Mood and modality

Besides the criteria of factivity and also implication, the occurrence of different complement forms is also explained by the criteria of mood and modality (Cf. Vendler, 1968 and Bolinger 1968, 1978).

The first significant approach to complementation in terms of mood is that of Vendler (1968). In his discussion on nominalizations, Vendler introduces the term ‘container’, which he defines as ‘the sentence root with a noun-gap suited for a nominal’ (Vendler, 1968:31) (a nominal is interpreted as the noun phrase resulting from a proper nominalization (Vendler, 1968). Vendler differentiates between types of ‘containers’ depending on their structure and also their compatibility with nominals (‘co-occurrence restrictions’). He presumes a close relationship between the type of nominal and the semantic value of the container.

As regards the to-infinitive and –ing complementation forms, Vendler considers that the choice between the to-infinitive and the –ing depends on whether the container requires the indicative, or rather the subjunctive in the matrix (‘matrix’ in Vendler’s term is the sentence undergoing a nominalization). Thus, Vendler states that ‘….we accept to V instead of V-ing more readily if the container does not clearly require the indicative in the matrix, and we accept V-ing instead of to V + more readily if the container does not clearly indicate the subjunctive in the matrix’ (p.65).

Modality is also used as a criterion in the analysis of complementation. Not only in generative accounts, (e.g. Levin 1993), but also in functional-cognitive approaches, it is treated as an important factor with respect to which complementation can be defined (Verspoor (1990), Dixon (1991) and Givón (1993)). In many cases, modality is used along other criteria, such as intention and causality (Verspoor 1990) and implication (Givón 1993) etc.

Bolinger (1968, 1978) distinguish between verbs that express unrealized possibilities (e.g. ‘want’, ‘wish’, ‘expect’, ‘hope’) and those that express real

40

happenings (‘possibilities conceived as actualities’, such as ‘enjoy’, ‘visualize’, ‘detest’, ‘understand’). The occurrence and meaning of the to-infinitive and gerundive constructions are defined in relation to the semantic value of the matrix verb. This means that the infinitive constructions will appear after verbs expressing unrealized possibilities (‘want’, ‘wish’ etc) and, as a consequence, they will have a hypothetical meaning. The gerundives, on the other hand, will appear after verbs conceived as actualities, and as such they bring about the ‘reification’ of the eventuality they are attached to. According to this distinction then, sentence (14) expresses reification, (15), on the other hand, potentiality:

(14) John started getting angry. (15) John started to get angry.

In Bolinger’s theory the meaning of the complement forms is defined with respect to the matrix verb, so that Bolinger (1968) even presumes a common meaning between verbs that require either the to-infinitive or the gerund as their complement. This common meaning in the case of the to-infinitive will be futurity, so that Bolinger considers that all verbs requiring the infinitive carry the meaning of futurity in themselves.

Another theory of complementation along a functionalist approach closely related to modality is that of Verspoor (1990). The main idea expressed by her is that non- finite complement forms are related to modality and as such they express more than merely indicating subordination to the matrix verb. Verspoor attributes the to-

infinitive a modal character so that she states ‘the to-infinitive might indeed be

regarded as a modal marker, very much like an auxiliary of modality or a subjunctive marker’ (Verspoor: 16)19.

19

Verspoor (1990) considers the modal character of the to-infinitive is motivated by the fact that the

to-infinitive alternates with sentences containing a modal verb or subjunctive mood, as the

sentences below show:

(16) He went to the store so that he might buy some milk (to buy…) (17) He is so tired that he cannot study (too tired to study)

41

Similarly to Givón (1993), who includes aspectual verbs in the category of modal verbs, Verspoor also treats aspectual verbs as modal in character. Following Palmer’s distinction (1974) between epistemic (where the speaker/subject expresses his commitment to the truth of the proposition expressed in the complement) and deontic verbs (which are concerned with action or event), she distinguishes between epistemic and deontic modal verbs and includes aspectual verbs in the category of deontic modals.

An important question that Verspoor analyzes in her theory is the reason that underlies the possibility of both deontic and epistemic modal verbs to appear with

to-infinitive and –ing constructions. In spite of the differences that exist between

them (epistemic verbs select complement forms realized as indicative that clauses, and also to-infinitive constructions (19-20) and deontic verbs select subjunctive

that clauses and also to-infinitives (21-22)), they are similar in selecting similar

surface types of complements (that clauses, to-infinitives, -ing); Verspoor tries to find an answer to what semantic motivation can be given in accounting for the fact that both types of modal verb may select to-infinitive and –ing constructions.

(19) I believe he is right.

(20) I believe him to be right. (epistemic meaning) (21) I insist that he go.

(22) I order him to go. (deontic meaning)

According to Verspoor, the fact that both deontic and epistemic modal verbs may opt for to-infinitives and –ing construction is due to the fact that they are both marked for causation20.

Verspoor differentiates between [+/- immediate] causation which she defines in opposition; thus, while [+ immediate causation] presupposes the simultaneous occurrence of the complement verb with that of the matrix and also implies that the event named in the complement actually takes place, [-immediate causation]

20 _{In Verspoor’s theory, causation is considered the feature with respect to which finite and non-}

finite verbal complements can be distinguished ‘because only those verbs that contain the feature [direct causation] may select a non-finite complement, I will argue that the presence or absence of this feature and the feature [immediate] will correctly predict the syntactic structure of the predicate’ (Verspoor 1990: 29).

42

expresses a future orientation of the complement with respect to the matrix verb (Kleinke 2002:36).

Along causation, intention also plays an important role in Verspoor’s theory (following Searle’s theory of intentionality, intention is defined in Searle’s terms as ‘any mental state or event that is either directed or can be directed’ (p.47). Verspoor points to the fact that the two notions are closely interrelated, as there is causality in every intentional state. Concerning intentionality she makes a distinction between prior intention (where the agent acts on his intention, carries it out or tries to carry it out) and intention in action (where the action and the intention are inseparable). This distinction, similar to the one between [+/- immediate] causation, contributes to the differentiation of the non-finite complement forms concerned. In aspectual complementation, to-infinitive is defined as expressing prior intention, -ing as expressing intention in action (Verspoor 1990). As the distinction between prior intention and intention in action is closely bound up with temporality, this differentiation makes Verspoor’s approach similar to other interpretations, where the to-infinitive is given a future value, the –ing, on the other hand, a durative, ongoing value (Bolinger 1968) (Wierzbicka 1988).