 Hello, having talked about the verb group and related terms as well as about the definition of auxiliary verbs in the verb in present-day English Parts 1 and 2, let us finally focus on lexical verbs in this third and last e-lecture of the series, the verb in present-day English. And this time we will focus on lexical verbs. Well, lexical verbs belong to the open class of words. The term lexical verb is often used in a generic way, covering all those verbs that are not auxiliaries, that is, verbs that do not satisfy the N-I-C-E, the nice contexts. Depending on their type of complement, lexical verbs can be subdivided into cateenative verbs and full verbs. Let us look at cateenative verbs first. The term cateenative is used to denote lexical verbs that concatenate, just like a chain, to complex constructions such as this one over here, John seems to go. Now, how do we analyze such constructions? There are several options. Do they consist of a complex verb group such as seems to go as one verb group? Do they exhibit two verbs such as seem plus another verb go? Is it some sort of serial verb construction? Or do they represent a verb plus a non-finite clause to go? Well, the analysis that we suggest here is the cateenative analysis, which goes back to Frank Palmer, who provided this analysis in his book The English Verb in the 1980s. This analysis defines verbs such as seem as lexical verbs with obligatory verbal compliments. According to this definition, cateenative verbs are lexical verbs that may be used in a chain-like manner with a full verb at the end. So, we could easily expand this into John seems to keep going. The full verb is at the end, going, or make it even larger. John seems to try to keep going. Theoretically, there is no limit upon the number of verbs that may co-occur in a sentence provided that all except the last verb are cateenative verbs. So, you could have constructions such as I do not want to have to be forced to begin to try to make more money. Well, and if we take do support as a criterion, then cateenative constructions behave entirely like main verbs. They need do support to build negative sentences. They I do not. Not I want not. However, we must be careful not to mix up full verb constructions and cateenative verb constructions. So, let us look at their differences. Full verbs and cateenative verbs can be kept apart by two central criteria. One can be referred to as the tense aspect criterion. The other one is the criterion of negation. So, what happens if we want to change the tense or aspect of a sentence or when we want to make it negative? This is the question we have to answer. In a sentence with a full verb, we only have one option to do this. We insert an auxiliary verb have in front of the verb and in the case of negation, we attach not to the auxiliary. They have not seen. In a cateenative construction, we have several options to do this. For example, we can transform the sentence into they have remembered seeing or they remembered having seen. So, we have two options of inserting the tense aspect marker. Or in terms of negation, they have not remembered seeing, they have remembered not seeing. Two options of inserting the negative particle not. So, ignoring meaning changes, we can attach the auxiliary and thus not to each verb in a cateenative construction. So, whereas full verbs allow tense and negation only once, both operations can be applied to all cateenatives in a sentence of course to the full verbs in such constructions too. Another important difference between full verbs and cateenative verbs concerns their transitivity status. So, let's look at this next. Let us insert some verbs into a context with a tentative full verb at the end. The girl and then a verb working. So, we can have something like the girl liked working, the girl kept on working, the girl went on working. So, here we have verbs and the question that arises now is how can we distinguish these types of verbs? Well, one test to see or to work out the transitivity status is the passivization test because only transitive verbs allow a transformation of an active sentence into a passive sentence. So, let's do it. Here is the passive framework, working was and then by the girl. Now, working was liked by the girl, this is fine. Working was kept on by the girl, doesn't work and working was went on by the girl, doesn't work either. So, these two are ungrammatical. So, the passivization test helps us to distinguish cateenative verbs from transitive verbs. Only true transitive full verbs allow the transformation of an active sentence into a passive one, went on and kept on, cateenative verbs result in ungrammatical sentences. Let us now turn our attention to full verbs. Many linguists supply the term lexical verb to what will be called full verb here. Although this seems to be a little bit confusing, it is not wrong. The category of full verbs can be formally distinguished on the basis of morphological regularity. In general, regular verbs have four morphological forms. Here they are. There is always a base form, call, third person singular present tense form calls, present participle calling, the past tense form called and then for regular verbs the past participle which is always identical with the past tense form. Now, regular verbs are called regular because if one knows their base form all other forms can be predicted by a rule. This is a very powerful generalization since the vast majority of English verbs belongs to the class of regular verbs. Irregular verbs vary in this respect. There are verbs whose paradigm consists of five forms, speak, speak, speaking, spoke and spoken. Well and then we have also got verbs whose paradigm consists of three forms, only cut cuts and cutting and the past tense form and the past participle form are identical with the base. According to the function of a verb within the verb group two types of verb forms can be differentiated, finite and non-finite verb forms. In general, the third person singular present tense form and the past tense form of a verb are called finite, whereas the participle forms are called non-finite. Within a finite verb group only the first verb carries the finite properties which are marked green over here. So it is the final third person singular marker in calls, it is the auxiliary is and the auxiliary has. In these verb groups the remaining verbs are always non-finite calling and called. The participle form and the same applies to the past tense by the way she called him, ed and was and had, let's mark them again, are the inflected elements and the gray ones calling and called are non-finite forms. The participle forms are referred to as non-finite verb forms. In a non-finite verb group all existing verbs are non-finite, they are always marked blue, calling him, having called him, having been called and so on and so forth. The final distinction concerns the syntactic status of full verbs. Syntactically full verbs can be subdivided into transitive and intransitive verbs. A verb is transitive if it requires one or several non-subject arguments. Well let's look at some examples first. Here are transitive verbs, Mary loves John. The argument, the non-subject argument is of course the object John, one argument, an object noun phrase. In Mary gives John the book we have two arguments that is two object noun phrases where the first one John is an indirect object and the book is a direct object. And in put we also have two arguments, one object, the book and a prepositional phrase complement, you might want to call this an obligatory adverbial. So all these verbs are transitive verbs. A verb is intransitive by contrast if it does not occur with non-subject arguments. So we have verbs such as sing in Mary is singing and rain in Mary in it is raining, sorry it is raining. Now note that both verbs can be made transitive in a special reading such as Mary is singing a song and it is raining cats and dogs. But in any case it is the verb, the verb's argument structure that is the basis that constitutes the basis for this type of distinction. Well that's it, let us summarize. Having drawn a distinction between auxiliary verbs and lexical verbs, including a discussion of types of auxiliaries using morphological and syntactic criteria, we have now added a subdivision of lexical verbs into full verbs and cutinative verbs. Both are lexical verbs, they can all be inflected, cutinative verbs however are syntactically different. As far as tense and negation are concerned the TN, tense negation criteria, they are more flexible as far as their transitivity status is concerned they are restricted. With this picture of the formal aspects of the verb in present-day English in mind, we should now have a solid understanding of an essential part of present-day English syntax. What is missing are the functional properties of the verb, phenomena such as tense, aspect, modality, mood, voice. These will be discussed in additional e-lectures devoted to functional aspects of the verb in present-day English. Until then, thanks for your attention and see you again.