ORDINARY SUBJECT IN A SIMPLE CATENATIVE CONSTRUCTION WITH

TO-INFINITIVALS

VERB: ASK

First, we will define the term catenative construction.

A catenative construction is a construction that introduces multiple verbs and is realised by

the non-finite clauses. Non-finite clauses take on catenative complements.

We distinguish two types of catenative constructions: simple and complex. We are interested
in the simple catenative constructions.

What differentiates the simple catenative construction from the complex catenative
construction?

The simple catenative construction does not have an intervening noun phrase between the
non-finite verb in the non-finite clause and the finite verb which precedes it.

I expect [to come home]. simple catenative construction

I expect Marcus [to come home]. complex catenative construction

The verb I'm supposed to analyze is the verb ask.

The verb ask usually collocates in complex catenative constructions since it usually has an
object, but, of course, it can function without the intervening noun phrase as well.

There are two types of subjects: ordinary and raised subjects.

An ordinary subject is a subject that is semantically connected to both verbs: the finite
catenative verb and the non-finite catenative verb.

A raised subject is a subject that is semantically related only to the non-finite verb.

In catenative constructions, the non-finite clause can lack a subject, so the subject can be
found in the matrix clause.
We distinguish two types of interpretations related to the subjects: controlled interpretation
by the subject of the matrix clause and the raised interpretation by the subject of the matrix
clause.

The matrix clause is a clause that precedes the embedded infinitival clause.

He never wants [to play a game].

The matrix clause is he never wants.

VERB ASK

The verb ask is a transitive verb which means it is able to take a direct object.

Transcription: \ ˈask

In the Merriam-Webster dictionary the verb ask has these meanings:

1. to put a question about

2. speak, utter
3. to call for, require

*Interestingly, every example I could find either has a direct object which functions as
an intervening noun phrase meaning it is a complex catenative construction or it is a
that-clause. The verb ask is a rather hard choice for simple catenative constructions and
one needs to be rather creative so as not to include noun phrases or the subordinator
for following the verb ask.

Now, when deciding whether the subject in question is a an ordinary subject or a raised
subject, we analyze the verbs in terms of whether the subject in question is semantically
related to both verbs or just one verb.

In establishing the interpretation by the subject of the matrix clause, we use four tests to
prove whether it is a controlled interpretation or a raised interpretation:

1. Relation with that-clause

2. Relation with passive infinitivals
3. Selectional restrictions
4. Dummy subjects
The first thing we can notice without even making up a sentence with the verb ask is that,
simply, inanimate subjects, are no table to ask anything or ask for something. The verb ask
requires being able to speak and it usually requires thinking process. A table cannot ask
anything. This one is obvious, but we will prove that it is an ordinary verb through tests
we mentioned above.

Also, it is important to note that the first sign that the verb is a raised verb is if it is
introduced with an inanimate subject or a dummy subject. Control verbs cannot have
inanimate or dummy subjects.

Since we clarified some things, we will move on to the examples with the verb ask.

She asked [to clarify some things].

The subject in this sentence is she. Who asked to clarify some things? She did. The subject
is found in the matrix clause.

We should translate the sentence to our language because it can be a sign that will tell us
whether the subject is raised or ordinary. As follows:

Pitala je da razjasni neke stvari.

Since the translation of the original sentence into our language puts the subject before da,
it is a first sign that she is an ordinary subject.

We can compare this sentence to the raised seem, for example:

She seemed [to know some things].

The translation would be: Činilo se da ona zna neke stvari.

Da appears before the subject, thus proving that this sentence contains a raised subject.

Now, we will apply the tests to prove that the verb ask is ordinary.

RELATION WITH FINITE-THAT CLAUSE

First test we will use is the relation with finite that-clause.

The task here is to convert the non-finite to-infinitival clause to the finite that-clause.

Original sentence: She asked [to clarify some things].

That-clause: She asked [that she clarify some things].

The subject she stayed in its normal position and then got repeated again in the that-clause.
Since the subject she is semantically related to both verb: ask and clarify, it does not
change its initial position. We can see here that it is related to both verbs since the subject
she precedes both verbs. She was the one who asked and she was the one to clarify some
things.

