The verb hangen is listed in most grammars as a semi-aspectual non-main verb, on a par with zittento sit, liggento lie, staanto stand and lopento walk discussed in Section 6.3.1, despite the fact that it has a number of distinctive features that call into question whether it can really be mechanically analyzed as a semi-aspectual verb when combined with a te-infinitive. We will argue that although hangen can be analyzed as a semi-aspectual verb in a limited number of cases, it normally functions as a main verb when accompanied by a te-infinitive. Our investigation will lead to the conclusion that zittento sit, liggento lie, etc. can also be used as main verbs in such cases.

Section 6.3.1, sub I, illustrated with example (177a) that semi-aspectual verbs are often interchangeable. This does not seem to be true for hangen, as can be seen from the fact that example (177b) sounds extremely strange and that the string [hangt te lezen] cannot be found on the internet in the intended sense. The reason for the more limited distribution of hangen seems to be that it is very difficult to suppress the lexical meaning of the corresponding main verb.

In general, constructions with hangen + te-infinitive are rarer than with the semi-aspectual verbs mentioned above. A typical example in which this combination can be used is given in (178a), but this example differs in several respects from the more usual semi-aspectual constructions. However, it can be seen that it does not usually exhibit the infinitivus-pro-participio (IPP) effect; the most natural way to form the perfect-tense counterpart is as in (178b) with the participle gehangen. Note that the corresponding perfect-tense construction in (178c) with the IPP-effect seems to be possible, but a Google search (November 15, 2023) for [te drogen heeft gehangen] and [heeft hangen te drogen] shows that the latter hardly ever occurs: after manual exclusion of the irrelevant case, there were only two cases with the IPP-effect (the cases without IPP were only cursory checked).

The main point for our present purposes is that example (178b) shows that we should at least allow an analysis in which the verb hangen functions not as a semi-aspectual but as a main verb. The fact that hangen appears as a past participle would be unexpected if the te-infinitive in (178b) were the main verb, since the IPP-effect is usually obligatory in verbal complexes of the type Auxperfect-V(non-)main-(te) Vinf. Another independent reason for rejecting a verbal analysis of the te-infinitive is that it seems a robust generalization that main verbs in the form of te-infinitives appear last in the clause-final verb cluster; the fact that the te-infinitive precedes the past participle in (178b) thus strongly militates against analyzing it as a verb. A reason for assuming that hangen can be used as a main verb in (178a) is the fact, illustrated in (179), that it exhibits the causative alternation discussed in Section 3.2.3, just like the unambiguous main verb hangen in the pair De jas hangt in de kastThe coat is hanging in the closet and Jan hangt de jas in de kastJan is hanging the coat in the closet. By definition, such alternations would be completely unexpected for non-main verbs, since they do not take arguments.

Nevertheless, it is important to decide whether hangen can also be used as a semi-aspectual verb in (178a), i.e. whether (178c) is part of Dutch core grammar or a case of hypercorrection. The first possibility seems to be correct, since example (180b) exhibits an obligatory IPP-effect in the perfect and should therefore be regarded as a semi-aspectual construction; cf. Haeseryn et al. (1997:974).

This strongly suggests that example (178a) is ambiguous between the non-main and main verb readings of hangen and that the ambiguity is resolved in the perfect tense. If this is true, we predict the following: in perfect-tense constructions such as (178b) without the IPP-effect, the verb hangen is a main verb and causativization is therefore predicted to be possible; in constructions such as (178c) with the IPP-effect, the verb hangen is a non-main verb and causativization is predicted to be impossible. The examples in (181) show that these predictions are indeed correct.

Recapitulating, we can conclude that the discussion so far has shown that constructions with hangen + te-infinitive exhibit several properties that are unexpected if hangen functions categorically as a semi-aspectual verb: (i) the lexical meaning of the main verb hangen is difficult to suppress, (ii) the IPP-effect often does not occur, (iii) the te-infinitive can precede the clause-final verb cluster, and (iv) constructions with hangen can undergo causativization. These properties strongly suggest that hangen can be used as a main verb when accompanied by a (nonverbal) te-infinitive. Recall that this does not mean that hangen is never used as a semi-aspectual verb; cf. the examples in (180).

