Table of Contents:

Catenative Verbs....................................................................................2

1. Introduction........................................................................................3

2. Definition of Catenative verbs...........................................................4

2.2 Auxiliaries, modals, modifier, operator, quasi-modal.....................................6

2.3 From finite to non-finite VP............................................................................7

2.4 Simple vs. complex verb phrases....................................................................8

3. Simple and complex catenatives........................................................9

3.1 Simple catenatives.........................................................................................10

3.2 Complex catenatives......................................................................................11

4. Classes and classification.................................................................13

4.1. Criteria for classification..............................................................................14

4.2. Syntactical or semantic grouping.................................................................14

5. Conclusion........................................................................................15

6. Bibliography.....................................................................................16

1

Catenative Verbs

1. Introduction

Most linguists agree that there is a particular feature of certain verbs like e.g. want,

begin, try or seem that sets them apart from other verbs: their ability to be combined into

chains of verbs, to 'catenate' (Lat. catena: chain).

(1) I don't want to have to be forced to begin to try to make more money.1

The term usually used for these verbs is 'catenative verbs'. There remains some

form of disagreement about almost every aspect of these verbs, however, ranging from the

question which verbs actually are catenative, to the problem of how to analyse or

categorise them. Some linguists even question the need to define a class of catenative

verbs in the first place. Huddleston concedes that:

"This is one of the most difficult areas of English grammar and despite a great deal of

intensive study over the last twenty years there remains much disagreement over the most basic

aspects of the analysis."2

The treatment of the grammatical phenomena is further complicated by the fact

that linguists tend to introduce their own categories or descriptions for existing categories.

This is particularly evident in the argument of modals vs. auxiliaries vs. operators.

An approach differing from that traditionally taken by grammarians is that

presented by Dieter Mindt who bases his observations on the analysis of a corpus of actual

language.

This paper will try to give an overview of the theories concerning Catenative

verbs, their relation to the auxiliaries and their features of clause complementation. Due to

the scope of work that has been published, only the main approaches will be considered.

1 Palmer, F. (1987): The English Verb, Longman, New York and London, p. 1722 Huddleston, R. (1997): Introduction to the Grammar of English. CUP, Cambridge, p. 209

2

The field of semantics in particular would merit a much closer look on the effects of

sentence taxis.3

2. Definition of Catenative verbs

Some authors define catenatives as "verbs that combine with a following non -

finite verb". They also include "verbs like get, keep, start, help as well as the traditional

auxiliary verbs".4Sample sentences given by Hudson include:

(2) a) She was/got chosen for the job.

b) She was/kept talking.

Huddleston and Pullum state that a catenative is present in "most cases where a

non-finite clause is an internal complement of a verb". They illustrate this by giving cases

of non-catenative complements: predicative complements (3a), objects (3b) and PrepP

complements (3c).

(3) a) Kim seemed a keen student.

b) Kim began the journey.

c) Kim hoped for a successful outcome.5

Gramley and Pätzold agree by defining verbs which are followed by nonfinite verb

forms but which are not operators as catenative verbs.

Palmer defines catenatives as verbs that combine with a full verb into verb phrases

of theoretically unlimited length. Although he applies the term 'complex phrase', he

contrasts complex phrases utilising catenative verbs against examples such as:

(4) I bought the boat to sail the world.6

3 And indeed there has been a rather fervid debate about this between many authors.4 Hudson, R. (2002): Linguistics Association of Great Britain - Language Fact Sheet: Auxiliary

Verbs, available on http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/aux.htm.5 Huddleston, R., Pullum, G. (2005): A Student's Introduction to English Grammar, CUP,

Cambridge, p.2156 Palmer, F. (1987): The English Verb, Longman, New York and London, p. 172

3

In (4), there is hardly any semantic relationship between the clauses, whereas

catenatives usually imply some semantic restriction on the following verb. Palmer sees a

much tighter semantic and syntactic relationship, similar to auxiliary verbs, exemplified by

the impossibility of certain constructions:

(5) a) *He kept to talk.

b) *He has talking.7

He specifically excludes infinitives of purpose and of result, only the usage in

(6a) being catenative.

(6) a) I promise to make you happy.

b) I promise, to make you happy.8

Palmer rejects the approach of analysing the subordinate clause as a nominal that is

the object of the catenative verb, thereby setting the catenatives alike to transitive verbs.

While this analysis may be applicable to certain constructions, it is by no means a valid

description of sentences like (7a). This is obvious from the fact that a subordinate clause

can appear with verbs that do not allow an object.

