Kleinke’s approach to complementation

Kleinke (2002) states that the values attributed to the complementation forms in different approaches (in terms of temporality, modality, presupposition (factivity), causality etc. are too specific to account for all the uses of these complement forms. She considers that there are no uses of the complement forms that would be typical for all their uses. Neither the to-infinitive nor the –ing constructions has meanings that would be characteristic of all their uses. Sentences (43-47) express various uses of the to-infinitive construction: while in (43) and (44) the to-infinitive expresses future orientation, in (45) and (46) instead of a future value, the to-

infinitive has a habitual value. Also, while sentences (43) (45) and (46) can be

considered non-implicative, sentences (44) and (57) contain the implicative use of the to-infinitive, so that the situation expressed by the complement verb is understood to have been carried out to the end:

51

(44) I managed to leave the house. (45) I hate to smoke.

(46) She liked to sit and sew. (Kleinke: 49) (47) He forced me to clean the room.

Similarly to the to-infinitive, neither –ing can be given a meaning that would be characteristic of all of its uses (the temporal and non-temporal uses of –ing). Examples are sentences (48-51), which contain both the atemporal (48-49) and temporal uses (50-51) of –ing:

(48) Within an hour of my arrival, I regretted (the fact of..) going there.

(Wolf 1973: 61) (49) He confessed (the fact of..) having committed the crime. (Wolf 1973: 63) (50) Now cease (* the fact of..) complaining and start work.

(51) He was unable to continue (*the fact of) making his full contribution.

(Wolf 1973: 64)

The various uses that the complement constructions have made Kleinke (2002) conclude that complementation forms are very complex in nature and that their meaning and function can be properly accounted for if besides their schematic meaning their prototypical meaning is also taken into consideration. Both types of meaning are interrelated and fused within one form. They are defined as being closely related to the meaning of the matrix.

2.4.1. The schematic meaning of complement constructions

Kleinke defines the schematic meaning of verbal complements by combining Lyons’ (1977) model of entity and Langacker’ (1991) theory of profiling. In the entity model, entities (defined as ‘mental constructs’ (Dik 1997: 127) are of several types: 0 order entities express properties, 1st order entities express things that have existence in space, 2nd order entities denote states of affairs, 3rd order entities stand for possible facts; finally, 4th order entities stand for speech acts.

52

According to this classification, Kleinke includes gerunds in the group of 2, 0 order entities, as they describe state of affairs (processes, eventualities or states). She defines gerundives as having a regional profile, which in kinaesthetic interpretation corresponds to the “container” schema (Lakoff 1987).

To-infinitive constructions, by contrast, are considered 2,5 order entities, motivated

by the fact that they are less nominal, having a relational-regional profile (a path- goal schema). They express the emergence of a situation (the ‘instantiation of a situation’); the relational aspect of the to-infinitive is expressed by the preposition

to, which is regarded as a relational element with respect to the bare infinitive,

profiled as a region (Kleinke: 113)24.

Kleinke points out that all non-finite constructions get a more nominal character when appearing in subordinate constructions. This also happens in the case of to-

infinitives, so that when they appear in subordinate constructions, they become

more nominal and acquire a regional profile (which, however, will be weaker than in the case of –ing) (Kleinke: 115).

Another difference between the two constructions is defined in terms of scanning. Unlike Langacker (1991), who includes the two constructions in the same semantic group, Kleinke differentiates between them even in this respect; while –ing is considered to express summary scanning (motivated by its nominal character), the

to-infinitive construction is considered to express sequential scanning.

24

Kleinke brings up several reasons to show the more relational character of to-infinitives as compared to –ing constructions. One reason is the appearance of –ing constructions with possessives, which is not possible by to-infinitives, sentences (52-53):

(52) The children’s singing amused us.

(53) * I taught John’s to play the flute. (Kleinke: 115)

Also, there is a difference in the way the subject of complementation forms is expressed. While in the case of to-infinitives, the preposition ‘for’ is inserted, gerunds express their own subject by possessive forms, which also points to the more relational character of the to-infinitive as compared to the –ing form (Kleinke 2002: 116).

(54) For Susan to get married surprised mom.

53

2.4.2. The prototypical meaning of complement forms

The prototypical meaning of complement forms is closely defined with respect to the matrix. The prototypical meaning of complement forms varies, depending on the semantic value of the matrix they follow. These meanings can be futurity after verbs of planning and intention (56), modality after volitive verbs (e.g. ‘hope’, ‘plan’, ‘anticipate’, ‘suggest’ etc.) (57), implicative after predicates like ‘compel’, ‘force’, ‘regret’ (58) etc.

(56) She intended to leave on Sunday. (57) I hope to see you again.

(58) She regrets calling him.

In the case of aspectual verbs, the appearance of an aspectual verb with several complement forms (to-infinitive, -ing) is explained by the different ways the situation can be profiled: as a relational one with focus on the gradual phenomenon that leads to the inception of the situation (to-infinitive); or rather, the profiling of a situation in its entirety (the –ing construction). The fact that certain aspectual verbs (e.g. keep, resume, stop, quit, finish) only take –ing verbal complements is explained by the fact that these aspectual verbs are more strongly bound up with the profiling of a situation in its entirety. (Kleinke: 159).

Both types of meaning (schematic meaning and prototypical meaning) of complementation forms are defined in close relation with the matrix. Kleinke presupposes a series of relations between the matrix and the complement forms and also between the two meanings of the complement constructions. These relations, which she terms relations of tolerance and relations of determination, hold between the meaning of the matrix and the schematic meaning of the complementation form as well as between the prototypical meaning and schematic meaning (entity status) of the complement form (relations of tolerance); on the other hand, between the matrix and the prototypical meaning of complement forms (relation of determination).

54

The subordination of complement forms to the main clause also involves a relation between the grammatical form of the complement and the complement verb also between the matrix verb and the entire complement structure (Kleinke: 97). According to Kleinke, these relations manifest themselves in two steps: while the former expresses the schematic meaning of the complement forms, the latter leads to the prototypical meaning of the complement form.

An important point that Kleinke makes with respect to these relations is that both types of relations (relations of tolerance and determination) are relations of fusion, present and activated in succession (Kleinke: 99).