ATTENTION

Verbs in the ATTENTIONG type have a number of special properties that set them off—semantically and syntactically—from other types. Firstly, they are generally used to describe the Perceiver seeing or hearing something outside themself. The subject of a complement clause will normally be different from the main clause subject. And in the rare instances when it is the same it must still be stated; that is, ATTENTION verbs do not permit omission of a coreferential subject from ING or Modal (FOR) TO complement clauses, e.g. I heard myself telling a story on the radio, not *I heard telling a story on the radio.

Secondly, one may become aware of some activity—using sight or hearing—either directly or indirectly. With ATTENTION verbs, THAT complements are used to refer to indirect knowledge. Compare I heard that John let off the fireworks (i.e. I heard someone recounting this piece of news) with I heard John letting off the fireworks (i.e. I heard it happening). And also I noticed that Mary had hit Jane (I may have seen Mary grasping a blood-stained stick, and Jane holding her head and weeping, and thus drawn this conclusion) with I noticed Mary hitting Jane (I saw the actual blows)

Some ATTENTION verbs take a Modal (FOR) TO complement, which of course relates to direct perception of the complement clause subject becoming involved in the activity. Since, for this type, THAT clauses refer only to indirect perception we do not get the meaning similarity between a Modal (FOR) TO and a THAT-including-Modal complement, which was noted for verbs from other types.

Modal (FOR) TO complements with ATTENTION verbs must omit the for and also—in an active sentence—the to. Compare the Modal (FOR) TO construction in (76a) with the ING construction in (76b):

(76a) I saw John jump across the stream

(76b) I saw John(’s) jumping across the stream

(The ’s on the subject of an ing complement clause after an ATTENTION verb is often omitted; it cannot generally be included after an inanimate subject e.g. I saw it(*s) raining.

An ING complement refers to some durative activity; (76b) might be used when John was seen crossing the stream by jumping from one stepping-stone to the next. Sentence (76a) states that I saw John get involved in the act of jumping across the stream; the details are immaterial—(76a) could relate to a single jump that took him clear across, or to a series of jumps.

We described how, when the activity referred to by the main clause relates directly to the subject of a Modal (FOR) TO complement clause in object function, then for should drop, with the complement clause subject becoming surface object of the main verb. This semantic condition plainly prevails with ATTENTION verbs; hence, for cannot be included. We saw that the to is omitted when there is a direct connection between the referents of main clause and complement clause verbs. This connection holds in (76a)—which describes direct perception— and so to must be omitted. Note though that to has to be included in the passive version of (76a), i.e. John was seen to jump across the stream. A passive provides an adjective-like description which lacks the pragmatic immediacy of the active (it is almost ‘John was in a state of being seen . . . ’) so that to is not omitted.

We distinguished seven subtypes of ATTENTION. The LOOK class— with look (at), stare (at), hunt (for) and so on—refers to the Perceiver directing their attention onto some Impression, which will be an NP, not a complement clause; some verbs in this subtype (investigate, examine, check, explore) may relate to the Perceiver directing their attention to uncovering some information that can be realized through a WH- clause, e.g. He investigated whether she was dead/who had slapped her.

The SEE subtype involves straightforward description of an act of perception. show describes how one person assists another to see or hear something. RECOGNIZE relates to perceiving something and knowing what it is, and DISCOVER to perceiving something that was not apparent before. Verbs from these four subtypes take THAT and WH- complements, and also Judgement TO clauses, e.g.

(77a) I saw/recognized/discovered that he was their leader/who was their leader

(77b) I saw/recognized/discovered him to be their leader

Only SEE and SHOW may relate to a durative activity and thus only verbs from these subtypes accept ING clauses. The Modal (FOR) TO complement construction (with both for and to omitted in the active) occurs most commonly with the SEE subtype, dealing with a straightforward act of perception.

Witness, making up a subtype on its own, must describe some activity, rather than a state. It takes THAT, WH- and ING clauses, but not Judgement TO. Watch refers to deliberate perception over a period of time. It is generally found with an ING clause (e.g. I watched John building the wall), although a Modal (FOR) TO is also possible in the active (I watched John build the wall) but not in the passive (*John was watched (to) build the wall).

Watch, and the sense of listen (to) that belongs to the WATCH subtype, may also take a THAT (or WH-) complement, but with a quite different meaning from the ‘indirect knowledge’ sense of THAT with SEE, SHOW, RECOGNISE and DISCOVER. A THAT clause with watch or listen (to) simply relates to the fact of some event, with an instruction to ensure that it does or doesn’t take place; compare the THAT complement in You watch that the soup doesn’t boil with the ING clause in You watch the soup boiling. (Significantly, watch and listen are perhaps the only verbs from the ATTENTION, THINKING and DECIDING types which take a THAT construction but may not be used in a parenthetical.