9

We can say both of the following:

  1. The carrots need to be chopped.
  2. The carrots need chopping.

How does the grammar of these sentences affect their meaning? Why is it that in these instances need takes a passive infinitival clause in (1) but an active gerund-participle clause in (2)?

Relating to this, why is it that we cannot say either of the following instead of the examples above:

  1. *The carrots need to chop.
  2. *The carrots need being chopped.

This question is being asked because of this question here, which got migrated to ELL.

Araucaria - Him
  • 47,146
  • 1
    Note this from 1714: How this Matter was effected is too well known to need being* remembered here.* That sounds a bit weird / clunky to me - but I can't see why it should be inherently "ungrammatical", even by today's standards. On the other hand, The carrots need to chop doesn't work because unlike, say, The men need to leave, the carrots are "patients", not "agents". – FumbleFingers Nov 24 '16 at 17:29
  • 4
    There's "grammatically correct" and then there's "making sense". They're all grammatically correct, but unless the "carrots" are students in carrot costumes in the school play, and "chop" is the dance they do, #3 makes no sense, since carrots are (except in horror movies) inanimate objects. – Hot Licks Nov 24 '16 at 17:35
  • 4
    So, the question is why need requires a passive in an infinitive complement, but can take an active gerund? – John Lawler Nov 24 '16 at 17:58
  • Ex 2. is syntactically ambiguous due to the absence of any distinctive kind of dependent. "Chopping" could be a concealed passive gerund-participial, the kind that lacks the "be" marker ("The carrots need chopping by the vegetable chef" - Catenative Class 2Bii refers). Alternatively, "chopping" could be a gerundial noun ("The carrots need a little chopping"). Since the "chopping" applies to the carrots, the meaning is effectively the same – BillJ Nov 24 '16 at 18:54
  • 2
    @JohnLawler Yes, kinda. It's why as complements of the verb need the passive infinitive and active gerund-participle clauses can mean the same thing. – Araucaria - Him Nov 24 '16 at 19:43
  • 3
    @Araucaria My first suspicion is need, which is a semi-modal (and semi-negative as well, in that use of need implies lack by implicature). I'm prepared to believe practically any kind of irregular patterning from TAM predicates like that. My second is dialectal variation -- %The carrots need chopped is not ungrammatical in some lects, and used to be far more prevalent in others, rather like %The bridge is building. My third is idiom formation, along the lines of remain to be seen, which also requires downstairs passives. – John Lawler Nov 24 '16 at 20:02
  • @JohnLawler Thanks for the link. Erm, sorry if this is a dumb question, what's a TAM predicate when it's at home? – Araucaria - Him Nov 24 '16 at 21:51
  • @BillJ Yes, I agree - but why does the chopping in the noun example apply to the carrots (in the sense of being done to the carrots), as it were? – Araucaria - Him Nov 24 '16 at 21:55
  • 1
    TAM = tense/aspect/mood predicates. As for extracting the object instead of the subject, this is a problem with a lot of constructions, like relative infinitives (the man to see, the man to do the job). It appears to be done by context, rather than determined by rule. – John Lawler Nov 25 '16 at 05:00
  • @Araucaria I think the claim is that the noun "chopping" is in contrast with, say, the noun "toys" in "The children need toys", where "toys" does not apply to the children, you can't perform "toys" on the children. In "The carrots need a little chopping", even though "chopping" is a gerundial noun, in a sense we understand it as meaning an action to be performed on the carrots. – BillJ Nov 25 '16 at 09:37
  • @BillJ Yes, that seems correct. However, that interpretation still seems to be dependent on the verb need and is not an inherent part of the noun chopping, it seems to me. Take "A little chopping is therapeutic" for example. – Araucaria - Him Nov 25 '16 at 10:37
  • 1
    @Araucaria Yes, of course, we're talking about "need", as per your question. CGEL pp1199-1200 refers. – BillJ Nov 25 '16 at 10:50
  • 2
