ON THE PASSIVE OF INFINITIVAL PERCEPTION VERB COMPLEMENTS
Renaat Declerck
This paper is concerned with Infinitival Perception Verb Complements
swim in I saw John swim. While the derivation
of sentences like these has remained controversial in transformational grammar (see Declerck (1981b) for a discussion and critique of five different
analyses), all grammars apparently agree that structures with IPVC’s can be
passivized as shown in the following examples:
1.
(henceforth: IPVC’s) like John
to your house yesterday.
(by Bill) to come to your house yesterday.
(2) (a) Mary heard Tom sing a song every hour.
(b) Tom was heard (by Mary) to sing a song every hour.
(1) (a) Bill
(b)
John
saw
John
come
was seen
The claim that (1, b) and (2,b) are the passive counterparts of (1, a) and (2,a)
has been made both in traditional grammar (see e.g., Jespersen (1961:315),
Quirk et al. (1972:841)) and in transformational grammar (see e.g. Huddleston
(1971), Emonds (1976), Horiguchi (1978). In the latter theory the concomitant
claim is made that the to which occurs in the passive construction but not
overtly in its active counterpart must also be present in the underlying structure of the active IPVC’s but is obligatorily deleted there.
In fact it is not hard to understand why the view that (l,b) and (2,b) are
the passive versions of (l,a) and (l,b) has been so persistent: since IPVC’s
(bare infinitives) can follow active perception verbs but no passive ones (cf.
(3, a-b)), while to-IPVC’s can follow passive perception verbs but no active
ones (cf. (3, c-d), it is, indeed, tempting to look upon (3,d) as the passive
counterpart of (3, a) .
(3) (a) Someone saw John write a letter.
(b) *John was seen write a letter.
(c) *Someone
(d) John was
saw
seen
John to write a letter.
to write a letter.
The assumption that (3, d) is the passive of (3, a) is not even challenged in
Kirsner (1977), although it is pointed out there that the two sentences are not
quite synonymous. Kirsner attempts to explain this semantic difference on the
basis of pragmatic considerations, without questioning the fundamental voice
relation between the sentences (see below).
It goes without saying that treating (3, d) as the passive of (3, a) has some
consequences for the analysis of IPVC’s in transformational grammar. To
give only one example: since it is widely accepted in present-day TG that
transformations cannot create structure, 1 the fact that to shows up in (3, d)
entails that the active structure from which (3, d) is derived must also contain
to (or at least a category from which to can be derived). If one assumes that
this active structure is (3, a) it follows that, contrary to what is claimed by Gee
(1975) and Akmajian (1977), IPVC’s must be S’s in underlying structure, since
27
Downloaded from eng.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 20, 2016
either be the lexicalization of COMP (as claimed in Huddleston (1971:
and suggested in Gee (1977:480)) or be derived from AUX (as is more often
assumed--see e.g. Bach (1977:625), Rouveret & Vergnaud (1980)). Both COMP
and AUX are nodes that require an S
above them. This and other illustrations make clear that the question of whether (3, d) is really the passive of
(3, a) is of some theoretical importance.
to must
183)
(or S)
2. It has been pointed out by Kirsner (1977-173) that passives like (4, a-b)
differ from &dquo;their formally corresponding actives&dquo; (5, a-b) in suggesting that
the perception process was accidental and that the event perceived was not
intended by its agent to be witnessed:
(4) (a) John was
seen (by Sam) to cross the street.
The President was heard to utter an expletive.
(5) (a) Sam saw John cross the street.
(b) We heard the President utter an expletive.
(b)
Kirsner remarks that &dquo;the complements of the active sentences describe events
which the perceivers could well plan to perceive and which are intended by their
agents to be perceived (... ). By contrast, the infinitive phrases of the passive
sentences describe events whose perception is fortuitous and which are not performed in order to be witnessed&dquo; (p. 174). According to Kirsner this semantic
difference follows pragmatically from the fact that agentive perception verbs
like watch and listen to cannot occur in sentences like (4, a-b): &dquo;if the explicitly
agentive sensory verbs are (for whatever reason) excluded from passives, it is
understandable that those sensory verbs that do occur there would be taken as
referring to unplanned perceptions of unanticipated and sometimes ’furtive’
events&dquo; (p. 175).
Two questions suggest themselves here: (a) does Kirsner’s explanation
satisfactorily account for the semantic distinction observed, and (b) does it
follow from this distinction that the existence of a voice relation between the
relevant pairs of sentences should be questioned? In my opinion both questions
should be answered negatively. The reason is that the semantic distinction in
question occurs whenever a sentence involving a perception verb is passivized.
For example:
Mary had seen John the day before.
(b~ Mary heard the children.
(7) (a) John had been seen (by Mary) the day before.
(6)
(a)
(b)
The children
were
heard
(by Mary).
can refer both to ’accidental’ and to ’planned’ perception;
the other hand, suggest ’accidental’ perception only: they are far
less likely to be used than (6, a-b) if Mary made an intentional effort to see John
or to hear the children.
This is exactly the same difference as distinguishes
(4, a-b) from (5, a-b) and as can be observed when the perception verb is fol-
Sentences
(6, a-b)
(7, a-b),
on
lowed by
a
participial complement (henceforth: PPVC):
28
Downloaded from eng.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 20, 2016
(8) (a)
(b)
(9) (a)
(b)
Mary had seen John crossing the street the day before.
Mary heard the children playing in the garden.
John had been seen (by Mary) crossing the street.
The children had been heard (by Mary) playing in the garden.
Again, the active sentences (8, a-b) are compatible with both planned and accidental perception whereas (9, a-b) suggest accidental perception only. It follows
that this semantic difference is a function of passivizing perception verbs in
general and therefore provides no ground for not treating (4,a-b) as the passives
of (5, a-b) as long as (7, a-b) are treated as the passives of (6, a-b) and (9, a-b)
as the passives of (8, a-b). Of course, this does not mean that no other reasons
could be found for denying the voice relation in the
case
of IPVC’s
only
(see be-
low).
