I don't think "get" is normally thought of as an alternative to the "to be" verb normally found in passive voice, but I've thought for some time that at least in informal speech it really is. It shows the problem with defining passive voice in terms of structure (to be + past partiple) instead of a transformation or instead of the agent/agency. I've also found that a lot of people (not just academics) react negatively to any use of "got" but I haven't heard them explain why. I think that the use of "got" that bugs people is when it's used as where a " "to be" verb might be/get used, as in "I got drunk" (which I would say is not passive voice unless you're a cup of tea). larry beason