    @HotLicks: I disagree. It's meaningful (and not unusual) to say that a given utterance is ungrammatical with a given meaning, without worrying about whether the same utterance could be grammatical with a different meaning. For example, it's normal to say that *"I is home" is ungrammatical with the obviously-intended meaning, even though it becomes grammatical if "I" is someone's name. (But you're right that an utterance can be grammatical with a certain meaning if that meaning is completely nonsensical.) – ruakh Nov 25 '16 at 23:56
  • @ruakh - The point is that sentence 3 passes the standard subject/verb/object style grammar checks (and, in fact, would likely be "passed" by many grammar checkers). It simply doesn't make sense. In cases where grammatical correctness is ambiguous the problem is that the "part of speech" of some words cannot be determined, or the intended targets of some modifiers cannot be determined, at least without analyzing the semantics of the sentence. – Hot Licks Nov 26 '16 at 01:35
  • 1
    @HotLicks: It would be "passed" by grammar checkers only because grammar checkers don't let you specify the intended meaning. There is an interpretation of sentence 3 under which it's grammatical-but-nonsensical (and even some interpretations under which it's plausibly meaningful, e.g. if "carrots" is being used metonymically); but in the interpretation under discussion, it is ungrammatical. *"The carrots need to chop" is not a grammatical way to express that the carrots need to be chopped. – ruakh Nov 26 '16 at 01:40
  • 1
    It's vaguely interesting that while (4) may possibly be strictly ungrammatical, it's colloquially admissible, with the same meaning as need to be chopped. – Andrew Leach Dec 02 '16 at 15:27
  • 2
    You've got a good core of a question here, but I'd recommend you focus it to ask just one thing: either how the syntax affects the semantics or why sentences 3 and 4 aren't valid. And please [edit] this to ask an actual question in the question title! – curiousdannii Dec 03 '16 at 12:34
  • Possible duplicate of Using -ed vs. -ing in the "needs washed" construction – curiousdannii Dec 03 '16 at 12:49
  • 1
    @curiousdannii Again, like the previous linked-to question, that question asks about the dialectical possibility of the verb need taking a past participle as a complement. The answers nor the question ask about why need is a control predicate when it has an infinitive or a tough-movement one when it has a gerund-participle. This is getting tedious. – Araucaria - Him Dec 03 '16 at 12:59
  • @Araucaria The dialect issue is only part of what is asked and answered in that question. I very deliberately did not pick the two other questions which purely ask about dialectal issues. – curiousdannii Dec 03 '16 at 13:01
  • 1
    @curiousdannii The question there and the answers there do not address the syntax of those constructions in any way. – Araucaria - Him Dec 03 '16 at 13:03
  • 1
    @Araucaria I don't know what you expect to be addressed - please [edit] this to clearly ask one single focused question. – curiousdannii Dec 03 '16 at 13:05
  • 1
    If you use a transitive predicate that could go either way, like investigate with human Su and DO, then Bill needs to investigate and Bill needs to be investigated are fine, while only Bill needs investigating (with DO extracted, like Tough-movement) is grammatical, but not ?*Bill needs being investigated. This may be simply because gerunds don't A-Raise, or because passive gerunds are rare, or are more likely as subjects than objects -- Being investigated was a source of great pride for him. Or whatever, anyway, need doesn't take passive gerund complements. – John Lawler Dec 06 '16 at 16:37
  • What I had meant is that X is ungrammatical when it is used to mean Y, not that it doesn't have a separate grammatical parsing. But that's hard to express concisely and clearly in a title. I still maintain the title should actually ask a question, which is how the ask a question page indicates. – curiousdannii Dec 07 '16 at 10:34
  • @Araucaria I don't have any buddies here and my views are my own. I am also agreeing that my earlier proposed title was wrong and confusing! – curiousdannii Dec 07 '16 at 11:14