As to Kirsner’s explanation of the semantic difference between (4, a-b)
and (5, a-b), we can point out two things. First, the observation that agentive
verbs like watch and listen to can occur in (5, a-b) but not in (4, a-b) could
explain the semantic difference only if it were equally impossible to use these
verbs in (7, a-b) and (9, a-b), since the same semantic distinction holds between
these and their active counterparts. In fact, however, such passive sentences
are
not
excluded:
(10) (a) John had been watched (by Mary) the day before.
(b) The children were listened to (by Mary).
(c) John had been watched crossing the street the day before.
(d) ’ The spy was listened to being interrogated by Mr. Philps.
A second
objection to Kirsner’s explanation is that the readings ’accidental’and
’unplanned’ are not excluded by explicitly agentive perception verbs like watch
and listen to. However, this claim is essential to Kirsner’s reasoning, which
runs as
follows-
(a) watch and listen to imply that the perception is agentive, i. e. , that
(b)
that the perceiver is responsible for the perception;
it follows that watch and listen to will favour the inference that the
perceived event was anticipated, hence that the perception was
planned’
(c) passive
sentences
involving to-IPVC’s
cannot involve watch
or
listen
two (d)
it follows that those perception verbs that do occur in such passive
sentences will be taken as referring to unplanned perceptions of
unanticipated
events.
Apart from the fact that (dB would follow only weakly from (a)-(c), it is not correct that (b) follows from (a): the intentionality implied in the agentive perception verbs concerns the continuation of the perception process rather than the
expectation of the perception. What distinguishes watching from seeing is that,
once the perception has started (and this beginning itself may be quite accidental
and unexpected), the perceiver makes a conscious effort to protract the
perception process: he keeps his eyes fixed on the event that caught his attention. Thus, (11) does not imply that we expected a car to come to our house,
29
Downloaded from eng.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 20, 2016
but it does
(11)
imply
that
we
continued
We watched the
car
looking
driving
at it
up to
our
once we
had
caught sight
of it.
house.
Summarizing this discussion of Kirsner (1977), we can conclude that (a)
passive structures involving perception verbs in general differ from their corresponding actives in that they suggest accidental and unplanned perception;
(b) Kirsner’s pragmatic explanation of this is unsatisfactory: and (c) the semantic difference in question provides no ground for questioning the assumption that
John was seen to come is the passive of They saw John come, since the same
difference holds for pairs like John was seen versus They saw John which must
be related by passivization if such a transformation exists.
It would seem, then, that there is no reason for challenging the traditional
belief that (3, d) is the passive of (3, a). Yet in this paper I wish to defend the
claim that this conclusion is not correct. I will point out a number of facts that
in my opinion are incompatible with the view that there is a voice relation
between (3, a) and (3, d). In doing so I will also offer an explanation for several
of the observations, e. g., for the fact (noted by Kirsner) that agentive perception verbs like watch, look at and listen to cannot occur in pattern (3,d).
3. Before starting the argumentation proper, it is necessary to point out
basic characteristics of PVC’s. A first remark concerns the distinction
between PPVC’s and IPVC’s:
some
I saw John
(12) (a)
(b)
I
saw
working.
John work.
The difference between these sentences is that the PPVC in (12, a) expresses
progressive (durative) aspect while the IPVC in (12,b) does not. That is, the
PPVC refers to John’s being in the middle of the durative activity of working,
while the IPVC refers to the same activity as a &dquo;single unanalysable whole&dquo;
(Comrie (1976:3) without referring to its internal temporal structure
(beginning, middle or end). The claim that the difference between PPVC’s and
IPVC’s is merely one of aspect was formulated by traditional grammarians
like Poutsma, Kruisinga and Jespersen and has rarely been challenged since
though there have been exceptions to this, see e.g. Akmajian (1977). In
Declerck ( 1981a) a number of seeming counterarguments against the claim are
refuted and a great deal of syntactic and semantic evidence is advanced in
support of it.
A second point that needs going into is the relation between IPVC’s (bare
--
infinitives)
and
to-IPVC’s:
(13) ra) I saw him open the door.
(b) When the figure came nearer,
I saw it to be
a woman.
This is a more difficult question. Most linguists seem to have adopted the view
summari7ed in (among others) Kirsner & Thompson (1976) that IPVC’s and
30
Downloaded from eng.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 20, 2016
PPVC’s communicate a direct (physical) perception of an event whereas toIPVC’s and that-PVC’s communicate an indirect report about or a deducing of
situation. For example:
(14) (a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
I
I
I
I
a
observed Mary knit a sweater.
observed Mary knitting a sweater.
observed Mary to be knitting a sweater.
observed that Mary was knitting a sweater.
Sentences (14, c-d) can be used in a context in which I observed nothing but
knitting-wool and needles or an unfinished sweater, but (14,a-b) require that I
actually perceived with my eyes the activity of Mary knitting a sweater. However, Spears (1977) points out that the labels ’direct perception’ and ’indirect
perception’ are inadequate insofar as (a) direct perception can also be involved
when a to-IPVC or that-PVC is used (as is the case in (14, c-d) where the
deducing is based on some direct perception of knitting-wool, needles, etc.),
and (b) some degree of inference (deducing) can also be involved when an IPVC
or PPVC is used.
For example, in
(15)
I
saw
John
walking home.
what I saw was no more than that John was walking- the indication home is the
result of an inference on my part which is based on knowledge that has nothing
to do with the perception proper, e. g., knowledge of where John’s home is.
Spears therefore proposes the following criteria to distinguish between IPVC’s/
PPVC’s, to-IPVC’s and that-PVC’s (all of which can imply direct perception
as well as inference):
(a) With IPVC’s and PPVC’s direct perception necessarily plays a role
in the formulation of the contents of the PVC.