The fact that hangen can be used as a main verb when accompanied by a nonverbal te-infinitive leads to the expectation that the main verbs zittento sit, liggento lie, staan and lopento walk can also sometimes be combined with a nonverbal te-infinitive. Fortunately, we now have three tests that can be used to distinguish the main verbs from the semi-aspectual ones: (i) the occurrence of the IPP-effect, (ii) the placement of the te-infinitive relative to the (other) verbs, and (iii) causativization. Now consider the examples in (182) and (183). The examples in (182) show that with a typical activity verb such as lezento read we find all the properties attributed to semi-aspectual constructions; IPP is obligatory, the te-infinitive must follow the verb liggento lie, and causativization is impossible. Note that the verb leggento put in (182d) is the causative counterpart of liggento lie.

The examples in (183), on the other hand, seem ambiguous, as is clear from the optionality of the IPP-effect; the numbers in brackets following the perfect-tense examples in (183b&c) refer to the results of a Google search (November 15, 2023) on the strings [heeft/hebben liggen te drogen] and [te drogen heeft/hebben gelegen]. As expected, the examples in (183b&c) also show that the placement of the te-infinitive depends on the occurrence of IPP; the te-infinitive in the construction with IPP is verbal and must therefore follow liggen, whereas the te-infinitive in the construction without IPP is nonverbal and must therefore precede liggen. Finally, the acceptability of the causative construction in (183d) clearly shows that liggen need not be interpreted as a semi-aspectual non-main verb in (183a), but can also be interpreted as a main verb.

A similar conclusion can be drawn from the behavior of particle verbs such as wegrottento rot: when a te-infinitive is verbal, the particle and the verbal part are separated by the infinitival marker te, but this is not the case when a te-infinitive is nonverbal. Because weg te rotten can only be construed as verbal, the acceptability contrast between (184b&c) shows that te-infinitives in constructions with IPP and te-infinitives in constructions without IPP have a different categorial status

This subsection has shown that verbs like zittento sit, liggento lie, staanto stand and hangento hang should not be mechanically analyzed as semi-aspectual verbs when combined with a te-infinitive, because they can potentially be used either as main verbs or as semi-aspectual (i.e. non-main) verbs. The two cases can be distinguished by considering (i) whether they exhibit the IPP-effect in the corresponding perfect-tense constructions, (ii) the placement of the te-infinitive with respect to the clause-final verbs, and (iii) the possibility of causativization, as in (185).

	main verb	non-main verb
IPP	—	+
Order w.r.t. (other) clause-final verbs	nonverbal te-infinitive precedes the clause-final verbs	verbal te-infinitive follows the clause-final verbs
causativization	+	—

If the analysis in this subsection is on the right track, we should conclude that the te-infinitive is nonverbal in nature when verbs such as zitten are used as main verbs, and thus are not part of the verbal complex. This raises the question of the function of the te-infinitive in such cases. A plausible analysis would be that it functions as a complementive, as the examples in (186) show that it must be immediately left-adjacent to the clause-final verb cluster, a hallmark of such phrases; cf. Section 2.2.

Although causativization is restricted to a small group of unaccusative verbs, we can certainly use the pattern in the first two rows of Table (185) as a diagnostic for determining the (non-)verbal status of te-infinitives in general: this leads to the generalizations in (187), which will be applied in the following subsections to the constructions in (175).

This subsection examines whether zijnto be and vinden/achtento consider function as non-main verbs in the primeless examples in (188), as claimed in Haeseryn et al. (1997:956). This proposal is somewhat surprising, since it is noted later on p.1037 that these cases are quite similar to the complementive constructions in the primed examples. Note in passing that the difference between vinden and achten is a matter of register, the latter being used mainly in formal contexts.

If we assume that the te-infinitives are like the adjectives in that they also function as complementives, we can immediately account for the following two facts illustrated in (189): there is no IPP-effect in the corresponding perfect-tense constructions, and the te-infinitives must precede the verbs zijn and vinden when they are in clause-final position; cf. the generalizations in (187). Note in passing that wezen in (189a) is the form of zijn that normally occurs in IPP-contexts, as is clear from the fact that Jan is wezen vissenJan has been fishing functions as the perfect-tense counterpart of Jan is vissenJan is fishing; cf. Section 6.4.2 for discussion.

We will adopt the complementive analysis here, also because analyzing the verbs zijn and vinden in (189) as non-main verbs would undermine the otherwise robust generalization that verbal te-infinitives always appear last in the clause-final verb cluster. A more detailed discussion of the primeless examples in (188) is given in the section on modal infinitives in Chapter A31.

This subsection discusses whether the verbs gevento give, hebbento have and krijgento get function as non-main verbs in the examples in (190), as suggested in Haeseryn et al. (1997:956).

