The Middle Voice conveys a subtly different meaning from that of either the Active or Passive Voices. The Middle Voice carries a sense that's hard to convey in English - the idea of doing something on your own behalf. To be honest, the ideas that this concept can convey vary a lot, but generally, it'll mean either:
or...
Any of these senses can theoretically be read into a verb in the Middle Voice, but it's usually obvious which one is most suitable. Plus, the more original Greek you read, the more obvious it becomes how to interpret a particular verb.
* Well, mostly. Ancient Greek is one of the most horrendously complicated and irregular languages out there, so it's not quite that simple. The problem is that whilst in all tenses - that is, present, future, imperfect, aorist, perfect, etc. - the Middle Voice has a distinct meaning from that of the Passive Voice, only the aorist and future tenses have separate forms for both the Middle and the Passive Voice. The present, imperfect, perfect, pluperfect, etc. all share a single verb form, and whether a verb is middle or passive has to be worked out from context. It's rare, though, that the voice of a verb isn't immediately apparent from the sense of the piece you're reading.
The θ-roles available depend on the verb. An intransitive verb such as 'laugh' has a single θ-role, typically the AGENT (or it may be the EXPERIENCER). Necessarily, this is the subject of the sentence: Mary laughs. A canonical transitive verb such as 'hit' or 'kiss' has two, an AGENT to do it and a PATIENT that it's done to. Active voice is when the agent is subject, passive voice is when the patient is. (An ergative language often has a construction called the antipassive.)
In English middle voice is used to mean the construction where the patient is the subject of an intransitive but active verb. Compare:
Active: John burns down the house. Passive: The house is burnt down (by John). Middle: The house burns down.
John burns down the house deliberately. The house is burnt down deliberately. (ungrammatical): *The house burns down deliberately. John burns down the house for the insurance money. The house is burnt down for the insurance money. (ungrammatical): *The house burns down for the insurance money.
The rearrangement of θ-roles characterizes the Greek and Swedish uses mentioned above. Instead of A doing something to B, or B having something done to them by A, the middle is used for causative orientation (A gets B to do something to C), or reciprocal (A and B do things to each other), or benefactive (A does something for B, or for A).
The analysis of English middles as disallowing any reference to agent roles is given in my sources on current theories of syntax, but I am noding this now because I have just noticed an example where it's semantics that can determine whether this is true. It appears to be when the agentive intention is present in the object by its nature. Buildings aren't designed to burn down for the insurance money. However, suppose you have a safety catch or a fire access window that's designed to break easily. Then you could say, questionably:
This catch breaks easily deliberately. This catch deliberately breaks easily. This window breaks easily to let people in.
printable version chaos
Everything2 Help
