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. (Palmer
1987: 172)
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."(Huddleston 1997: 209)
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 gives 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. The field of semantics in particular would
merit a much closer look on the effects of sentence taxis.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction
2 Catenative Verbs
2.1 Definitions
2.2 Auxiliaries, modals, modifier, operator, quasi-modal
2.3 From finite to non-finite VP
2.4 Simple vs. complex verb phrases
3 Simple and complex catenatives
3.1 Simple catenatives
3.2 Complex catenatives
4 Classes and classification
4.1 Criteria for classification
4.2 Syntactical or semantic grouping
5 Conclusion / Summary
Research Objectives and Core Themes
This paper aims to provide a comprehensive overview of existing linguistic theories concerning catenative verbs in English, exploring their relationship with auxiliary verbs and their specific features regarding clause complementation.
- Definitions and functional characterizations of catenative verbs.
- The distinction between simple and complex catenative constructions.
- Theoretical debates regarding the categorization of auxiliaries, modals, and catenatives.
- Criteria for the syntactic and semantic classification of catenative verb groups.
- The role of clause complementation and subject raising in grammatical analysis.
Excerpt from the Book
Catenative Verbs
Here, the main definitions of catenative verbs will be presented, noting their different approaches to certain features and their treatment of the auxiliaries.
Richard Hudson defines catenatives as "verbs that combine with a following non - finite verb". He includes "verbs like get, keep, start, help as well as the traditional auxiliary verbs". (Hudson 2002) Sample sentences given by him 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 PP complements (3c).
(3) a) Kim seemed a keen student.
b) Kim began the journey.
c) Kim hoped for a successful outcome. (Huddleston 2005: 215)
Gramley and Pätzold agree by defining verbs which are followed by non finite verb forms but which are not operators as catenative verbs. (Gramley & Pätzold 1992: 132)
Palmer defines catenatives as verbs that combine with a full verb into verb phrases of theoretically unlimited length. (cf. 1) 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. (Palmer 1987: 172pp.)
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. (Palmer 1987: 172pp.)
Summary of Chapters
1 Introduction: This chapter introduces the concept of catenative verbs as verbs that form chains and discusses the ongoing lack of consensus among linguists regarding their definition and categorization.
2 Catenative Verbs: This section presents various linguistic definitions of catenatives, contrasts them with auxiliaries and operators, and outlines methods for distinguishing them from full verbs using tense, negation, and passivization (TNP) tests.
3 Simple and complex catenatives: This chapter categorizes catenative constructions based on their non-finite forms and examines the structural differences between simple sentences and those involving intervening noun phrases.
4 Classes and classification: This part explores the criteria used to group catenative verbs, specifically debating the merits of syntactic patterns versus semantic groupings and the complexity of multiple class membership.
5 Conclusion / Summary: The final chapter reflects on the persistent difficulty in establishing strict analytical categories for catenatives and highlights the need for more syntactically adequate lexica in dictionary design.
Keywords
Catenative verbs, English grammar, clause complementation, auxiliary verbs, complex verb phrases, subject raising, TNP tests, syntax, semantics, non-finite forms, verb chains, linguistics, classification, valency, modality.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this work?
The work focuses on the linguistic analysis of catenative verbs in English, exploring how they are defined, categorized, and distinguished from other verb types such as auxiliaries and operators.
What are the central themes discussed in the paper?
Central themes include the grammatical definitions of catenative verbs, the distinction between simple and complex verb phrases, the role of non-finite clauses, and the various classification strategies proposed by leading linguists.
What is the main research objective of the author?
The objective is to provide a structured overview of existing theories regarding catenative verbs, highlighting areas of disagreement and analyzing their syntactic and semantic behavior.
Which scientific methods does the author use?
The author primarily employs a comparative analysis of linguistic literature and existing grammar theories, utilizing diagnostic tools like TNP tests (Tense, Negation, Passivization) to evaluate different definitions.
What is covered in the main body of the text?
The main body examines various definitions, the relationship between catenatives and auxiliaries, the structural analysis of simple vs. complex catenative phrases, and different approaches to classifying these verbs.
Which key terms describe this research?
The research is best characterized by terms such as catenative verbs, clause complementation, verb chains, syntax, semantics, and grammatical classification.
How does the author distinguish between simple and complex catenative constructions?
The distinction is primarily based on the presence of an intervening noun phrase between the catenative verb and the following non-finite verb, as well as the behavior of these constructions under passivization tests.
What significance does the author attribute to the 'TNP tests'?
The author uses TNP tests (Tense, Negation, Passivization) as a diagnostic method to distinguish catenatives from full transitive verbs and to determine the complexity of verb phrases.
- Quote paper
- Jan Niehues (Author), 2005, Catenatives or complex VP - the debate about specific verbs in English, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/52296
