Non-temporality

Langacker (1991) attributes primarily a non-temporal value to the to-infinitive and –ing forms. The to-infinitive and –ing constructions are considered atemporal predications that impose a nominal reading on the clause they appear in. Langacker (1991) defines the function and meaning of complementation forms as resulting from the interaction of several conceptual phenomena like profiling, grounding, scanning and scope. 21

In the definition of the values of complement forms scanning receives an important role. Scanning has to do with the way a situation is viewed. Langacker differentiates between sequential scanning (where different successive stages of happenings are profiled) and summary scanning (representations of successive stages are superimposed to form a single gestalt) (Langacker 1991: 223).

He treats both to-infinitive and –ing complementation forms as expressing summary scanning; the idea behind it is that both the to-infinitive and–ing represent the transition to nominalized forms; appearing as a subordinate clause of the matrix they are considered to be nominal in nature. The difference between the two constructions is in the way they profile the complement verb in their immediate scope (in their profile): the –ing in complementation is given the same value as in progressive constructions - it is considered to impose on a perfective process an immediate temporal scope that excludes the endpoints; the to-infinitive profiles a

21

Langacker also uses these criteria to differentiate between finite and non-finite complementation forms. Thus, while finite complements profile temporal relations, non-finite complement clauses profile atemporal relations. They also differ with respect to grounding (the speech event with all its settings and participants); finite verb forms are grounded due to epistemic predication that relate the designated process relative to the ground (e.g. tense), non-finite verbs, by contrast, are not grounded (Langacker 1987: 127).

46

path-goal image schema, where the component states of a process are construable as a path leading to its completion (Langacker 1991)22.

Although Langacker attributes their atemporalizing function as a primary function to the complement forms to-infinitive and –ing, he also states that these complement forms can have temporal meanings (which Langacker considers as prototypical meanings of the to-infinitive and –ing constructions). These meanings are e.g. futurity for the to-infinitive (expressing an orientation towards the future) and a participal value for the -ing (so that it imposes an imperfective reading on the situation in question).

Following Langacker’s (1991) ideas to a certain extent, Duffley (2006) also defines the values of these complement constructions with respect to nominalization. The main idea expressed by Duffley is that –ing cannot be given an inherently imperfective meaning since the –ing construction can give rise to both imperfective and perfective impressions. Sentence (30) is an example, where –ing gives the impression of a perfective event:

(30) Hearing his cry, she dashed into the garden. (Duffley: 1)

Duffley (2006) states that the generalized schema for the –ing construction is that of interiority: the different uses of the gerund-participle form depend on how this schema of interiority is evoked. When the –ing form leads to a progressive, ongoing interpretation, the gerund-participle is seen to evoke at its base a perfective process on which it imposes an immediate temporal scope from which the endpoints of the process are excluded (this view of –ing corresponds to Langacker’s definition). In the other uses, where –ing gives a perfective event, another form of conceptualization, also called ‘reification’, takes place, where the

22

An important point that Langacker makes regarding finite clauses is that when they appear in subordinate that clauses their relation to the phenomena of grounding and scanning also changes. Langacker argues that the complementizer that, similar to the complementizers to and –ing also contribute to the nominalization of the process concerned. As a consequence, it can be said, that what is common in all complement forms (that clauses, to-infinitives and –ing) is that they all represent a transition to the nominalized form of the verb in the situation in question.

47

event is seen as an abstract thing. In this case the endpoints of an event are assimilated into the interiority of the event.

Concerning aspectual complementation, Duffley defines the meaning and function of the –ing construction as that of a direct object. According to him, except for a few cases (like in the case of the verbs keep and go on, where –ing has a participial value) –ing semantically behaves as a direct object, the only function that is has being ‘something which is V-ed’. Duffley provides syntactic and also semantic criteria to define the direct object status of –ing. The syntactic criteria listed by him are the appearance of the –ing form in the subject position of the passive sentence with the same verb (31), the possibility of pseudo-clefting (32), as well as the substitution by a pronoun in an objective case (33).

(31) Playing tennis on the new courts was enjoyed by everyone. (32) What everyone enjoyed was playing tennis on the new courts.

(33) Yes, everyone enjoyed it. (Duffley: 37)

Regarding the semantic criteria, the main argument in favour of treating the –ing form as a direct object is the relation of temporality of the –ing form to the main verb. Duffley argues that in many cases there is no temporal relation between–ing and the main verb giving examples of cases where –ing simply expresses a general fact. When there is a temporal relation between the verb and –ing, according to Duffley, this is attributable to the logical implication of the lexical meaning of the verb. Thus, while sentence (34) clearly refers to an ongoing situation, in (35) –ing expresses a subsequent relation to the main verb (talking is understood as taking place before regretting, whereas in 36) –ing expresses futurity in relation to the main verb; finally in sentence 37) it is not clear from the sentence if the purchase of a wig is simultaneous, prior or subsequent to it being mentioned.

(34) He was enjoying talking with her. (35) I regret talking to him about it.

(36) He readily postponed seeing him till after the departure of the former. (Duffley: 15) (37) Dad mentioned buying a wig. (Duffley: 16)

48

According to Duffley, the main semantic function of –ing in these cases is to express something that is V-ed, respectively something that is enjoyed, regretted or postponed23.

Duffley (2006) defines the value of the –ing construction in relation to the to-

infinitive construction. According to Duffley, the to-infinitive has a different

semantic value form the –ing construction, for it does not have a direct object function like the –ing construction so that it does not fulfil the criteria for direct object membership (consider the ungrammaticality of sentences (38-40). The main function of the to-infinitive construction in Duffley’s (2006) approach is to express a movement leading up to a point:

(38) Many countries simply continued to import oil from Iraq in spite of the embargo.

(39) *To import oil from Iraq, like many other commercial activities, was simply continued by many countries in spite of the embargo

(40)* Many countries continued to (*that) in spite of the embargo. (Duffley: 109)

An important advantage of Duffley’s theory is that he gives a schematic meaning to the to-infinitive and –ing constructions, but at the same time defines their meaning and function with respect to the meaning and function of the matrix. In all cases the meaning of the complement forms is defined in relation to that of the matrix: the impossibility or restricted use of an aspectual verb with a certain verbal complement is explained by a relation of incompatibility between the meaning and function of the matrix and that of the complement form.

It remains a question, however, if the meaning of –ing in aspectual complementation can totally be reduced to a direct object value, ‘that which is V- ed’, without regard to the temporal value of –ing. This is even more the question,

23

Duffley (2006) analyzes the occurrence of the –ing construction with different types of verbs (verbs of effort (like ‘try’or ‘attempt’), verbs of positive and negative recall (like ‘remember’ or ‘forget’), aspectual verbs etc. and shows that in most cases the semantic function of –ing is that of a direct object.

49

since in many cases a certain aspectual verb allows for several complement forms with slight differences in meaning, which also have to do with the temporality of the aspectual construction in question (e.g. the futurity value of the to-infinitive, the durative or ongoing character of the –ing construction).

The idea that in aspectual complementation, the –ing construction is atemporal, only having a direct object value, ‘something which is V-ed’, is in contrast with the value attributed to –ing by several other linguists, e.g. Wierzbicka (1988), Givón (1993), Freed (1979) and also Brinton (1991), who give the same value to –ing as in the progressive construction (‘expressing an ongoing activity’).