The complementation of cease Interpretations

Freed (1979) states that the meaning of the to-infinitive and –ing after cease is the

same as after begin and start, the to-infinitive expressing a generic or a series

reading,–ing by contrast, an ongoing, durative reading. According to Freed the

difference between these two readings after cease is that while the to-infinitive

implies that the event has occurred various times before and may not last until the moment of cessation58, –ing presupposes that the event in question occurs up until

the time of the cessation of the event. This difference can explain why if the sentence refers to the cessation of one ongoing occurrence, -ing is preferred to the to-infinitive; by contrast, when the sentence expresses an iterative occurrence

happening at various times, the to-infinitive is a much better choice than –ing (9-

11):

(9) Lacey ceased crying when she heard her parents come in the door. (10)?Lacey ceased to cry when she heard her parents come in the door. (11) Lacey ceased to cry whenever she heard her parents come in the door.

(Freed: 123)

Though the distinction made by Freed holds in many cases (since the to-infinitive

tends to express a series reading taking place at various times), it cannot be considered a clear-cut distinction in the case of cease. Duffley (2006) gives

examples of cases where the to-infinitive expresses the cessation of one occurrence

instead of a series of occurrences (12).

58

Freed (p.122) notes that with cease + to infinitive ‘the event in question is understood as having

occurred sporadically or intermittently prior to its cessation but not necessarily at the precise moment that cease operates’

153

(12) (…) She watched the child’s expression of fear as her father spoke to her. She ceased to sob and the light stole back into her face again. For a few moments she gazed up at Julia doubtfully, incredulously. Then gradually the dark eyes grew bright once more, and even began to sparkle as was their wont.

(LOB) (Duffley: 121)

Associated with the cease + to infinitive construction is very often the sense of

graduality (e.g. Dixon 1991, Wierzbicka 1988). According to this interpretation, the cessation of the occurrence expressed by cease + to infinitive is often perceived

as gradual (e.g. in (13) the validity of the rescue plan is seen to expire gradually).

Egan (2003: 224) states that the reason for the fact that cease + to infinitive is often

understood to express gradual cessation may lie in the fact that this construction does not make a reference to the actual point of cessation. The time of cessation, the exact moment at which the change occurs is not relevant for the cease + to infinitive construction. This may also be the case with cease + ing, which may not

express the exact moment of cessation either. Yet, as Egan remarks, there may also be cases when the moment at which the action ceases is indicated by the context; this is also the case in (14) (where anaphoric ‘then’ indicates the time of cessation).

(13) If the situation is not resolved within months, the rescue plan might cease to

be viable. (Egan: 220)

(14) The National Park had in March 1990 comitted itself to maintaining the ban which then ceased to be a domestic political issue. (Egan: 221)

The most widely accepted explanation of the meaning and function of the to- infinitive and –ing after cease is the one given by Dirven (1989) and also

Hamawand (2002) and Fanego (2004). Dirven notes that the difference between

cease + to infinitive and cease + ing is that while the former expresses the

permanent cessation of a respective occurrence, cease + ing denotes the temporary

cessation of an ongoing activity or process. According to this distinction, (15) implies that the buses have ceased running today but may still be running tomorrow, (16), by contrast that the cessation of this event is a permanent one.

154

(15) The buses have ceased running.

(16) The buses have ceased to run. (Dirven 1989: 131)

Fanego states that this distinction does not hold in all cases either since –ing can

also express the permanent cessation of the occurrence in question, as for example in (17). Egan also provides examples of cases where cease + ing expresses the

definitive cessation of the occurrence expressed by the complement (18).

(17) (..) Last Friday the big island’s second largest sugar plantation, Mauna Kea Agribusiness, announced that it would cease farming sugarcane. Beginning in November, nearly 9,000 acres of caneland will be converted to other agricultural uses. One third of the land producing sugarcane 20 years ago is no longer being cultivated today. (FLOB) (Fanego: 29) (18) They had just ceased being lovers with no explanation or recriminations from either side being voiced. (Egan: 223)

Another difference that is mentioned with respect to the two constructions is related to agentivity: the difference between cease + to infinitive and cease + ing is

seen as between agentive (cease + ing) and non-agentive reading (cease + to infinitive) (Egan 2003). Egan states that while cease + ing seems to be marked for

agentivity, cease + to infinitive is not. He defines the meaning of the cease + to infinitive construction as expressing that ‘a certain situation had pertained for some

time at time x: at point y (y>x) this was no longer the case’ (Egan: 224). As compared with cease + to infinitive, the cease + ing construction is defined to

express that ‘somebody was doing something at point x: at point y (y>x) this was no longer the case’ (Egan: 224). This means that while cease + ing is very often

associated with agentivity, this is not so in the case of cease+ to infinitive, which

frequently appears with non-agentive subjects.

Egan also gives statistical evidence of the prevalence of agentivity within the

cease+ing construction as compared to cease + to infinitive (Table 1). As this table

shows, the number of agentives is more numerous in the case of cease + ing than

155

animate subjects, only 120 have been found as agentive, however, in the case of

cease + ing, out of 59 total animate subjects 55 are agentive.

1st person 2nd person 3rd pers. anim. 3rd pers. inan. Total anim. Total agent. Tot. ag. non- ag. ag. non- ag. ag. non- ag. Cease+ to inf. 11 2,0% 9 1,6% 4 0,7% 9 1,6% 105 18,6% 130 23,1% 295 52,4% 268 47,6% 120 21,3% 563 Cease +ing 1 1,5% 0 0 0 54 80,6% 4 6,0% 8 11,9% 59 88,1% 55 82,1% 67

Table 1: Person, animacy and agentivity of cease + to infinitive and cease + ing based on

the data by Egan (2003)

An interesting explanation of the semantics of the to-infinitive and –ing

construction after cease is that by Duffley (2006). Although Duffley defines the

meaning of the to-infinitive and –ing after cease in non-temporal terms, his

observations, regarding especially cease + to infinitive are interesting and will also

be partially followed here.

According to Duffley the function of the to-infinitive construction after cease is

that of a goal circumstantial. He contends that the function of the to-infinitive in

this case is to put the focus on the state of affairs that ensues upon cessation. As a consequence, cessation within the cease + to infinitive construction is seen as a

transition into a new state (Duffley: 121). The cease + ing construction is defined

to have a different value from cease + to infinitive; it shifts the focus back from the

state of affairs ensuing upon cessation to the event which has been terminated.

8.3. The schematic meaning of the cease + to infinitive and cease + ing