In English the passive is usually formed with the verb 'to be' i.e. she was promoted. But often we also use the verb to get, so you could also say 'she got promoted'. These seem to be mainly interchangable, but not completely, or at least to my ears one form sounds more natural in certain situations. For example, I think I would be much more likely to say someone 'got run over' as opposed to 'was run over', while something like 'he was advised to do something' sounds right, but not 'he got advised to do something'.
I first thought about this when I was learning German, which uses the verb werden (to become) to form the passive. It was brought to my attention that in English we use the verb 'to be' and it was implied this wasn't really that logical. I can see that argument, as it doesn't always make it clear whether you are referring to the act of doing something to someone, or the state they are in once that act has been completed. But then I thought about the fact that we do sometimes use 'to get', which in a way does correspond more to the German idea of using 'to become'.
Just wondering what others think of this, both native and non-native speakers?
I first thought about this when I was learning German, which uses the verb werden (to become) to form the passive. It was brought to my attention that in English we use the verb 'to be' and it was implied this wasn't really that logical. I can see that argument, as it doesn't always make it clear whether you are referring to the act of doing something to someone, or the state they are in once that act has been completed. But then I thought about the fact that we do sometimes use 'to get', which in a way does correspond more to the German idea of using 'to become'.
Just wondering what others think of this, both native and non-native speakers?