I could hear something rattling/rattle

The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (Huddleston and Pullum) says under the section "Past time could" at page 197 that it is possible to say

(1) I could hear something rattling. [actualised ability (says CGEL)]

but not possible to say

(2) * I could hear something rattle.

because rattle would be "perfective", says CGEL.

CGEL specifically says that "could does not normally appear in affirmative contexts when it is a matter of actualisation of a single situation viewed perfectively."

CGEL has another set of examples on this issue:

(3) Last night I heard the clock strike two. (marked grammatical in CGEL)

(4) * Last night I could hear the clock strike two. (marked ungrammatical in CGEL)

Now, here's a conversation from an American movie "Real Steel" (2011):

Max Kenton: Charlie, I need you to teach him to box.

Charlie Kenton: Are you kiddin' me? He's no where near advanced enough to handle Noisey's voice command.

Max Kenton: Yeah, so we need you moves, your commands. Start over.

Charlie Kenton: Forget it, kid.

Max Kenton: From the ground up.

Charlie Kenton: Forget it.

Max Kenton: You were a boxer Charlie.

Charlie Kenton: Yep.

Max Kenton: Yesterday at The Zoo, you could see things happen before they even happened.

Charlie Kenton: I haven't boxed in a long time, I'm not starting now.

Max Kenton: You can teach him to fight.

Charlie Kenton: You're doin' fine, Max. You don't need me, sorry.

How come it's not "you could see things happening" in the movie?

Is it some sort of BrE/AmE thing? Or is the movie script just being sloppy in its grammar?

Solution 1:

Certainly (4) is grammatical, and can be proved by a counterexample:

Last night I could hear the clock [on the town hall] strike two, but by three the wind was in the wrong direction.

That is, the clock did strike two, and it was possible for me to hear that. It is an affirmative context of a matter of actualisation of a single situation viewed perfectively. CGEL is wrong to proscribe it, although its alternative was able to (also mentioned on p197) can be applied successfully.

That is sufficient to cast doubt on sentence (2), and while "I could hear something rattling" is probably more likely to be said, "I could hear something rattle" is not unidiomatic. Shoe's comment "In fact, perfective (rattle) implies a short burst of sound as against a more prolonged sound in the imperfect (rattling)" is apposite.

The problem with prescriptive grammar is that it cannot cover all possibilities, and dogmatic assertions such as the one you ask about may well not be right all the time.

Solution 2:

1 Someone laughed (a fact). I could hear it. 2 Someone was laughing. I could hear it.

You can connect hear and all verbs of perception with accusative + infinitive when you merely want to state the fact and you can use accusative and participle when you want to stress the progress of the action. Don't let you confuse by CGEL. Sometimes you find very subjective views such as English has no dative because in English the dative has no ending. That is one view. The other view is it is irrelevant how you express the function of dative - by an ending, by a preposition or merely by the position before an accusative. The function of dative is always clear.

CGEL tolerate only their view. The other view is not even mentioned or considered as wrong.