(b) With to-IPVC’s the subject (perceiver) necessarily has a role in the
formulation of the PVC.
(c) With that-PVC’s the subject need have no role in the formulation of
the PVC. That is, the object of the perception may be someone else’s
report about a situation or event, as in I hear that John has been ill
for some time.
However, these criteria help us to separate the extremes of the different types
of PVC’s only. Thus, criterion (a) can make clear the difference between
(16,a) and (16,b) (since the expression of anteriority in (16,b) presupposes
some ’indirect’ perception), but direct perception seems to be equally relevant
to the formulation of the content of the PVC in (17,b) as in (17, a). Similarly,
criterion (c) can distinguish between (18,a) and (18,b) but is useless in cases
where the that-PVC does not represent an external report, as in (17, c). In
fact, none of the criteria (a)-(c) will be of much use when it comes to defining
the precise difference between
(17,a-c).2
31
Downloaded from eng.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 20, 2016
I noticed John paint(ing) the house.
I noticed the house to have been painted.
I observed John work(ing) in the garden.
I observed John to be working in the garden.
(c) I observed that John was working in the garden.
(a) I heard it raining.
(b) I heard from John that it was raining.
(16) (a)
(b)
(17) (a)
(b)
(18)
opinion it must be possible to describe the different meanings of
in terms of the traditional labels ’direct’ and ’indirect’ perception if
we manage to define these in an accurate way.
Spears objects to the distinction,
saying that inference (which is taken as criterial for indirect perception) can
also play a role in IPVC’s/PPVC’s (which are taken to express direct perception), as in (15). However, the kind of inference referred to here is not the
same as is assumed to be typical of that-PVC’s. Compare:
In my
(17, a-c)
(19) (a)
(b)
I
I
can see
John
can see
John is
walk(ing) towards the beach.
walking towards the beach.
( 19, a) not all the elements of the IPVC/PPVC are the result of direct perception : the element towards the beach is added on the basis of contextual
knowledge. Sentence (19, a) thus implies inference in the sense that the speaker
not only refers to what he actually perceives but also includes the interpretation
he assigns to this in his report of the event perceived--an interpretation which
is partly determined by his knowledge of the world. It should be noted that this
kind of inference is not typical of IPVC’s/PPVC’s only, not even of PVC’s in
general only, but may be involved whenever a predication is made on the basis
of direct perception. Thus, it also plays a role in independent clauses like
In
(20) Look ! John
is
walking towards
the beach.
This same kind of inference, which consists in an immediate and unconscious
addition of interpretive elements to what is actually perceived, also shows up in
(19,b), but here there is a second kind of inference that plays a role as well.
Sentence (19,b) suggests something like ’Looking at the situation (event) I come
to the conclusion that John is walking towards the beach.’I That is, using a
that-PVC the speaker expresses more explicitly that he is summing up the
situation perceived. The that-PVC in (19,b) represents a kind of ’reported’ or
’indirect’ version of the IPVC/PPVC in (19. a), in the same way as (21~ represents
a
’reported’
(21)
The
use
or
’indirect’ speech version of (20):
He says that John is
of that therefore
walking
implies
some
towards the beach.
reflection,
some
distance necessary to
cognitive process
up the situation and formulate a conclusion. This kind of
is not implied by the use of IPVC’s/PPVC’s, as in (19, a).
sum
32
Downloaded from eng.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 20, 2016
There
are
several syntactic and semantic facts that corroborate this
conclusion:
a.
Because that-PVC’s involve a more conscious process of logical deduction they make a stronger assertion as to the truthfulness of their contents
than IPVC’s and PPVC’s. This is clear from examples like (22,a-d), where
(22,d) is much less felicitous than (22,b) because the truth of the content of the
PVC is explicitly questioned by the perceiver:
(22) (a) John has seen us fighting.
(b) John has seen that we were fighting.
(c) John wonders if he has seen us fighting.
*?John wonders
(d)
if he has
seen
that
we were
fighting.
Notice also that
(22, e) does not share the relative unacceptability of (22,d) bethe conclusion expressed in the that-PVC is no longer ascribed to John
and is therefore not questioned by him any more:
cause
I wonder if John has
(22) (e)
The
following
seen
that
we were
sentences further illustrate these
(23) (a) John heard
us
fighting.
points:
calling.
John heard that we were calling.
(c) John wondered if he heard us calling.
(d) *John wondered if he heard that we were calling.
(e) I wondered if John heard that we were calling.
(b)
b. That-PVC’s can contain perfect forms expressing anteriority, while
IPVC’s and PPVC’s cannot:
(24) (a)
(b)
The
I saw that the house had been repainted.
*I saw the house have/having been repainted.
is clearly that, while anteriority cannot be directly perceived, it is
to infer to the occurrence of a past activity on the basis of results that
reason
possible
have remained
perceptible.
c.
IPVC’s and PPVC’s cannot
that-PVC’s can:
(25) (a)
(b)
(26) (a)
(b)
The
reason
normally involve
stative
predicates, but
*I saw John be~ing) ill that day.
I saw that John was ill that day.
*I observed the house need(ing) painting.
I observed that the house needed painting.
for this is that stative
predicates refer
to such abstract
33
Downloaded from eng.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 20, 2016
’things’
as
and states of affairs which cannot be perceived
infer on the basis of perception.
relations, conditions
but which
one can
d. Explicitly agentive perception verbs
PPVC’s but not by that-PVC’s:
(27) (a)
(b)
(28) (a)
(b)
can
be followed
directly
by IPVC’s/
We all watched them leave/leaving without saying a word.
*We all watched that they left/were leaving without saying
I looked at Sam make/making up the fire.