(7) a) He decided to go.

b) *He decided the plan. 9

The easiest method of distinguishing between catenatives and full verbs are the

TNP tests, namely tense, negation and passivisation. While a catenative can be marked for

tense and negation simultaneously with its main verb, a full verb only allows this once.

This is shown by the following:

(8) a) have remembered seeing...

b) remembered having seen...

c) have seen...

(9) a) have not remembered seeing...

7 Palmer, F. (1987): The English Verb, Longman, New York and London, p. 1728 Palmer, F. (1987): The English Verb, Longman, New York and London, p. 2069 Palmer, F. (1987): The English Verb, Longman, New York and London, p. 212

4

b) remembered not having seen...

c) have not seen... [INT1]

The passivisation test helps to distinguish catenatives from transitive verbs with an

object complement. While a transitive verb with a direct object can be passivised easily,

this is not true for catenatives.

(10)a) The girl liked working.

b) Working was liked by the girl.

(11)a) The girl kept (on) workig.

b) *Working was kept on by the girl. [INT1]

2.2 Auxiliaries, modals, modifier, operator, quasi-modal

Often, the definition of a separate class of catenative verbs requires some

redefinitions and further distinctions to be made amongst the auxiliaries. These are of

course different with each approach taken towards the catenatives. Hudson's decision to

include the traditional auxiliary verbs amongst the catenatives leads him to establishing a

class of non-catenative operators, allowing him to distinguish between catenative and non-

catenative uses of be and have. While the use in (2) is termed catenative, that in (12) is

not.

(12) She is ready. - Is she ready?

Despite the fact that "there is no clear line between auxiliaries, Catenative and

other verbs that may have subordination"10, Palmer dismisses the suggestion to treat all

auxiliaries as full verbs. He argues that, although her "[t]he TNP tests are ... rather

inconclusive"11, a distinction can be made on semantic grounds. While the auxiliaries do

not cause semantic restrictions on the choice of subjects, restrictions may occur based on

the first full verb. He contrasts:

10 Palmer, F. (1987): The English Verb, Longman, New York and London, p. 2911 Palmer, F. (1987): The English Verb, Longman, New York and London, p. 31

5

(13)a) The water may run down the street.

b) *The water intended to run down the street.

Thus, “the auxiliaries are only modifiers to the full verb which is the main verb of

the verb phrase.”12

Huddleston states that "auxiliaries, when used as markers of tense, aspect, mood or

voice, are catenative verbs, entering into the simple catenative construction".13 Previously

he had explained his position of "not applying the term auxiliary to what [he is] calling the

operator class".14

In their 'Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language', Quirk et al. argue for

a gradient of modality, ranging from the central modals consisting of one verb phrase

(can, may, shall &c.) to main verbs with non-finite clauses that are analysed as two verb

phrases (e.g. hope with to-infinitive). The catenatives occupy a position between the semi-

auxiliaries (have to, be about to ...) and the main verbs.

While they resemble the auxiliaries in that most of the catenatives share the

independence of subject, they are "nearer to main verb constructions than are semi-

auxiliaries, patterning entirely like main verbs in taking do-support".15

2.3 From finite to non-finite VP

12 Palmer, F. (1987): The English Verb, Longman, New York and London, p. 3113 Huddleston, R., Pullum, G. (2005): A Student's Introduction to English Grammar, CUP,

Cambridge, p. 21914 Huddleston, R. (1997): Introduction to the Grammar of English. CUP, Cambridge, p. 14315 Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., Svartvik, J. (1985): A comprehensive Grammar of the

English Language, Longman, New York and London, p. 146

6

There are four basic non-finite forms of main verbs: the bare infinitive, the

toinfinitive, the -en and the-ing form (the latter summarising gerunds and present

participles).

These occur in simple as well as in complex catenative verb phrases. A rather

isolated position towards the to-infinitive is taken by some authors who suggest the

analysis of to as a non-finite auxiliary verb on its own.

2.4 Simple vs. complex verb phrases

Quirk gives a rather straightforward definition for the distinction between simple

and complex VP by defining the finite verb phrase as being simple when it consists of one

word and complex when it consists of more.

