How verbs from Secondary types passivize

Overall, Secondary verbs passivize much less readily than do Primary verbs. There are a number which occur in a be passive construction, but rather few that take a get passive.

Secondary-D verbs, the SEEM and MATTER types, are essentially intransitive and thus not open to passivization. Secondary-C verbs, from the MAKING and HELPING types, can take a direct object (which is underlying complement clause subject). Some of these may passivize on this object NP, e.g. John was made/permitted/allowed/helped to fill in the form, Mary was prevented from seeing the doctor. A passive is scarcely possible, however, with let (save of the idiomatic let X go), since this verb focuses on the main clause subject, or with the causative sense of get, and quite impossible with the causative sense of have. Force may have a normal passive, e.g. The guerrillas forced John to walk home (by holding a gun to his back) and John was forced to walk home (by the guerrillas, holding a gun to his back). There is also a special passive of force that cannot have a by phrase but which may include a subordinate clause stating a reason, e.g. John was forced to walk home, because his car has broken down (the corresponding active, something like John’s car breaking down forced him to walk home, feels somewhat strained).

With the Secondary type WANTING, the subject of a Modal (FOR) TO complement clause is often identical with the subject of the wanting verb, and is then omitted. But they can be different, and with some WANTING verbs for may be or must be omitted, so that the complement clause subject becomes surface object of the main verb. It should then theoretically be available for passivization. A passive construction is used with some verbs from this type, e.g. expect and intend—we can say Mary was expected/intended to drive the bus today. Passive is much less plausible with want, wish and deserve simply because the meanings of these verbs inherently focus on the subject, expressing the subject’s attitude towards something.

Some WANTING verbs, and a few Primary-B verbs such as choose and order, may have both main and complement clauses in passive form, the original complement clause object first becoming derived passive subject of that clause, simultaneously—in the absence of for—surface object of the main clause, and then derived passive subject of the main clause. For example, from They intended someone to murder Hitler we can get They intended Hitler to be murdered and finally Hitler was intended to be murdered. Such a double-passive construction becomes rather less acceptable if any by phrase is included, e.g.? Hitler was intended by the Russians to be murdered by their crack marksman.

The BEGINNING type of Secondary-A verbs is particularly interesting from the point of view of passivization. We can recall that these verbs have no independent role, sharing with the verb for which they provide semantic modification its subject (and, if it is transitive, its object), e.g.

(5) The warders began to count the prisoners

(6) The warders began counting the prisoners

Now (5) and (6) each contain two verbs, begin and count. We can enquire whether it is possible (a) to have a passive form of begin, but not of count; (b) to have a passive form of count, but not of begin; (c) to have both verbs in passive form. Consider:

(5a) *The prisoners were begun to count

(6a) *The prisoners were begun counting

(5b) The prisoners began to be counted

(6b) The prisoners began being counted

(5c) The prisoners were begun to be counted

(6c) The prisoners were begun being counted

Sentences (5a) and (6a), where just begin is in passive form, are totally ungrammatical. However, (5b) and (6b), where just count is in passive form, are quite acceptable to all native speakers. Sentences (5c) and (6c), with both verbs in passive form, are rejected by perhaps the majority of native speakers, but judged as perfectly acceptable by a significant minority.

There appears to be a potential difference in meaning between the (b) and (c) alternatives for those speakers who can accept either. Suppose that the prisoners began to file past the head warder in order to be counted—(5b) or (6b) might be an appropriate description for this. But (5c) or (6c) could just refer to a much-postponed counting of the prisoners finally being undertaken by the warders, and maybe the prisoners themselves weren’t even aware of it, e.g. The prisoners were finally begun to be counted at four o’clock.

These passive possibilities support our proposal that a BEGINNING verb forms a single semantic unit with the verb it modifies. We can suggest that in (5b) and (6b) begin modifies a passive verb, whereas in (5c) and (6c) the whole complex of begin-plus-active-transitive-verb is passivized. A sentence like The warders began to count the prisoners, with a secondary verb in the main clause, is syntactically similar to John likes/decided/remembered to kiss Aunt Mary, with a primary verb in the main clause (and both clauses having the same subject, this being omitted from the complement clause). Note that we can here get a construction that looks like (5b), e.g. Aunt Mary likes/decided/remembered to be kissed, but nothing at all that resembles (5c) (i.e. not *Aunt Mary is liked/was decided/was remembered to be kissed). This again emphasizes the secondary nature of verbs from the BEGINNING type, that they effectively form a semantic unit with the following verb (although this is syntactically in a complement clause).

Finish, start and continue have basically the same passive possibilities as begin. Of the other verbs in the type, cease, stop and keep on are restricted to the (b) passive, while commence, complete and discontinue are scarcely plausible in any variety of passive.

When a complement clause verb is omitted, BEGINNING verbs passivize like any other transitive verb, e.g. They finished the house on Tuesday, The house was finished on Tuesday.

We mentioned intransitive uses of BEGINNING verbs, with an activity noun as subject. Corresponding to They began (fighting) the battle on Tuesday there is The battle began on Tuesday. There is a contrast between the intransitive and the passive of the transitive, i.e. The battle was begun on Tuesday. The passive implies a deliberate decision to begin fighting on that day, whereas the plain intransitive could be used if it just happened—if fighting broke out spontaneously.

TRYING is another Secondary-A type. Most TRYING verbs are similar to want, wish, possess and the LIKING type in that they focus semantically on the subject, and are thus not appropriate in a passive construction; there are no try sentences parallel to (5c) and (6c). TRYING verbs can, of course, modify either an active or a passive verb in the complement clause, e.g. John failed to invite Mary, Mary failed to get invited. HURRYING verbs also occur in constructions parallel to (5b) and (6b) but not (5c) and (6c). MODALS and SEMI-MODALS have no passive form, although they can of course modify a passive verb, e.g. Mary ought to be punished.

All the examples we have given of the passive of secondary verbs have involved be. The get variety is far rarer—get allowed or get needed or get intended or get expected are at best marginal, while get begun is almost impossible. Get passives may be used with some members of the Secondary B type POSTPONING and also, to a limited extent, with Secondary-C verbs such as force and prevent.