6.Грамматическая категория залога

There are 2 definitions of the category of voice: 1)Accord. to the so-called objective definition it is the category expressing the relations b/w the subject and the object of the action; 2) the category expresses the relations b/w the subject and the action especially revealed in passive structures cause they have no obj. Hre we deal with the opposition of 2 forms: active voice (marked member), passive (unmarked member). This cat. is different from the others. Ex. He visited his mother – His mother was visited by him. The participant of the situation remains on its place. The direction of action is changed. There’s an immediate connection with syntax here and we can transform the situation from active to passive. In modern Eng. there’s a problem about the number of voice forms: 1 Binary theory (Blokh, Ilyish) > 2 voice forms (active, where the subject is the doer and passive – the subject is the receiver). Bakhudar. speaks about the existence of 3 more voices: 1) reflexive (he shaved himself (verb+self pronoun)), 2) reciprocal (they washed each other (both persons)). The problem: Does the group “each other” or “himself” make part of an analytical verb form (auxil.element) used for forming a special voice of the verb, or is it always a separate secondary part of the sent.? We are to find out if the self-pronoun performs the function of the direct obj, or it is a part of the predicate. He hurt himself badly – He hurt me badly (the meaning is not the same). As a result of many investigations it has been shown that in most case the self-pron. performs the function of an obj. I see this man helping himself and everybody else (heterogeneous obj.) – I am defending myself, an accused person (“myself” is a separate member cause it has its own attribute expressed by the opposition). Thus, there are no reason to identify the combination of the verb and the self-pron. as a voice form. As to such cases as “to find oneself” they are very rare and many scholars refer them to the sphere of phraseology in particular and lexicology in general. The problem with the reciprocal is very similar. We are again to find out if “each other” make part of an analytical voice form of the verb or they represent a secondary part of the sentence. They kissed each other and the child (heterog. obj.). The grounds for assuming a special reciprocal voice are even weaker than those for assuming a reflexive voice. 3) Middle voice (I opened the dore – The door opened). There are 3 diff. interpretations of this phenom. 1. In every line we have 2 diff. verbs (open1-transitive, open2-intran.). The whole problem is shifted to the sphere of lexicol. 2. in both sent. we have the sane verbs & the diff. b/w them is in the voice (1-active which can be transferred into passive. In the 2nd we have the middle voice form denoting the process going on within this subj. without any obj.). The diff. b/w the voices is not expressed by any morphological signs. It is the difference in meaning and syntactic structures. 3. The verbs are the same in both sent-s, the voice is the same since there is no morphological diff. b/w the 2 sent-s. The diff. in meaning and syntactic structures are not enough to establish a new voice form. This practical approach prevails in literat. It allows the scholars to accept only 2 voices and all the special cases considered are treated as the forms of the active voice with all their peculiarities being referred to the context, lexical meaning of the verb, etc. Another problem. The morphological form of the passive voice compared to the corresponding form of the compound nominal predicate with the link verb “to be” + Past Part as the predicative. Ex. He was often mistaken for his father – You are mistaken (in the 2nd sent it is a compound nominal predicate). The door was closed by the butler softly (action) – the door on the left was closed (state) link word+nominal predicate expressing a state. It is the context that shows the difference.