makes sense to the visual senses as opposed to what makes sense to the auditory senses. ASL evolved to make comprehension by the visual sense possible. English evolved to make comprehension through the auditory sense possible. ASL grammatical rules evolve through time oriented and spatial means, English grammatical rules evolved through linear means. That is because the brain processes auditory and visual stimuli differently. Auditory is processed in a lineal way; visual is processed in a spatial, time oriented way. The very same concept expressed in the two languages, while may provide the same message, will be grammatically arranged in a different way. You are trying to equate the two, and you must keep them separate. If they were not separate languages with different grammatical features, translation would not be necessary between the two. Again, if passive voice can be demonstrated in ASL, then it exists in ASL. It just does not exist in ASL in the same fashion as it does in English.
 
jillio said:
Again, you are concentrating too much on the translation.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, and I do thank you for your patience.

jillio said:
Again, if passive voice can be demonstrated in ASL, then it exists in ASL.
Click to expand...
I agree. So the question is, can it be demonstrated in ASL in such a way that the subject is clearly the recipient of the transient verb? Is there an ASL equivalent to "The ball was thrown"? I'm not asking for a translation but an equivalent ASL sentence that would be universally understood as passive voice.

It's also worth noting that passive voice in English is really nothing more than emphasis shifting. So for example, the active voice "The boy threw the ball" places emphasis on "boy" while the passive voice "The ball was thrown by the boy" places emphasis on "ball". ASL can accomplish this same emphasis shift with topic/comment, so you would have "BOY? BALL HE THROW" and "BALL? BOY THROW", so even if passive voice is not a grammatical feature of ASL, it can still express the same range of meaning as any other language.
 
Mountain Man said:
Fair enough, and I do thank you for your patience.

You are welcome.
I agree. So the question is, can it be demonstrated in ASL in such a way that the subject is clearly the recipient of the transient verb? Is there an ASL equivalent to "The ball was thrown"? I'm not asking for a translation but an equivalent ASL sentence that would be universally understood as passive voice.

Yes, it can be demonstrated. Here is an example. YESTERDAY, BALL THROW. WINDOW MINE BREAK. Translated: Yesterday, a ball was thrown through my window and broke it. .

It's also worth noting that passive voice in English is really nothing more than emphasis shifting. So for example, the active voice "The boy threw the ball" places emphasis on "boy" while the passive voice "The ball was thrown by the boy" places emphasis on "ball". ASL can accomplish this same emphasis shift with topic/comment, so you would have "BOY? BALL HE THROW" and "BALL? BOY THROW", so even if passive voice is not a grammatical feature of ASL, it can still express the same range of meaning as any other language.
Click to expand...

Correct. But keep in mind that simply because it is not a single grammatical marker that accomplishes this, does not mean that is is not a grmmatical feature.
 
missywinks said:
I think this is more for English, and not ASL. But I might be wrong?
Click to expand...

It applies to both. Even though the structure may be different, both languages have passive voice.

The to-be verbs are not signed literally n ASL but they do exist...even though we do not sign "have been" literally, when we sign a word and add "finish" to it (play + *finish finish*) then we are using to-be verbs in that sense.

Weird, I know. But passive voice exists in ASL, as you and Jillo have explained in great details. Good going! :)
 
deafbajagal said:
It applies to both. Even though the structure may be different, both languages have passive voice.

The to-be verbs are not signed literally n ASL but they do exist...even though we do not sign "have been" literally, when we sign a word and add "finish" to it (play + *finish finish*) then we are using to-be verbs in that sense.

Weird, I know. But passive voice exists in ASL, as you and Jillo have explained in great details. Good going! :)
Click to expand...

Thanks, DB!:ty: I try!:giggle:
 
jillio said:
Yes, it can be demonstrated. Here is an example. YESTERDAY, BALL THROW. WINDOW MINE BREAK. Translated: Yesterday, a ball was thrown through my window and broke it.
Click to expand...
Interesting. And this is a sentence structure that is regularly used by native signers across the US?
 
Mountain Man said:
Interesting. And this is a sentence structure that is regularly used by native signers across the US?
Click to expand...

Well, I don't know how regularly you would see it used. That would depend on how regularly someone threw a ball through their window and broke it without them knowing who that someone was. But, yes, natives would sign this way, just as natives would use some shorthand and abbreviations that are common to native signers. The first thing that comes to mind is the sign WHAT DO which is completely different than the sign WHAT+DO. The first is a single sign, the second is two signs in conjunction. I have yet to see anyone but a native use the sign WHAT DO unless they had been taught to sign by a native. It is not a sign usually taught in formal classroom environments. I'm sure that DBG knows the sign I am speaking of, and where and how it would be used in conversation, as well as several others on this forum.
 
jillio said:
But, yes, natives would sign this way...
Click to expand...
My linguistics professor will certainly be interested in your example. Thanks. :)

jillio said:
...just as natives would use some shorthand and abbreviations that are common to native signers. The first thing that comes to mind is the sign WHAT DO which is completely different than the sign WHAT+DO. The first is a single sign, the second is two signs in conjunction. I have yet to see anyone but a native use the sign WHAT DO unless they had been taught to sign by a native. It is not a sign usually taught in formal classroom environments. I'm sure that DBG knows the sign I am speaking of, and where and how it would be used in conversation, as well as several others on this forum.
Click to expand...
Yes, I am familiar with that sign.
 
Back
Top