The fact that the verbs in (190) express the same meaning as the unambiguous main verbs in (191) strongly suggests that the verbs gevento give, hebbento have, and krijgento get also function as main verbs in the former examples.

Again, Haeseryn et al. (1997:1030-1/44) suggests the same by saying that the te-infinitives can function as postnominal modifiers, i.e. that te eten in (190) can function as a kind of reduced relative clause of the nominal expression erg veel. Such an analysis is supported by the fact that the combination of the noun phrase and the te-infinitive can be placed in clause-initial position, as shown by the primeless examples in (192). A possible problem, however, is that it is also possible to strand the te-infinitive, as in the primed examples, which is usually not possible with postnominal modifiers.

Another virtue of the alternative analysis is that it immediately accounts for the fact, illustrated in (193), that the construction does not exhibit the IPP-effect and that the te-infinitive can precede the clause-final verbs; cf. (187).

We will therefore adopt the alternative analysis here, also because analyzing the verbs geven, hebben and krijgen as non-main verbs would again undermine the otherwise robust generalization that te-infinitives with the function of main verb always appear last in clause-final verb clusters.

Besides the constructions discussed above, Haeseryn et al. (1997:1029) distinguishes a second type of hebben/krijgen + te-infinitive construction with a deontic modal meaning. The examples in (194) show that in such cases the te-infinitive often seems to be possible both before and after the finite verb in clause-final position, as is also clear from the fact that both orders can be easily found on the internet by using a Google search for the search strings [te doen heeft wat], [heeft te doen wat], [tegenslagen te verwerken had] and [tegenslagen had te verwerken].

However, it is not so clear what examples of the type in (194) tell us, because they seem idiomatic and belong to the formal register. This is especially clear for example (194a), since (195) shows that this example cannot occur in the perfect tense, which also makes it impossible to test whether it exhibits the IPP-effect.

The examples in (196) show that (194b) has a perfect counterpart; that the IPP-effect does not occur and hat the te-infinitive must precede the past participle gehad shows that the te-infinitive is nonverbal. This means that the order had te verwerken in (194b) may be a case of hypercorrection, a common feature of constituents resembling verbal elements (here: te verwerken); cf. Haeseryn et al. (1997:111).

Because of the problems discussed above, we will set aside the examples in (194), along with many other idiom-like expressions with hebben/krijgen mentioned in Haeseryn et al. (1997:1029ff). The fact that these expressions usually allow, prefer or require the te-infinitive to be placed to the left of the clause-final verbs suggests that the te-infinitives involved are nonverbal in nature; the less frequent cases in which these nonverbal te-infinitives follow the clause-final verbs should then again be seen as hypercorrection or imperfect learning of the formal register.

We conclude with a discussion of examples such as (197a). The (b)-examples show the by now familiar properties of constructions with a nonverbal te-infinitive: there is no IPP-effect and the te-infinitive precedes the clause-final verbs.

The examples in (198) pose a possible problem for the claim that komen functions as a main verb when combined with a te-infinitive, because they seem ambiguous: the (b)-examples show that the perfect-tense counterpart of (198a) optionally exhibits the IPP-effect, and when it does, the te-infinitive must follow the clause-final verbs. According to Haeseryn et al. (1997:983), the version with IPP in (198b') is the more common one, which was confirmed by a Google search (November 16, 2023) on the strings [is * duur te staan gekomen] and [is * duur komen te staan]; cf. the number of hits given in brackets. However, we should set this example aside, since it is clearly idiomatic: the meaning is non-compositional and paradigmatically restricted, as is clear from the fact that neither duur nor staan can be replaced by any other form.

Other cases from Haeseryn et al. (1997) in which the te-infinitive exhibits verbal behavior are given in (199), but since these examples have an idiomatic flavor, we will ignore them as well. Note, however, that if one were to argue that such constructions are productively formed and thus part of Dutch core grammar, we would have to modify our earlier claim in such a way that, in addition to the semi-aspectual verbs discussed in 6.3.1, the semi-aspectual non-main verb komen is also capable of selecting a te-infinitive. This would not affect our more important claim that te-infinitives are nonverbal in constructions that do not show the IPP-effect or allow the te-infinitive to precede the clause-final verbs.

For completeness’ sake, note that (199c) has no past perfect counterpart with te: *dat het nare joch naast me is komen te zitten; the perfect-tense construction without te is acceptable, but has a different (more agentive) interpretation than the simple past form: dat dat nare jochie naast me is komen zittenthat that nasty boy took a seat next to me.