According to Palmer, the three criteria that can be used to distinguish between

simple and complex verb phrases are: tense, negation and passivisation; called the TNP

tests. In a simple verb phrase both tense and negation can occur only once and a simple

phrase can be passivised without problems. Sequences of such phrases are then complex

verb phrases. He summarises that:

"Phrases involving primary auxiliaries are fairly clearly simple, while those with

catenatives are complex (though not all pass all the tests). Phrases with modals lie

somewhere between the two, sharing characteristics of both simple and complex

phrases."16

This is not completely congruent with the more traditional approach of applying

the term 'complex verb group' to the combination of one to three auxiliaries with a lexical

verb or a complex verb (i.e. a lexical verb with a complement). [INT1]

Instead of arguing for a clean cut distinction between cases involving one or two

verb phrases, Quirk argues the gradient from auxiliary to main verb that implies a similar

gradience in the analysis of verb phrases, resulting in catenatives having intermediate

status between a single and a multiple verb phrase analysis.

He suggests that (14) "consists syntactically of two verb phrases would have had

and to have arrested, but semantically only of one". 17

16 Palmer, F. (1987): The English Verb, Longman, New York and London, p. 2817 Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., Svartvik, J. (1985): A comprehensive Grammar of the

English Language, Longman, New York and London, p. 154

7

(14)...we would have had to have arrested you.

Huddleston suggests that Quirk uses "one analysis in which auxiliaries and related

expressions are treated as verbs taking non-finite complementation, so that a more

comprehensive and systematic account could be given of the verb/adjective + nonfinite

construction".18

Huddleston criticises Halliday's definition of verbal groups put forward in his

'Introduction to functional Grammar', where a sequence of words of the primary class

verb constitutes a verbal group (the sample given is: didn't know how to spell), as this

definition implies, according to Huddleston, "that to and not are either verbs or not

words".19

3. Simple and complex catenatives

Most linguists agree on four basic forms of catenative constructions that can be

distinguished, based on the type of non-finite construction that is employed. The four basic

types of catenatives as exemplified by Palmer:

(15)a) bare infinitive He helped wash up.

b) to-infinitive He wants to go to London.

c) -ing form He keeps talking about it.

d) -en form He got shot in the riot.

The choice, which non-finite construction to use, is largely dependent on the

catenative verb, while some allow variation others allow only one type of nonfinite

construction. When there is a choice of constructions, there is generally some difference in

meaning. Palmer contrasts the -ing form and the to- infinitive, obviously carrying different

meanings:

(16)a) He was seen walking away.

18 Huddleston, R. (1988): "Review article on A comprehensive Grammar of the English Language,

by Randolph Quirk, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik. Index by David Crystal." In

Language. 64. pp. 345-354, p.35019 Huddleston, R. (1988):"Constituency, multi-functionality and grammaticalization in Halliday's

Functional Grammar." In Linguistics. 24. pp.137-174, p. 172

8

b) He was seen to walk away.

Huddleston notes that only the bare infinitive and the to-infinitive "occur with

significant numbers of catenative verbs", and additionally, clauses involving the -en form

are invariably passive.20 As with the VP, the catenative verbs can occur in simple or

complex constructions.

A different approach is taken by Mindt in his 'Empirical Grammar of the English

Verb', who not only recognises the four classes mentioned above, but also defines

catenative auxiliary constructions (e.g. is going to be, are allowed to do) and catenative

adjective constructions(e.g. were able to escape). He states that the last two classes are far

less frequent than the four 'central catenative constructions' and backs up his claim with

data from his corpus analysis.21

His description of the function of modal verbs and catenative verbs is criticised by

by some authors as being "in fact identical". The classification of catenative verbs

proposed by Mindt is severely criticised by de Haan according to whom he "fails to justify

the existence of the category of catenative verbs"; while he acknowledges that there are

good reasons for wishing to distinguish such a category, he accuses Mindt of not

presenting "any convincing arguments for this", and not being consistent in his

argumentation. One of Mindt's definitions is that "catenative verbs allow the overlap of

two meanings within one verb phrase. This overlap cannot be achieved by modal verbs

alone, because a verb phrase cannot contain more than one modal verb." This, in turn, is

rejected by de Haan as well.

3.1 Simple catenatives

The identification of the subject in simple catenative sentences is usually

unproblematic. Here the subject of the subordinate clause is identical with that of the main

clause. Huddleston, however, notes that there are one or two exceptional verbs, giving say

as an example:

20 Huddleston, R. (1997): Introduction to the Grammar of English. CUP, Cambridge, p. 21121 ?This data, however, is somewhat problematic as he does not give any sources for his corpus,

stating only that he "had access to more than 240 million words of English". (Mindt 1995: 6)

9

(17) Your mother said to meet her at two o'clock.