*I looked (at
it) that
Sam
a
word.
made/was making up the fire.
can explain this from the fact that these predicates necessarily refer to a
durative (ongoing) perception and are therefore inappropriate for summing up
the situation perceived. Since ongoing perception must necessarily be direct
perception, predicates expressing this kind of perception cannot at the same
time express the inference that is typical of that-PVC’s. It should be noted
that the same explanation accounts for the fact that IPVC’s/PPVC’s can depend
on progressive perception verb forms while that-PVC’s cannot:
We
on in!) We’re seeing Apollo 19 take/taking off.
from Kirsner & Thompson (1976:221))
(b) *We’re seeing that Apollo 19 takes/is taking off.
(30) (a) We were observing the children playing outside.
(b) *We were observing that the children were playing.
(29) (a) (Come
(example
e.
Unlike the perception expressed by IPVC’s/PPVC’s, the perception
expressed by that-PVC’s cannot be durative. Compare the following sentences
(in which the duration adverbial should be taken to bear on the perception verb
rather than on the PVC):
(31) (a)
(b)
From 8 to 9 I watched the moon rise/rising over the hill.
*From 8 to 9 I saw that the moon rose/was rising over the hill.
Unlike (3 1, a), (31,b) is incoherent because it combines the idea of ’arrival at a
conclusion’ with the idea of ’duration of one hour,’ thus yielding only two possible interpretations: either it took me an hour to infer from what I saw that
the moon was rising over the hill or I reached this conclusion again and again
over a period of one hour. Both interpretations are rather implausible, given
our knowledge of the world.
It may be noted that (31,b) becomes much better if a plural subject is
used, as in (31, c). The reason is that a repetitive interpretation (one after
another, many people came to the conclusion that... ) is not inconsistent with
the duration adverbial.
(31) (c)
From 8 to 9 many
the hill.
people observed that the
moon was
34
Downloaded from eng.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 20, 2016
rising
over
f.
IPVC’s/PPVC’s
cannot
normally
contain
a
negation, but that-PVC’ss
can:
(32) (a) John noticed that Mary did not say a word.
(b) *John noticed Mary not say a word.
(33) (a) I heard that he was not singing any more.
(b~ *I heard him not singing any more.
The reason for this infelicity of negative IPVC’s/PPVC’s is that the perception
of the non-occurrence of an event is less direct than the perception of its occurrence : to perceive that something is not happening is a kind of conclusion that
is partly based on the expectation that the event in question would or might
happen. IPVC’s and PPVC’s, which express direct perception, are not very
suitable for expressing this kind of indirect perception, but that-PVC’s, which
imply
some
logical deducing,
are.
g. Up to now I have linked up the idea of ’reported’ perception with
that-PVC’s only, but it is clear that this idea is compatible with the use of
other complementizers as well. Thus, next to (34, a) we can have sentences
like (34,b-e):
I have
I have
I have
I have
(e) I have
(34) (a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
opened the door.
opened the door.
seen when John opened the door.
seen where John opened a door.
seen why John opened the door.
seen
seen
that John
how John
All these sentences imply some logical deducing, but the conclusions arrived at
are different. In (34, a) the conclusion concerns the very fact that John opened
the door; in each of the sentences (34,b-e) it concerns some aspect of the situation that is linked up with an adverbial meaning (manner, place, time, reason).
IPVC’s and PPVC’s, which do not imply inference, do not by themselves signal
any of these meanings they just refer to the perception of a situation without
expressing any of the inferences that can be made from it. However, precisely
because of this neutrality it is possible to use IPVC’s and PPVC’s in contexts
inviting any of the meanings signalled by the complementizers of (34,a-e~. For
example, the IPVC him swim will be given the same interpretation as a thatPVC in (35, a) and the same interpretation as a how-PVC in (35,b):
Is it true that John had a swim this morning
B. Yes, I saw him swim.
I believe John has injured his arm again. Did you
(35) (a) A.
(b)
see
him swim
yesterday?
A sentence like (37, a)
but (37,b) can only be
can
be used
an answer
to
reply
(36,a):
as a
to any of the
questions
35
Downloaded from eng.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 20, 2016
in
(36, a-d),
walking in the park?
walking?
(c~ Do you know where John was walking?
(d) Do you know when John was walking in the park?
(37) (a) Yes, I’ve seen him walk(ing).
(b) Yes, I’ve seen that he was walking.
Do you know that John
was
(b) Do you know how John
was
(36) (a)
Similarly, (38, a) will be interpreted as roughly synonymous with (38,b),
(39, a) will be semantically related to (39,b), but (40, a) will be given the
meaning as (40,b):
and
same
(38) (a) When you hear him speak English you get the impression that he
is a foreigner.
(b) When you hear how he speaks English you get the impression
that he is a foreigner.
(39) (a) You should have seen them play against Liverpool.
(b) You should have seen how they played against Liverpool.
(40) (a) I saw the train leave before John reached the platform.
(b) I saw that the train left before John reached the platform.
In Dutch, IPVC’s can yield the interpretation of where-PVC’s. Thus, (4 1, a)
equivalent to (41,b), not (41, c). (In English, an adverbial of place like anywhere has to be added to the IPVC.)
is
Ik zie het niet liggen. (’I do not see it lie’)
(b) Ik zie niet waar het ligt. (’I do not see where it lies’)
(c) Ik zie niet dat het ligt. (’I do not see that it lies’)
(41) (a)
Summing up section 3, we can say that there is sufficient evidence, both
syntactic and semantic, for claiming that the distinction between IPVC’s/
PPVC’s on the one hand and that-PVC’s on the other can be defined in terms of
direct versus indirect (reported) perception. By direct perception we mean
that the contents of the PVC represent the interpretation which the perceiver
assigns immediately and largely unconsciously to the situation perceived.
Indirect perception, on the other hand, means that the PVC reports a conclusion
that is more consciously arrived at by the perceiver (or someone else) on the
basis of perception.