4 Answers4

1

The simple answer to your second question is that sentence 1 includes the verb "to be" and sentence 2 doesn't.

Regarding your first question:

  1. "The carrots need to be chopped (up)." Based on context, this construction can be interpreted as (1) an implied command -- i.e., the need is (for somebody) to chop the carrots; Or, because "to be" is involved, it can mean (2) the need is for the state of being of the carrots to be changed, i.e., from being whole to being chopped. The grammar goes like this: Words that describe a state of being are adjectives and, in English, the adjectival form of the verb is the past participle. The past participle of "to chop" is "chopped."

  2. "The carrots need chopping" can have two meanings: the direct meaning (1) the already harvested carrots need to be chopped up, (with the implied command for somebody to do the chopping). Or, it can have an idiomatic meaning (2) The carrots are not yet ready to harvest, there are weeds growing in amongst them, and those weeds need to be removed by chopping them up with a hoe or mattock. (This idiomatic expression simply identifies the crop that needs weeding and assumes you know that in this context "chopping" means "chopping the weeds out of.") Grammatically,"to need" is a transitive verb; a transitive verb takes a direct object. A direct object answers the question "What?" and must therefore be a noun or noun equivalent. Here, the direct object is "chopping" (answers the question, "What do the carrots need?") and, in English, the noun form of a verb is the gerund. The gerund form of "to chop" is "chopping."

As for sentence 3, although it is grammatically correct, it is nonsense. If you understand the concept of "carrot" then you understand that its needs, assuming it has any, do not include the need to chop.

Sentence 4 is just plain ungrammatical. In English, the verb "to need" is transitive, and transitive verbs take a direct object, i.e., the infinitive form of a verb, or a noun or noun equivalent that answers the question "What?" And if you think about it, the infinitive form of a verb is its "proper name." When a verb is referred to as a verb, one typically refers to it in the infinitive form. e.g., The verb "to be" is an irregular verb.

The WOL
  • 101
1

Though now a days the semi-modal (Quasi-modal) use of 'Need' has fallen out of favour, it still smacks at times of its modal nature : The expression of subjective attitude and opinion for possibility, necessity or contingency. So, we may well argue that we use main verb 'Need' as an alternative to semi-modal 'Need' exclusively used in negative sentences and formal English.

  • I need your help. (my own impulse)

  • The carrots need chopping. (someone else's impulse; the carrots don't wish so)

Both these examples use 'need' as main verb but in the latter carrots are the passive recipient of someone's necessities (here 'need' imbibes its modal/ semi-modal nature)

Cambridge.org says we must use the main verb "Need" when it is followed by a noun phrase or -ing clause (the naming of a state , no direct activity involved of the subject) as shown in the above examples.

Again, the main verb "Need" is followed by 'to' when used with another verb.

  • I need to have my hair cut.

It is a prompting where I may not be the doer necessitating passive form of the infinitive used. Once we accept example (1) in the post, example no. (3) is struck off by the same logic because carrots don't desire to chop themselves.

We have already said as a main verb 'need' requires gerundial form or a noun phrase. What remains to be seen as to why we must also discard example no.(4).

A Participle phrase that is not absolute always refers to the subject in the main clause. In the absence of any such reference such participle phrases are meaningless. Let us attempt to put the carrots to a reasonable use:

  • Being chopped the carrots need to be washed. Isn't it!

The claim made in the post "need" makes use of active gerund- participal clause, is not well founded. It is as passive as is the overt passive infinitival clause in the first example.

  • To be chopped

  • Chopping by somebody.

In both the examples no.(1) & (2) the modal nature of NEED, call it semi-modal if you so like, comes to the fore (just an external necessity to which carrots are dumb spectators).

Barid Baran Acharya
  • 2,343
0

In (2), it is regarded as grammatical because it is not at that point anymore, where it is just regarded as slang (like contractions). (3) implies that the carrots are the ones doing the chopping. For example, if I said, "You need to chop the carrots," it means you are the one who needs to chop [the carrots]. If I say, "The carrots need to chop" (3), it implies that the carrots are the ones which need to chop. (4) just sounds weird, and people don't want to say it in general, as it requires people to stop a moment and think, and it might be misunderstood at first glance.

user7214865
  • 348
  • Does 'Your last house needs to sell before you think of buying a new one' 'imply that the last house is the one trying to do the selling'? The ergative transformation is quite often available, so why not here? – Edwin Ashworth Oct 05 '17 at 14:16
0

'Needs to' connects the previous term with the next, so 'a needs to chop b' has a chopping b, whereas 'need(s)' connects the next term to the one after that, as in 'a needs b to chop c' where b chops c.

As for your carrot examples:

Working:

"The carrots needs to be chopped." - The carrots would be a, and chopped would be b in the previous sentence structure. This is slightly modified however, b instead of being a noun, is a verb, signaled by the be before it.

"The carrots needs chopping." - In this case, need relates chopping and carrots since chopping has no other words behind it.

Not working:

"The carrots needs to chop." - This obviously wouldn't work because it is a fragment, the carrots needs to chop what exactly?

"The carrots needs being chopped." - as in the example (second model) I gave, where a needs b chops c, this makes the carrots wanting being, which is not a noun, to be chopped, which does not make sense.

DdTnT
  • 13