Somebody must have seen the driver leave.

Hi Paul,

The intended meaning of this sentence is quite understandable. Anyhow, the syntax is not that straightforward — at least to me. The meaning could be this: Somebody must have seen the driver [while the driver was leaving]. The word “leave” at the end, I suppose it to be a bare infinitive, could be part of the noun phrase “the driver leave”, which is in turn the object of the verb seen. The chances of its (the driver leave) being a clause are very minimal, unless there is proper verb conjugation found (leaves).

If that last word were a gerund-participle (leaving) instead, then the meaning itself could become more ambiguous: in a sense, Somebody must have seen the driver [while that somebody was] leaving. So “leave” is the proper form to be used in this context.

If these all are fine, then please clarify me the following:

1– Can a bare-infinitive be used as a modifier in a noun phrase?
2– If that (leave) is not a bare-infinitive, then it has violated the subject-verb agreement: 3rd person singular inflection is “leaves”. So how SV agreement is achieved if bare-infinitival explanation is wrong?
3– There is another way to solve the problem by considering it a subordinate clause (bare-infinitival & non-finite, of course), but there is no overt marker to prove though. If so, what could be the function of it?
4– The main verb “seen” has to have something to say here; this construction could well be a special feature of the verb “see”. What might it be?

Last of all, is the sentence being discussed correct?

Please clarify.

Hi Nifras

Somebody must have seen the driver leave.

Your example is okay, but the analysis is tricky:

The basic syntactic structure comprises a matrix clause (the sentence) which contains an embedded non-finite subordinate clause formed of just the single word "leave" which is functioning as complement to "see".

But it is NOT a normal construction because of the position of the two verbs "see" and "leave". It’s called a 'complex catenative construction' where there is a sequence of two consecutive verbs with an intervening noun; a noun that is located between them, so you have V+NP+V.

[Verb = "seen"] + [noun phrase = "the driver"] + [verb = "leave"]

In constructions like this, we call "see" a catenative verb, and call "leave" the catenative complement of "see".

"Driver" is not a semantic argument of "see", though it is the syntactic object, and "driver" is the semantic subject of "leave" but not the syntactic one. So we call "the driver" a 'raised object' because the verb that "driver" relates to syntactically ("see") is higher in the constituent structure than the one it relates to semantically ("leave").

Put simply, "the driver" cannot be the syntactic object of "see" and the syntactic subject of "leave" at the same time, so we say that "the driver" is the syntactic object of "see" and semantic subject of "leave".

The analysis is therefore:

"[Somebody must have seen the driver [leave]]".

I know it may seem strange to think of a subordinate clause as being just one word like "leave", but it does happen quite often (think of "I like smoking"). The object of the verb in the matrix clause is "the driver", and that is also seen as the subject of the verb in the subordinate catenative clause, only the semantic subject, not the syntactic one.

See, I told you it was tricky!


Paul

Hi Paul,

It seems tricky; but very interesting. There are chances to let a coordinator intervene a catenative verb and its complement (usually, a bare infinitive), as seen in “I can’t go and watch that movie.” Removal of the coordinator would make it clear that the bare infinitive “watch” is a complement of the catenative “go” in this sentence (cf. “I can’t go watch that movie”). Note that an explicit object (that movie) of the complement is somewhat obligatory in this instance.

It’s possible to form a sentence in such a way (catenative & its complement with a coordinator intervention). The normal syntactic analysis, however, would be slightly different. Generally, it’s analysed as a mere coordination of two finite verbs (intransitive “go” + transitive “watch”) that are connected with the negative modal auxiliary “can’t”. We can, though we don’t normally, think of them as catenative and its complement too.

Your explanation also works in a similar manner and is encouraging to think otherwise. You’ve just shown a different way (tricky, of course) to analyse such sentences.

A noun intervening a catenative & its complement is very interesting. I should really thank you to introduce the 'complex catenative’ construction. We’ve seen so many examples of catenative verbs and their different forms of non-finite verbal complements, but I really couldn’t come across such a scenario where an NP intervening between them while playing two different roles: syntactic object of the catenative verb and semantic subject of the catenative’s complement — which is a subordinate clause comprising a single word. Isn’t it cool!

This is helpful stuff!

Thanks.

Ah, you misunderstood my reply!

A coordinator cannot intervene in a complex catenative construction. A catenative construction involves one or more non-finite verbs forming a chain. Sometimes there is an intervening noun between two of the verbs, in which case it's called a complex catenative construction. Here are some more examples, but note that I have used bare infinitivals, to-infinitivals and participials since they both kinds occur in the catenative construction:

Simple Catenative (no intervening noun)

(1) I promised to read the report.
(2) Max regrets locking the door.
(3) Pat got nominated for treasurer.

Complex Catenative (with intervening noun)

(4) We persuaded Sue to read the report.
(5) We helped Kim move the furniture.
(6) I remember Ed locking the door.

The catenative analysis is not an alternative one, it's not a choice. If the subordinate clause is non-finite and it follows a catenative verb, then it's always a catenative construction. If the clause is finite then it is never a catenative construction. Consider:

(7) I can’t go and watch that movie. (Your example, not catenative)
(8) I want to watch that movie. (simple catenative)
(9) I want Kim to come with me. (complex catenative)

Your example (7) is not catenative; it a coordination of two verb phrases linked with a coordinator. But in (8) the non-finite clause "to watch that movie" is a simple catenative complement of the catenative verb "want". And in (9) the non-finite clause "to come with me" is a catenative complement of "want". The intervening noun "Kim" is syntactic object of the matrix verb "want" and semantic subject of "come" in the subordinate catenative clause.

Essentially, catenatives occur only with non-finite verbs where there is no coordination and only when the verbs are back-to-back except for a possible intervening object as in the examples (4)-(6)and (9 .


PaulM

Hi Paul,

I'm sorry for being idle. This is really a great help. There was a terrible mix-up over coordinator intervention and NP intervention in my understanding. I was really lucky to make that mistake, though.

See, had it not been the case, I would have missed your further comprehensive explanation.

Thank you very much, my friend.