你何不自己读一下剑桥英语语法对此问题的论述，掌握第一手资料呢？以下为该书1236-1237页的有关内容：
3Bii: matrix passive allowed (I heard them arrive/arriving ; I heard the window broken)
[42]
feel TU (B) hear TU (B) notice TU B observe TU (B) overhear (B) see1 TU (B)
watch B
These verbs, together with smell from Class 3Cii below, are the verbs of sensory per
ception. All take bare infinitivals, while those where the ‘B’ is parenthesised take a to
infinitival as well. For see we have the following possibilities:
[43] i a. We saw Kim leave the bank. b.∗
Kim was seen leave the bank.
ii a. We saw Kim leaving the bank. b. Kim was seen leaving the bank.
iii a. We saw Spurs beaten by United. b. ?
Spurs were seen beaten by United.
iv a. We saw him to be an impostor. b. He was seen to be an impostor.
We put the to-infinitival last because this does not represent the primary sense: it is not
a matter of sensory perception but of mental inference. In this construction, see behaves
like the verbs of cognition/saying (Class 3Aii), following their pattern of favouring a
matrix passive and the verb be in the subordinate clause, of allowing the perfect (He was
seen to have altered the figures), and of alternating with the finite construction (We saw
that he was an imposter).
The primary sense, illustrated in [43i–iii], involves two arguments, an experiencer and
a stimulus (the situation perceived): Kim in [i–ii] thus does not represent an argument of
see. We demonstrated this for the gerund-participial construction in §3.2.2, but it holds
for the other form-types too; this is why there is equivalence between [iiia] and We saw
United beat Spurs.
The gerund-participial in [43ii] has progressive meaning: in [i] we saw the whole
event of Kim’s leaving the bank, in [ii] a segment of it – the contrast is the same as that
between Kim left the bank and Kim was leaving the bank. The progressive auxiliary be
cannot be used (∗
We saw Kim be leaving the bank), and passive be is likewise omitted to
give [iiia] instead of ∗
We saw Spurs be beaten by United.
42
The bare infinitival does not allow matrix passivisation, as is evident from [43ib]. The
to-infinitival, however, has a wider range of use in the passive than in the active:
[44] a. ∗
We saw Kim to leave the bank. b. Kim was seen to leave the bank.
It is therefore tempting to see [44b] as filling the gap created by the ungrammaticality
of [43ib] (parallel to the case with make: We made Kim leave the bank ; ∗
Kim was made
leave the bank; Kim was made to leave the bank). Yet it is doubtful if the sense is quite the
same: [44b] has at least a trace of the cognitive component of meaning noted above for
[43iv]. Compare, for example:
[45] i They had seen him drive, so everyone decided to go by bus.
ii He had been seen to drive, so everyone decided to go by bus.
Notice that [i] is perfectly coherent, but [ii] is not. In [i] they had perceived the event,
and hence the manner of his driving, and we infer that it was the latter that made them
decide to go by bus. But in [ii] it is the fact of his driving that had been registered, and
this doesn’t provide an obvious reason for them to go by bus.
None of the other sense verbs shows quite the same range as see. The closest is feel but
construction [43iii] is here virtually restricted to reflexives or body parts (I felt myself/
my leg grabbed from behind ). With hear and overhear [iv] is virtually excluded in the
active (∗
We’d heard him to be an impostor) and in the passive we have again the problem
of distinguishing between the senses of [i] and [iv]: we do not have ∗
He was heard to be an
impostor (where see would be quite normal), but only examples like He was heard to lock
the door, which is very close to They heard him lock the door.
43 Watch wholly excludes
the to-infinitival, whether active or passive. Notice and observe are hardly possible in
[iii], and notice is also marginal in [iv]. Smell is generally restricted to [ii], and hence is
listed in Class 3Cii below; it combines predominantly with burn (I can smell something
burning).