When the subject does not change its initial position and it gets repeated again in the that-
clause, it means that the subject is an ordinary subject.

Let's compare this to the raised subject.

She seemed [to know some things].

If we put this into the that-clause, we get:

She seemed [that she would know some things].

The first thing we notice here is that this sentence is ungrammatical. It does not make
sense. However, if we change the subject she in the matrix clause to the dummy it,we
would get a grammatically correct sentence.

It seemed [that she would know some things.]

This dummy it does not really have a meaning, it is rather meaningless.

The translation to our language would be: Činilo se da ona zna neke stvari.

Here we see that it wasn't she that seemed, she was the one who knew some things. She
didn't seem, it seemed. The conclusion is that the subject she is only semantically related
to one verb, the verb in the to-infinitival clause or in this case – that-clause. The subject
she does not remain in its initial position in the matrix, but it gets moved to the that-clause.
By moving to the that-clause, the subject in the matrix clause is replaced by the dummy
subject it.
When the subject changes its initial position and gets moved to the that-clause, it is a
raised subject.

RELATION WITH PASSIVE INFINITIVALS

As the name says, we apply this test by putting the original sentence in passive.

Original sentence: She asked [to clarify some things].

To form a passive, we will take noun phrase some things from the to-infinitival clause and
put it in the matrix clause, replacing the subject she, thus making it the subject of the
matrix clause. The verbs stay in their place, they don't change their positions, we just
passivize the verb in the finite clause.

Some things are asked [to be clarified].

We can also, add by her at the end but it is optional.

Some things are asked [to be clarified by her].

Now we compare the two sentences to see if they have the same meaning.

She asked [to clarify some things].

Some things are asked [to be clarified].

Translation would be:

Ona je pitala da razjasni neke stvari.

Neke stvari su pitale da budu razjašnjene.

Besides the fact that the second sentence, or the sentence in passive does not make much
sense since things cannot ask to clarify anything, it requires a thinking process and thus an
animate being, it is clear that in the original sentence she was the one who asked to clarify,
and in the second sentence, the things were the ones who asked to clarify. The sentences
have completely different meanings.

She asked [to clarify some things]. ≠ Some things are asked [to be clarified].

By making the noun phrase from the to-infinitival clause the subject of the matrix clause,
the meaning completeley changes, since, again, the subject she is semantically related to
both verbs: ask and clarify. By replacing the subject, the connection between the verbs and
its subject is disrupted, and if the noun phrase in the to-infinitival clause is inanimate, the
sentence ceases to make sense.

With this we introduce the term voice sensitive which describes the ordinary verb. The
ordinary verb is voice sensitive because the subject needs to stay in its initial position and
because we get a different meaning by changing its initial position by converting the
sentence from active to passive.

Now we will take a simple catenative construction with a raised subject and prove by
conducting the second test. The example:

She seemed [to know some things].

We will replace the subject of the matrix clause she with the noun phrase from the to-
infinitival clause some things. The from the finite and non-finite clause will stay where
they are, but we will passivize to know.

Some things seemed [to be known].

Now we will compare the two.

She seemed [to know some things].

Some things seemed [to be known].

Since the verb seem does not really mean anything in particular, it does not matter who the
subject is, or what it is. The verb seem is not semantically related to the subject, to either
one, be it some things or she. Also, does the second sentence make sense, is it
grammatically correct? Yes, it is perfevtly fine, unlike the passive sentence with ordinary
subject which doesn't seem or natural or it doesn't seem like something someone would
say. The sentences have the same meaning because it wasn't she that seemed or some
things that seemed, but rather IT seemed.

The use of it can be seen when the sentences are translated into our language.

Djelovalo je kao da ona zna neke stvari.

Djelovalo je kao da se neke stvari znaju.

Dakle, nisu stvari djelovale, već je djelovalo.

Thus:

She seemed [to know some things]. = Some things seemed [to be known].

The sentence with the raised subject is voice neutral, since it does not matter whether it's
a passive or an active, the sentences have the same meaning, since the raised verb seem is
not semantically related to the subject.