4.
Let
us now
direct
our
attention to
to-IPVC’s.
Consider the
following
examples:
(42) (a) When the figure got nearer I perceived it to be a woman.
(example from Poutsma (1929:794))
(b) I generally observe such men to retain a certain freshness. (id.)
(c) In shadow the hue seemed black, but when illumined it was seen
to be the darkest, warmest brown. (example from Kruisinga
(1931:212))
36
Downloaded from eng.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 20, 2016
from these examples that to-IPVC’s should be related to
IPVC’s/PPVC’s. As far as I can see there is no semantic
difference whatever between (42, a-c) and (43, a-c):
It is
immediately clear
that-IPVC’s,
not to
(43) (a) When the figure got nearer I perceived that it was a woman.
(b) I generally observe that such men retain a certain freshness.
(c) (... ) it was seen that it was the darkest, warmest brown.
Moreover, all the
semantic and syntactic characteristics that
in connection with that-PVC’s are shared by the to-IPVC’s:
we
have observed
a. Like that-PVC’s, to-IPVC’s involve some logical deduction and therefore assert the truth of their message more forcefully than IPVC’s and PPVC’s.
For this reason, to-IPVC’s are as incoherent as that-PVC’s in contexts where
their truth is
questioned. Compare the following sentences, in which
he refers back to John:
explicitly
(44) (a) John wondered if he had seen the body move /moving.
(b) *John wondered if he had seen the body to be that of a boy.
(c) *John wondered if he had seen that the body was that of a boy.
can
b. Like that-PVC’s, to-IPVC’s differ from IPVC’s/PPVC’s in that they
involve a perfect verb form expressing anteriority.
(45) (a)
(b)
the house to have been repainted.
they turned into the welcome shade of the cool
old hall that Mr. Lorry observed a great change to have come
over the doctor.
(example from Poutsma (1929:794))
I
saw
It was when
Like that-PVC’s, and unlike IPVC’s/PPVC’s, _to-IVVC’s
predicates, as in (42, a-c).
c.
stative
can
involve
d. Like that-PVC’s, and unlike IPVC’s/PPVC’s, to-IPVC’s cannot occur
after agentive perception verbs like watch, listen to, etc. , nor after progressive verb forms of other perception verbs.
(46) (a) *We watched the figure
to be
a woman.
(b) *We listened to him to be sleeping.
(c) *John looked at the house to have been repainted.
(47) (a) We’re seeing Apollo 19 take off. (= (29, a) above)
(b) *We’re seeing the figure to be a woman.
e.
Like the perception expressed by that-PVC’s, and unlike that expressed by IPVC’s/PPVC’s, the perception expressed by to-TPVC’s is necessarily punctual (nondurative). Thus, if the duration adverbial is taken to bear
on the perception verb, (48, a) is as incoherent as (48,b):
37
Downloaded from eng.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 20, 2016
*From 8 to 9 I
*From 8 to 9 I
(48) (a)
(b)
can
perceived the figure to be that of a woman.
perceived that the figure was that of a woman.
f. Like that-PVC’s, to-IPVC’s differ from
involve a negator:
IPVC’s/PPVC’s in that they
(49) (a) I perceived the figure not to be that of a woman after all.
(b) John noticed the house not to have been repainted.
(c) Mary observed the man to be no foreigner.
g. To-IPVC’s are interpreted as synonymous with that-PVC’s: unlike
IPVC’s/PPVC’s they cannot yield the interpretations of how-PVC’s, whenPVC’s, etc. Thus, 150,b) cannot be interpreted as synonymous with (50,a), in
spite of the context inviting a how-interpretation. Instead, the to-IPVC will
yield the same interpretation as the corresponding that-PVC, so that its use in
(50,b) is incoherent.
(50) (a)
(I have the impression that John has
how he walked just now ~
(I have the impression that John has
observe him to be walking just now ?
injured
his
leg.)
Did you ob-
injured
his
leg.)
*Did you
serve
(b)
Similarly, (51,b)
can
yield the interpretation of (51, a),
but (51,
c) cannot:
(51) (a) When you observe how he works you get the impression that he
done this kind of job before.
you observe him work(ing) you get the impression that...
*When you observe him to (be) work(ing) you get ...
has
never
(b) When
(c)
In sum, to-IPVC’s share all the syntactic and semantic characteristics
that
that-PVC’s from IPVC’s/PPVC’s (except perhaps the possibility
of representing an external report--see, however footnote 2). We can conclude,
then, that the meaning of PVC’s can be defined in terms of either direct or
indirect perception in the sense defined above; IPVC’s and PPVC’s signal the
former, to-IPVC’s and that-PVC’s express the latter.4
distinguish
5. The above observations on the respective meanings of the different
types of PVC’s provide a good basis for returning to the question that has been
raised at the beginning of this paper, viz. whether the widespread view that
(3, d) (repeated here) is the passive counterpart of (3, a) (id.) is correct or not.
(3) (a) Someone
(d) John was
saw
John write
seen
to write
In order to answer this question we
IPVC in (3,d) has the semantic and
does, (3, d)
can
be treated
as
a
letter.
letter.
a
simply
have to ascertain whether the
to-
syntactic characteristics of IPVC’s. If it
the passive of ~3,a). If it does not, but,on the
38
Downloaded from eng.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 20, 2016
other hand, shares the characteristics of to-IPVC’s, it will be impossible to
consider (3, d) as the passive of (3, a). Plainly, it does not make sense to
assume a transformational relation between two structures that are as different,
both syntactically and semantically, as IPVC’s and to-IPVC’s.
