3

例えば、東北地方に「なげる」という方言がある。これは「捨てる」という意味だが、方言を知らない人が「これをなげて」と言われて、「投げる」だと解釈して、ごみを投げ返して怒られたという話がある。

My question is about the word 「怒られた」. For the dictionary form「怒る」, there are two meanings in the dictionary, one is to "to get angry"(自動詞), the other is "to scold"(他動詞).

Which interpretation is better "indirect passive" (A got angry and B was negatively affected) or "direct passive" (A scolded B)?

My teacher (who is not a native speaker) said that to use the "indirect passive voice", there must be 「に」, the one that takes/took the action: (Bは)Aに怒られた。 But there is no「に」in the above sentence, so it must mean "got scolded". I have some doubt about his explanation.

For reference, the definition of 怒る from 大辞林:

おこ・る [2] 【怒る】

( 動ラ五[四] )
  ① 腹を立てる。立腹する。いかる。 「真っ赤になって-・る」
  ② しかる。 「先生に-・られる」 〔動詞「おこる」は自動詞で,「…をおこる」とは言えない。「先生におこられた」はいわゆる迷惑の受身の例。迷惑の受身とは,「(雨が)降る」「(父親が)死ぬ」のような自動詞で作られる,迷惑を受けた人を主語とした受身表現「(私は出先で)雨に降られた」「(彼は幼い時に)父親に死なれて苦労した」をいう。それに対して「しかる」は他動詞で,しかる相手が存在する。相手は動作者よりも目下の者で,動作者は教育的な立場から行い,意図的におこったようなこわい顔をすることはあっても,原則として非感情的である〕

[可能] おこれる

8

In this case it is

方言を知らない人(A)が(方言を使う人Bに)「これをなげて」と言われて、「投げる」だと(Aが)解釈して、(Aが)ごみを投げ返して(Bに)怒られたという話がある。

And the 怒られる is just a standard passive of “BがAに怒った” (B ‘madded at’ A) → “AがBに怒られた” (A got ‘madded at’ by B).

I think the terms “indirect passive” and “direct passive” are generally misleading. Basically when the subject of a passive sentence is a human, one can interpret that as the human being negatively affected by something. E.g., 財布が盗まれた has no human subject, while 財布を盗まれた has the implicit human subject of the owner of the wallet, so the latter sounds more negative (because the losing of the wallet “happened to” the owner, as opposed to being lost happening to the wallet).

In the case of your sentence, the subject is indeed a human (A), so them being negatively affected is a possible reading (but it’s cancelable, like 怒られて喜んだ).

Whether there was explicit 叱る/“scolding” or not is a little ambiguous, but the important thing to understand is that 怒る can’t be a purely internal emotion of B when the subject of the passive is human, because it has to be something that A can be “affected” by for the passive to make sense. It could be something as simple as B saying おい、何すんだ! or ふざけんな, or even their eyes widening in preparation for some physical counterattack.

(Interestingly, this “externally-visible getting angry” connotation that occurs with 怒られる has since sort of becomes its “own word” and can be accessed in the active form as 〜を怒る (despite the conservative note in the dictionary definition you attached which claims otherwise). But I see this as a recent evolution, and the passive can be understood without it — however, some may choose to now analyze such 怒られる as the passive form of 〜を怒る instead of 〜に怒る).

| improve this answer | |
  • Though, one argument for the reanalysis of 怒られる as the passive of 〜を怒る is that sentences like ぶしつけな対応が怒られた are not very good, even though ぶしつけな対応に怒る is fine. On the other hand 対応を怒られる reads fine. This is probably why the reanalysis even happened. – Darius Jahandarie May 26 at 17:27
  • How about my teacher’s explanation? Is it true that the Aに can’t be omitted when used in the case of indirect passive voice? I personally doubt it. – Mathis May 26 at 17:33
  • Dunno, I reject the entire direct/indirect/suffering/etc paradigm of explanation because I think it’s incoherent, so I can’t really make a statement about it. Sorry! – Darius Jahandarie May 26 at 17:37

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.