In (17), the subject cannot be determined syntactically, it has to be inferred from

the context. Whereas Huddleston's 'Introduction to the Grammar of English' only

distinguished between the verbs of the seem and expect classes (noting that most verbs

belong to the latter), Huddleston and Pullum specify this by distinguishing between

ordinary and raised subjects in simple catenative phrases. While an ordinary subject is in

semantic relation to the verb, a raised subject belongs semantically to the subordinate

clause.

While (18a) contains an ordinary subject, the subject in (18b) is raised. A simple

passivisation test illustrates the difference: While (18b) and (18d) have the same meaning,

the passivisation of a sentence containing an ordinary subject will result in a change of

meaning, e.g. from a) to c).

(18)a) Sara wanted to convince Ed.

b) Sara seemed to convince Ed.

c) Ed wanted to be convinced by Sara.

d) Ed seemed to be convinced by Sara.

3.2 Complex catenatives

The same constructions as in (16) are also possible with an intervening noun phrase

between the catenative and the following verb.

(19)a) bare infinitive He helped them wash up.

b) to-infinitive He wants them to go to London.

c) -ing form He kept them talking a long time.

d) -en form He had the rioters shot.

The identification of subjects in complex catenative phrases is not as

straightforward as it is in simple ones. Palmer shows the subject of the subordinate clause

10

to be identical with the intervening noun phrase by contrasting sentences with reversed

NP.

(20)a) The farmers want the hens to lay eggs.

b) *The hens want the farmers to lay eggs.

The identity relations are not, however, the same with all verbs. It is argued by

Palmer that for some verbs "The intervening noun phrase is both the object of the verb of

the main clause and the subject of the subordinate", noting this difference on the example

of:

(21)a) I wanted the doctor to examine the boy.

b) I persuaded the doctor to examine the boy.

By application of the passivisation test it is shown that the doctor in (21) is indeed

the object of persuaded but not of wanted:

(22)a) The doctor was persuaded to examine the boy.

b) *The doctor was wanted to examine the boy.

c) I wanted the boy to be examined by the doctor.

d) I persuaded the boy to be examined by the doctor.

Passivisation of the main clause shows that (22a) is possible but (22b) is not.

Likewise, the passivisation of the subordinate clauses results in a difference of meaning

between the two sentences.

A further feature of complex catenative verbs is that they frequently occur with

prepositions. Here, the choice of preposition is determined by the Catenative verb. These

constructions can be classified according to the same patterns as catenatives without

prepositions. Thus, Palmer likens 23a) to 23b),

(23)a) I long for John to come.

b) I want John to come.

Analogous to the distinction between ordinary and raised subjects with simple

catenatives, Huddleston distinguishes ordinary and raised objects in complex catenative

11

constructions. While the raised object, although it belongs semantically to the catenative

complement, is syntactically embedded in the superordinate clause, the ordinary object is

related semantically to the verb of the superordinate clause. Again this can be tested by

means of passivisation: The meaning of (24b) remains the same when passivised to (24c),

thus it is a raised object, that of (24a) does not, (24a) therefore having an ordinary object.

(24)a) We urged a specialist to examine Ed.

b) We wanted a specialist to examine Ed.

c) We urged Ed to be examined by a specialist.

d) We wanted Ed to be examined by a specialist.22

Some verbs allow construction with a PossP instead of a NP. While all PossP can be

replaced by NP, not all verbs that take a NP allow the possessive construction. Huddleston

notes that the difference between the two forms is stylistic, (25b) being the more formal

one.

(25)a) Ed resented your father opening the mail.

b) Ed resented your father's opening the mail.

4. Classes and classification

There is an obvious interest in grouping catenative verbs into distinct classes of

verbs. This can be done according to a variety of criteria, both semantic and syntactic. An

important decision that is to be made is whether to allow multiple class membership for

certain verbs.

Rather of theoretical importance is the decision, if verbs are allowed multiple class

membership, whether to treat this as cases of homonymy or polysemy. Palmer

acknowledges his decision as "often fairly arbitrary", judging on practical reasons on a

case to case basis.

22 Huddleston, R., Pullum, G. (2005): A Student's Introduction to English Grammar, Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge, p.221

12

4.1. Criteria for classification

Two distinct approaches toward the classification of catenatives can be seen. One method

is to compare the syntactic patterns exhibited by each construction, from the type of

infinitive used to the patterning of intervening NP. Another approach is to define groups of

related meanings together, e.g. verbs of report, perception, attitude or need.