When examining sentences like (3,d) we ascertain that their PVC’s share
every one of the characteristics that distinguish to-IPVC’s from IPVC’s/PPVC’s:
In sentences like
a.
not
(3,d)
the PVC’s
are
to-IPVC’s by form since to
can-
possibly be omitted:
(52) *John
was seen
write
a
letter.
b. As we have seen, to-IPVC’s involve some logical deduction and therefore assert the truthfulness of their contents more forcefully than IPVC’s. For
this reason to-IPVC’s are less coherent than IPVC’s in contexts where their
truth is
explicitly questioned:
(53) (a) John wondered if he had heard a bell ring.
(b) *John wondered if he had heard the man to
In a similar context, constructions like
with to-IPVC’s:
(53) (c) *John wondered if
a
(3,d)
are as
have
hoarse voice.
a
incoherent
as
sentences
bell had been heard by him to ring.
Compare also:
(54) (a) John doubts if he saw the body move.
(b) *John doubts if the body was seen by him to move.
(c) I doubt if the body was seen by John to move.
Unlike
is not incoherent because the truth of the conclusion exin the to-IPVC is no longer questioned by the person who arrived at it.
(54, b), (54, c)
pressed
c.
Like
tences like
(55) (a)
(b)
d.
like
(3, d)
can
IPVC’s, the to-IPVC
*John saw the lawn have been mown.
The lawn was seen by John to have been
Like other to-IPVC’s, and unlike IPVC’s,
can involve a stative predicate:
(56) (a) *We
(b)
e.
in general, and unlike
contain perfect forms:
to-IPVC’s
(3, d)
John
saw
in
sen-
mown.
the to-IPVC
in sentences
John be in need of assistance.
(by us) to be in need of assistance.
was seen
In sentences
involving
to-IPVC’s the perception verb cannot be agentive
39
Downloaded from eng.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 20, 2016
(watch, look at... )
sentences
like
or
progressive.
We notice the
same
restriction in
(3,d) :5
(57) (a) Bill
watched John
cross
the street.
(b) *John was watched by Bill to cross the street.
(58) (a) The boy used to look at people do things.
(b) *People used to be looked at by the boy to do things.
(59) (a) We’re seeing Apollo 19 take off. (= (29,a))
(b) *Apollo 19 is being seen by us to take off.
f. Like the perception expressed by to-IPVC’s, the perception expressed
the PVC’s in sentences like (3,d) is not durative but punctual. Thus, if the
duration adverbial in (60) is taken to bear on the perception verb (rather than on
the to-IPVC), (60) can only have a repetitive interpretation, i.e. over a period
of several hours it was noticed by different people (or by the same person at
different times) that John walked to the hill. 6
by
(60)
can
For several hours John
was seen
g. Like to-IPVC’s and unlike
contain a negator -
IPVC’s,
to walk to the hill.
the PVC’s in sentences like
(3,d)
(60) (a) *We saw only John not run away.
(b) Only John was seen not to run away.
h. Like to-IPVC’s in general, and unlike IPVC’s, the to-IPVC’s in such
sentences as (3, d) can be interpreted as synonymous with
only (i. e.
not as synonymous with how-PVC’s, when-PVC’s, etc.). For example, whereas an IPVC can be interpreted as equivalent to a that-PVC, as in(61, a), or as
equivalent to a how-PVC, as in (61,b), its putative passive can only be interpreted as equivalent to a that-PVC (as in (62, a) and is therefore incoherent
when a how-interpretation is invited (as in 62,b)):
that-PVC’s
(61) (a) (I wonder whether John has
ever mentioned me.)
heard him utter my name ?
(b) (John has a funny way of pronouncing my name. )
heard him pronounce it&dquo;
(6?) (a) (I wonder whether John has ever mentioned me.)
been heard to utter my name‘~
(b) (John has a funny way of pronouncing my name.)
been heard to pronounce it-%
Have
you
Have you
Has he
1<Eas
he
ever
ever
ever
ever
Similarly, (63, a) (which uses an IPVC in a context inviting a how-interpretation
is fine, but (63,b) (which uses a passive construction with a to-IPVC in the
same context) is incoherent:
40
Downloaded from eng.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 20, 2016
(63) (a) When
(b)
one hears him talk one gets the impression that he is of
French birth.
*When he is heard to talk one gets the impression that he is of
French birth.
Notice that (63, c) is again impeccable, because he is heard talking is
one hears him talking (see also Declerck (1981d)):
truly
the
passive of
(63) (c) When he
is heard talking,
French birth.
6.
one
gets the impression that he
is of
Conclusion
6. 1. In this paper I have attempted to define the distinctions between the
different types of PVC’s as precisely as possible. From this discussion it has
become clear that constructions of the type (3,d) behave syntactically and
semantically not like sentences of the type (3, a) but like sentences involving
that-PVC’s or to-IPVC’s. Since assuming a voice relation between two sentences is always an attempt at accounting for semantic and syntactic similarities, we must conclude that (3, d) is not the passive counterpart of (3, a), hence
that sentences with IPVC’s are not passivizable. (I will point out below that
this conclusion concurs with the fact that other Germanic languages where toIPVC’s do not occur do not have a construction corresponding to (3, d)
they do have an IPVC construction corresponding to (3, a). )
though
6.2. The above conclusion raises
nature:
a
number of questions of
a
theoretical
As long as (3,d) was considered the passive of (3, a) one had to assume
also present in the underlying structure of (3, a). Since to must be
generated under either AUX or COMP it followed that this could be considered
as evidence for the claim (rejected by Gee (1975) and Akmajian (1977)) that
IPVC’s are S’s in underlying structure. Now that the voice relation between
(3, a) and (3, d) has been called in question, this is no longer a valid argument.
(See, however, Declerck (1981b, 1981c) for other arguments to the same effect.)
a.
that
to was
b. If the hypothesis that I have defended is correct it means that to in
sentences like (3, d) and in to-IPVC’s in general is an item with a
lexical content than has generally been assumed. Moreover, since this to has
the same meaning as that, it seems unmotivated to derive to from AUX if that is
seen as a lexicalization of COMP.