SELECTIONAL RESTRICTIONS

With this test we can be creative and we have more freedom to create sentences but still it
is important to think about what makes sense and what collocates with the verbs and the
subjects we choose. To apply this test, we replace everything expect the verb in the matrix
clause, so it means that we replace the subject in the matrix clause and the whole to-
infinitival clause. The verb in the matrix clause is tested here, so we have to replace
everything else. To test this, we add the inanimate subject and a clause with a verb that
usually collocates with that inanimate subject.

The original sentence: She asked [to clarify some things].

Since ask does not appear with inanimate subjects or verbs that follow ask, every sentence
we make won't make much sense, because it is impossible for an inanimate subject to ask
for anything. But we will make up a sentence.

Money asked [to be made].

Here we selected money as a subject and created a to-infinitival clause that could collocate
with money – to be made.

However, this sentence, as expected, does not make any sense. Money cannot ask. The
verb ask is a control verb which is selective with its subjects so it requires an animate
subject. Since the verb ask is ordinary, the subject she is ordinary too.

When we translate the sentence into our language, we can see that the verb ask is
semantically related to its subject since it is she or money that asks.
Prevod originalne rečenice: Pitala je da razjasni neke stvari.

Prevod selectional restrictions rečenice: Novac je pitao da bude napravljen.

Naravno da novac ne može da pita. Da je rečenica recimo: Pitalo se da novac bude

napravljen, to bi već i moglo, jer se nije pitao novac već je bilo pitanje da novac bude
napravljen.

Whenever a verb cannot function with an inanimate subject, it is a sign that the verb is an
ordinary verb.

On the other side, the sentence:

Original sentence: She seemed [to know some things].

Selectional restrictions: Money seemed [to grow on trees].

This sentence is perfectly fine since the verb seem is not semantically related to the subject
money. Whenever a verb in the finite matrix clause can be paired up with an inanimate
subject, it is a sure sign that the subject is a raised subject.

The sentence: Money seemed to grow on trees means the same as: It seemed that money
grows on trees. It is not money that seems, but rather it seems.

Raised verbs are not selective about its subjects, so it does not matter who or what the
subject is, be it aniname or inanimate, so the first sign that the subject is raised is if it is
inanimate, since ordinary subjects cannot be inanimate.

Translation of the original sentence: Djelovalo je kao da ona zna neke stvari.

Translation of the selectional restrictions sentence: Činilo se da novac raste na drveću.

Dakle, nije prevod: Novac se činio da raste na drveću.

DUMMY SUBJECTS

This test is similar to the selectional restrictions test in a sense that we, too, have to be
creative with picking to-infinitival clauses to replace the ones in the original sentence but
this time the subject is a dummy subject. Dummy subjects we use to replace the subject in
the finite matrix clause are it and there.

In this case, the dummy subject cannot refer to any person or object in particular, nothing
animate or inanimate, but rather it has to have a sort of an empty meaning. That ''empty
meaning'' can be seen when we translate the sentences into our language since we do not
literally translate it or there.

U našem jeziku, dummy subjekte prevodimo tako što stavilo glagol u srednji rod.

Again, it's important to choose infinitival clause that collocates with inanimate subjects in
question. The sentence needs to make sense.

Original sentence: She asked [to clarify some things].

It asked [to rain].

Translation: Pitalo je da pada.

This sentence is ungrammatical since the verb ask is a control verb and it can only go with
animate subjects who are able to ask, since the verb ask is semantically related to its
subject, so putting a dummy subject instead of the ordinary subject she won't make much
sense. Control verbs cannot be paired up with inanimate or dummy subjects.

Raised subject:

She seemed [to know some things].

When we apply the selectional restrictions test, it would be:

It seemed [to rain].

This sentence is perfectly fine and makes sense, since it's not it that's raining, and raised
verbs aren't selective with its subjects, so a subject can be animate, inanimate or a dummy
subject, as in this case. The verb seem is not semantically related to the subject and we can
see that when we translate the sentences in our language:

Original sentence: Činilo se da ona zna neke stvari.

Selectional restrictions sentence: Činilo se da je padala kiša.

Nije se kiša činila, već se činilo da kiša pada. Može se primijetiti kako subjekt prelazi na
kraj rečenice, što dalje od glagola činiti. Glagol kiša i činiti nisu povezani.