Read this sentence from the New York Times:
*Alberto Contador of Spain, a two-time winner of the Tour de France, quit the race Monday after breaking his leg in a fall during the 10th stage.*
It's beyond doubt that Alberto was quite serious for that race and he certainly wouldn't break his own leg on purpose!
I know it's common to say, "She broke her arm." which simply means that some accident happened and her arm got broken.
The scene is a wicked girl who does not want to participate in a compulsory competition of writing an essay. A day before the day, she breaks her finger and gets an exemption! It's simple, her concern is solved.
But here, "She broke her finger" will be different, here, you need to put "She broke her finger herself."
It's quite clear that subject + verb certainly means the subject is the one who's performing the act.
I did my homework - I, myself, did my work.
I kissed my cat - I, myself, kissed her.
See these -
I broke my pen - I broke it
I broke my iPad -Yeah, I was too angry BUT...
I broke my leg - I, myself, broke my leg?
I wounded my arm - I, myself, made a wound on my arm? (As in that girl's case?)
So, the question...
If I broke my arm, why am I punished for a thing that I did not do at all? Curse a puddle on the road for that! Why is it not I got my arm broken? or, if I want to show the culprit, A puddle broke my arm as in He broke her arm.
What sort of grammar is it? Does it have any fancy jargon? :)
Answer
From The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (CGEL), p.306-7:
…break occurs only transitively in the context of records or laws/rules (He broke the 100m record, but not *The 100m record broke), and with a body-part object a matching subject will generally be interpreted as experiencer rather than causer (I've broken my arm).
The NYT sentence is fine. As the explanation in CGEL suggests, Alberto Contador is the experiencer rather than the causer. Although your interpretation is technically possible, it's all but ruled out by the presence of in a fall, which suggests it was accidental.
Alberto Contador of Spain, a two-time winner of the Tour de France, quit the race Monday after breaking his leg in a fall during the 10th stage.
If you remove in a fall, you can make your interpretation more likely by adding own:
Alberto Contador of Spain, a two-time winner of the Tour de France, quit the race Monday after breaking his own leg during the 10th stage.
If you add an adjunct like "on purpose", "intentionally", or "accidentally", it doesn't matter whether you remove in a fall, because the adjunct overrides the implicature of the phrase:
Alberto Contador of Spain, a two-time winner of the Tour de France, quit the race Monday after breaking his leg on purpose during the 10th stage.
Alberto Contador of Spain, a two-time winner of the Tour de France, quit the race Monday after breaking his leg on purpose in a fall during the 10th stage.
In your other example, She broke her finger, there's no phrase like in a fall to suggest that it was accidental. As a result, it's more open to interpretation than the NYT sentence. It could be accidental or intentional, and we probably decide which it is based on context.
Again, we can suggest or force your interpretation by adding own or an adjunct like "on purpose":
She broke her own finger.
She broke her finger on purpose.
I don't think adding herself makes the meaning clear.
By the way, there's a very large range of constructions and verbs where the subject is not typically the actor. The most obvious counterexample is the be-passive, in which the actor is typically unspecified or given in a by-phrase.
If you want a fancy grammatical term for your examples with break, try non-agentive.
No comments:
Post a Comment