Rather it will have to be assumed that both
to and that are lexicalizations of COMP, the former in nonfinite PVC’s, the
latter in finite ones.
much fuller
c.
The analysis argued here is incompatible with the analysis of raising
constructions that is suggested in Bach (1977:625). Bach (1977) interferes in
the controversy between Chomsky (1973) and Postal (1974) with the suggestion
41
Downloaded from eng.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 20, 2016
Chomsky’s non-raising analysis of (64, c) and Postal’s Subject-toObject raising analysis, there is a third alternative for deriving (64, c) from
(64, a), viz. by passivizing (64, a) into (64,b) and deriving (64, c) from (64,b) by
Subject-to-Subject raising:
that besides
these truths to be self-evident.
*These truths to be self-evident is held by everyone.
(c) These truths are held by everyone to be self-evident.
(64) (a) Everyone holds
(b)
Pillinger (1980:79-81)
proposes the
Latin, where all three stages
are
same
derivation for similar sentences in
actually grammatical:
(65) (a) Omnes credunt Gallos esse altissimos.
(b) Gallos esse altissimos ab omnibus creditur. (passivization)
(c) Galli esse altissimi ab omnibus creduntur. (Subject-to-Subject
raising.
Since sentences like (3, a) are often assumed to have undergone Subject-tosee also
Object raising (cf. e.g. Huddleston (1971), Horiguchi (1978)
Declerck (1981b)), one might think of extending the analysis suggested by Bach
to sentences like ~3,d). However, this is incompatible with the conclusion I
have reached in this paper since any analysis that assumes (3, d) to be (directly
or indirectly) derived from (3, a) disregards the semantic and syntactic differ--
ences
between the two sentences.
d.
in the
The analysis I have defended raises the question
potentialities of PVC constructions:
(66) (a)
(d)
why there
are
gaps
the street.
the street.
*I saw John to cross the street.
John was seen to cross the street.
I
saw
John
(b) *John was
(c)
of
cross
seen cross
The question of why (66, a) does not have a passive counterpart (66,b), while
(66, d) does not have an active counterpart (66, c) is one that I cannot answer.
All I can do is point out that in other languages, too, gaps like these appear to
be present. The following sentences are the equivalents of (66, a-c) in Dutch
and German:
(67)
(68)
K. U.
(a) Ik zag Jan de straat oversteken.
(b) *Jan werd gezien de straat oversteken.
(c) *Ik zag Jan de straat over te steken.
(d) *Jan werd gezien de straat over te steken.
(a) Ich sah Johann die Strasse uberqueren.
(b) *Johann wurde die Strasse uberqueren geshen.
(c) *Ich sah Johann die Strasse zu uberqueren.
(d) *Johann wurde die Strasse zu uberqueren gesehen.
Leuven, Campus Kortrijk, Belgium.
42
Downloaded from eng.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 20, 2016
NOTES
This
1
claim is
in the framework of Chomsky (1980) where,
rules, there is only one syntactic rule, viz. the transformational rule ’move A, where A is a category.’ Structure-building transformations have no place in the system.
clearly incorporated
apart from the
base
Criterion
2
(b) will even be inadequate for those speakers who do not reject the
following example from Kruisinga (1931:208-209):
(i) As he stood on the pavement by the fountain and watched them all
-passing by--just like what he had heard the Lord Mayor’s show to be
he heard one lady in a carriage say to her companion--"Look at that
little boy.
In this sentence the subject of the parenthetical clause involving the to
-IPVC has
no role in the formulation of the contents of the to
-IPVC (i.e., the to
-IPVC
communicates an external report). A similar example is to be found in
Poutsma (1926:427):
(ii) I’ve never heard anyone to touch you.
"
(Poutsma adds: "Observe that
This
3
to hear
=
to be told and to touch
=
to equal
.")
with the observation in Kirsner &
explanation
Thompson (1976:
that negative IPVC’s/PPVC’s are relatively more acceptable if next to the
implication of indirect perception direct perception is crucially involved as
well, i.e. if some participant in the non-occurrence is "on the scene and observable. " Thus, (i) is better than (ii) because it does not deny that something could be seen:
The director saw Olivier not trip over the footstool.
(i) ?
(ii) *Mary heard Bill not come home last night.
concurs
234)
This
4
does not alter the fact that slight differences may be observed in the
-IPVC’s and that
-PVC’s--differences which are due to the
potentialities of to
fact that, unlike the former, that
-PVC’s have the superficial structure of a
complementizer plus a finite clause. For example, the fact that there is no
complementizer between the perception verb and a
-IPVC, together with the
to
fact that the subject of the to
-IPVC appears in the object form, entails that
some degree of verb-object relation will mostly be taken to exist between the
perception verb and the subject of the to
-IPVC. (For this reason many transformationalists assume that the NP in question is raised from the complement
clause to the matrix.) That this is so appears from the fact that, if possible,
the subject of the to
-IPVC must indicate the entity on the perception of which
the inference is based. Compare:
(i) (a) I observed the door to have been shut.
(b) *I observed John to have shut the door.
(ii) (a) We noticed the house to have been painted.
(b) *We noticed John to have painted the house.
-PVC’s
That
(iii) (a)
(b)
naturally
fail to show this restriction:
I observed that the door had been shut.
I observed that John had shut the door.
43
Downloaded from eng.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 20, 2016
-PVC’s is that there are
Another difference between to
-IPVC’s and that
restrictions on the former that are not shared by the latter. For example,
after an active perception verb to
-IPVC’s cannot involve a dynamic predicate,
unless it is in the progressive form:
(iv) (a) *I observed John to work.
(b) I observed John to be working.
(see also section 6.2.d.)
Kirsner
5
and
( 1977) attempts
to
explain the difference
in
acceptability between (i, a)
(i,b)
(i) (a) John was seen to cross the street.