4.2. Syntactical or semantic grouping

Gramley and Pätzold distinguish "some thirty different classes of catenatives",

grouped according to their meanings. They count 500 - 600 verbs that are involved. This

high number is partly due to the fact that some verbs are counted twice or more as

"multiple class membership is common".

Palmer distinguishes three classes of catenative verbs according to the pattern of

subject identification, one class of verbs without, and two classes that take an intervening

NP, labelled the persuade and the want pattern respectively. He admits that this is no ideal

solution as there are several verbs that do not fit either of this patterns. Examples he gives

for such complicated cases include: order, believe, expect and promise. In the case of

order, he states that the distinction between the two classes is simply not valid, believe can

be handled if the concept of subject raising is applied. He summarises that:

"There is a great deal of indeterminacy here; the best we can do is to state the facts - that

there are verbs that may occur with either construction, ie may or may not have the NP as the

object of the main clause, though often with no clear distinction between the two, and that there

are others such as BELIEVE that permit main clause passivization, even though semantically the

NP is not the object of the main clause."23

According to Palmer, the use of all possible criteria for the classification of

catenatives (i.e. the type of non-finite form, the pattern of identity relation and the specific

features of tense, phase, aspect and voice) would result in "a vast number of classes",

making it preferable "simply to approach the problem lexically, to list the verbs and to

state for each individually, its characteristics in terms of the criteria."24

Reducing the number of criteria would lead to verbs being either placed in multiple

classes or borderline cases not really fitting anywhere.23 Palmer, F. (1987): The English Verb, Longman, London, p. 18324 Palmer, F. (1987): The English Verb, Longman, London, p. 187

13

Palmer proposes to apply a semantic grouping of verbs that, actually, bears close

correspondence with the syntactic categories. He introduces nine classes with a total of 31

subclasses.

5. Conclusion

There remain the different approaches of whether to apply strict categories in

analyses, or to allow for some gradience between two points (most prominently

concerning finiteness and modality). Also, how to assess the importance of syntax or

semantics, as an analysis will frequently differ in results based on whether a syntactic or a

semantic approach was favoured.

This paper tends to show that there is no agreement yet over even the broader

points of the analysis of catenative verbs, nor are there definite solutions for a number of

problems associated with them. This raises certain implications. It is obvious that the topic

of catenative verbs is not thoroughly elaborated on, thus it represents a great problem for

beginning learners who will most likely never come into contact with the more detailed

points of the analysis of catenative verbs. It will be enough to note that some verbs can

'introduce some sub-clause', but students will be restrained from in-depth appreciation and

explanation of catenatives.

Another factor is the presentation of information about catenatives in dictionaries.

Huddleston states that "there is no getting away from the fact that the lexical entries for

verbs must specify which kinds of complements they take and, where more than one is

involved, the semantic differences (if any)".25 While traditional dictionaries mark all verbs

as transitive, intransitive or both, Huddleston suggests that this distinction is not very

comprehensive stating the need for syntactically adequate lexica giving specific

information on valid complements where "the transitive/ intransitive contrast will have a

good deal less of importance".26 This would then merit, perhaps, a creation of new

lexicons which will give a full appreciation of Catenative verbs to make them more

elucidated for students in the aspect of second language acquisition.

25 Huddleston, R. (1997): Introduction to the Grammar of English, Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge, p. 22326 Huddleston, R. (1997): Introduction to the Grammar of English, Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge, p. 223

14

6. Bibliography

de Haan, P. (2002) : "Review article on An empirical grammar of the English verb: Modal

verbs, by Dieter Mindt." In Journal of English Linguistics. 30. pp. 274- 280.

http://www.let.kun.nl/~p.dehaan/reviews/Mindt_2000_review.php.

Gramley, S., Pätzold, K.-M. (1992): A Survey of Modern English, Routledge, London and

New York

Halliday, M.A.K., Matthiesen, M.I.M. (2005):An Introduction to Functional Grammar,

Arnold, London

15

Huddleston, R. (1997): Introduction to the Grammar of English, Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge

Huddleston, R., Pullum, G. (2005): A Student's Introduction to English Grammar,

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Hudson, R. (1998): English Grammar, Routledge, New York and London

Mindt, D. (2000): An empirical Grammar of the English Verb System, Cornelsen, Berlin

Palmer, F. (1987): The English Verb, Longman, New York and London

Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., Svartvik, J. (1985): A comprehensive Grammar of

the English Language, Longman, New York and London

16