(b) *John was watched to cross the street.
from the fact that watch is an agentive verb: he claims that for a passive construction to be felicitous it is necessary that the logical subject (here, the
perceiver) be more ’agent-like’ or ’potent’ than the logical object (John). According to Kirsner, using watch rather than see has the effect of suggesting
more potency on the part of John (because an event that is sufficiently interesting to watch must involve change and therefore an agent capable of bringing
that change about). The ’potency gap’ between the perceiver and John is therefore decreased in (i,b) and the sentence is consequently unacceptable. However, if this explanation were correct it would also hold for passive constructions involving PPVC’s, such as (ii,a-b). However, there is no difference in
acceptability between these two sentences.
(ii) (a) John
(b) John
was seen
was
crossing the street.
crossing the street.
watched
It seems therefore better to trace back the unacceptability of (i,b) to the
restriction (observed above) that agentive perception verbs cannot be followed
by PVC’s expressing indirect perception (i.e., that
-PVC’s and to
-IPVC’s,
but not PPVC’s).
Kirsner (1977:175)
6
makes the
same
observation in connection with the
following
sentences :
(i) (a) They heard Sue sing for three hours that evening.
(b) Sue was heard to sing for three hours that evening.
Kirsner remarks that "the
passive [i,b] seems strange unless interpreted
referring to a situation in which either different individuals or the same individuals at different times accidentally come across
Sue singing. The durative interpretation possible in the active sentence [i, a],
’iteratively,’i. e. ,
as
where the same audience listens for the whole three hours is disfavored. "
Kirsner attempts to explain this from the fact that perception verbs like watch
cannot be used in sentences such as (i,b): "If the agentive sensory verbs,
44
Downloaded from eng.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 20, 2016
favoring durative interpretations,
do not occur in passives, one might expect
those verbs that do to be taken as nondurative. " We have seen, however, that
neither of these characteristics (the impossibility of using agentive perception
verbs and a necessarily punctual interpretation) is typical of passives such as
-PVC’s and to
(i,b) only. They are also found with that
-IPVC’s in general and
should therefore be related to the meaning of ’indirect’ perception which is
typical of all these constructions.
REFERENCES
1977. "The complement structure of perception verbs
syntax framework. " In: P. Culicover, T. Wasow & A.
Akmajian, eds. , Formal Syntax
. New York, San Francisco, London:
Akmajian, Adrian.
in
an
autonomous
Academic Press.
Bach, Emmon. 1977. Review article of Postal (1974). Language 53:621-654.
Chomsky, Noam. 1973. "Conditions on transformations. " In: S. R. Anderson
. New York: Holt,
& P. Kiparsky, eds., Festschrift for Morris Halle
Rinehart & Winston.
1980. "On binding." Linguistic Inquiry 11:1-46.
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect
. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Declerck, Renaat. 1981a. "On the role of progressive aspect in nonfinite
Glossa 15:83-114.
perception verb complements. "
1981b. "The structure of infinitival perception verb
complements in a transformational grammar. " to appear in: L. Tasmowski-De Ryck, ed., Problems in Syntax.
1981c. "On the derivation of Dutch bare infinitives after
perception verbs. " to appear in Theoretical Linguistics
.
1981d. "The triple origin of participial perception verb
complements." MS.
Emonds, Joseph. 1976. A Transformational Approach to English Syntax
:
. New York, San
Root, Structure-preserving, and Local Transformations
Francisco, London: Academic Press.
Gee, James Paul. 1975. Perception, Intentionality, and Naked Infinitives: a
Study in Linguistics and Philosophy
. Ph.D. dissertation. Stanford Univer-----.
-----
-----------------
-----
sity.
1977. "Comments on Akmajian (1977). " In: P. Culicover,
A. Akmajian, eds. , Formal Syntax
. New York, San Francisco,
London: Academic Press.
Horiguchi, Ikiko. 1978. Complementati on in English Syntax: a Generative
Semantics Approach
. Ph.D. dissertation. Georgetown University.
Huddleston, Rodney. 1971. The Sentence in Written English
. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Jespersen, O. 1961. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles
.
Vol. V
. London & Copenhagen: Allen & Unwin.
Kirsner, Robert S. 1977. "On the passive of sensory verb complement sentences. " Linguistic Inquiry 8:173-178.
----- and Sandra Thompson. 1976. "The role of pragmatic
-----
T. Wasow &
45
Downloaded from eng.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 20, 2016
inference in semantics: a study of sensory verb complements in English. "
Glossa 10:200-240.
Kruisinga, E. 1931. A Handbook of Present-Day English. Part II: English
Accidence and Syntax
. Vol. 1. Groningen: P. Noordhoof.
Pillinger, O. S. 1980. "The accusative and infinitive in Latin: a refractory
complement clause. " Journal of Linguistics 16:55-83.
Postal, Paul M. 1974. On Raising: One Rule of English Grammar and Its
Theoretical Implications
. Cambridge, Massachusetts & London: the M. T. T.
Press.
1926. A Grammar of Late Modern English. Part 2: The Parts
of Speech. Section 2. The Verb and the Particles
. Groningen: P.
Noordhoff.
1929. A Grammar of Late Modern English. Part 1: The Sentence. Second Half: The Composite Sentence
. Groningen: P. Noordhoff.
Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech & J. Svartvik. 1972. A Grammar of
Poutsma, H.
-----------
Contemporary English
. London: Longmans.
Rouveret, Alain & Jean-Roger Vergnaud. 1980.
"Specifying reference to the
subject: French causatives and conditions on representations." Linguistic
Inquiry 11:97-202.
Spears, A rthur K. 1977. The Semantics of English Complementation
. Ph. D.
dissertation. University of California, San Diego.
46
Downloaded from eng.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 20, 2016