The use and function of the to-infinitive and –ing constructions

-Ing can have adjective-like and noun-like uses. It has an adjective-like use when it

functions as subject complement (25), as object complement (26), as modifier in absolute free adjuncts (27), or as attributive modifier (28). It has a noun-like use when it plays the role of the subject (29), a direct object (30) or when it appears as object of a preposition (31). – Ing has also uses when it is considered as half- gerund (Duffley, 2006: 17). Often –ing has the noun-like function of a direct object; instead of the possessive, however, it is often introduced by the common- case form of the pronoun (32). The half-gerund function is motivated by the fact that in such cases, the construction has a noun-like function, yet it does not take the possessive, which would be characteristic of noun-like uses.

(25) He stood brooding in the corner. (Duffley: 10) (26) I found him brooding in the corner. (Duffley: 12) (27) The two still knelt, tears running down their cheeks. (Duffley: 13) (28) The man writing the obituary is my friend. (Duffley: 14) (29) Giving up the violin opened a whole new career for Ilona Schmidt-Seeberg. (30) He was enjoying talking with her. (Duffley: 15) (31) I hope you are not angry with me for coming. (Duffley: 16) (32) Them coming here is no reason for you to leave. (Duffley: 17)

An important question with respect to –ing has been related to its status as gerund, participle or verbal noun. A significant difference between gerunds and verbal nouns is that gerunds have both verbal and clausal properties, as well as nominal properties, verbal nouns (or ing-of constructions) by contrast, only have nominal properties. (Cornilescu, 2003: 424). Although they are all DPs, gerunds and verbal nouns differ in their internal structures: while verbal nouns are pure DPs, gerunds also embed a VP structure. That gerunds are more verbal in nature than verbal nouns is shown by their ability to assign accusative case to the direct object whereas verbal nouns need the preposition ‘of’ in this case (34). Another difference which also points to the more verbal nature of gerunds is the

72

impossibility of co-occurrence between the perfect auxiliary ‘have’ and the ‘of’- marked object (36):

(33) Him /his selling the house at a good price pleased her. (34) His selling of the house at a good price pleased her. (35) Him/his having criticized the book came as a surprise.

(36)* His having criticized of the book came as a surprise. (Cornilescu: 421)

Another important use of –ing is its participial use, when –ing is a purely verbal form (e.g. the progressive construction). The participle functions as a modifier, a verb modifier or a noun modifier. It differs from gerunds in being a purely verbal construction (it is a clause and not a DP); it is also often subjectless, so that its subject is understood to be coreferent with the main clause subject (37). Wolf (1973) names as the main criterion to differentiate between the gerund and participial -ing the ability of the gerund to appear with a possessive pronoun or a genitive case, which is not possible for the participle.

(37) Waking up the next day, I found the weather was fine. (participle)

(38) I do not like his/him coming here so often. (gerund) (Wolf 1973)

The –ing construction in complementation is a gerund, having both noun-like and verb-like properties. Apart from the interpretations that define the meaning of –ing in complementation as closely related to nominalization (the –ing is seen as a nominalized form, e.g. Langacker (1991, 1999) and Duffley (2006) defines the schematic meaning of –ing as that of a direct object) and define the meaning of the complement construction as mostly related to aspectuality (-ing is defined to impose an imperfective reading on the complement verb), there are also interpretations (Wierzbicka (1988), Freed (1979)) where the meaning of –ing is defined in temporal terms.

73

3.4.2. The to-infinitive construction

The to-infinitive construction as complement can also have a variety of uses. A very frequent use is the subjectless infinitive construction (39), also called as a PRO-TO construction or the control construction (Cornilescu, 2003). This construction lacks an overt subject and the implicit subject is understood to be coreferential with the subject of the main clause. Another use is the for-to-infinitive construction, which is also referred to as a ‘control’ construction. In this use the infinitival clause has its own subject, different from the subject of the main clause (40).

Another use of the to-infinitive construction is when it appears as a raising construction. In these constructions, the to-infinitive may have its own subject which then surfaces either as subject (the Nominative + infinitive construction) (41) or as object of the main clause (the Accusative + Infinitive construction) (42).

(39) She promised her mother to study for the exam. (Cornilescu: 216) (40) I hope for him to win the presidential election.

(41) Melvin appears to speak fluent Japanese. (nominative+infinitive) (42) They proved him irrefutably to be a liar. (accusative+infinitive)

(Cornilescu: 217)

To-infinitives are closely related to modality. They are considered to oppose the

indicative, so that they are not compatible with a totally realistic basis (Cornilescu, 2003: 236). To-infinitives can have either the (+realis) feature (after weak intensional predicates like ‘know’, ‘understand’, ‘say’, ‘tell’, ‘assert’, ‘promise’etc.) or the (-realis) feature after strong intensional verbs, such as ‘want’, ‘desire’, ‘would like’, etc. An important difference between weak intensional and strong intensional verbs is that weak intensional predicates introduce only one possible situation or possible world in which the complement clause is taken to be true. The complement clause is entailed by the truth of the main implicative or factive verb.

74

Strong intensional predicates, by contrast, introduce a set of possible worlds, where the complement is intensionally anchored, so that the truth of the complement is not at stake (Cornilescu: 235). After aspectual verbs the to-infinitive complement constructions are (+realis).

An important question with regard to to-infinitive constructions is whether they are tensed or untensed complements. An important criterion to differentiate between tensed and tenseless constructions is the ability vs. non-ability of complement constructions to establish their own RT . If complements are tensed, they establish their own RT, denoting a different time from that of the main clause. Raising infinitive structures are tensed constructions: they allow for distinct frame adverbials as sentence (43) shows. The appearance of control infinitive structures with frame adverbials is more restricted; (control) infinitive constructions having the feature (+realis) are tenseless. Complement constructions after aspectual verbs (44-45) also appear to be tenseless.

(43) Now I firmly believe him to have lied yesterday. (44) *John managed to solve the problem next week.

(45) *Yesterday, John began to solve the problem tomorrow.

(Cornilescu: 239)

Although the complement constructions after aspectual verbs will be defined primarily in non-temporal terms, it will be argued that there is a certain time relation between the main clause and the complement clause. The situation denoted by the complement clause can be considered to develop out of the situation denoted by the main clause (Cornilescu: 243). Portner (1994) (as cited by Conilescu: 242) in his study on the infinitive form defines the meaning of this form as closely related to the time of the main clause. The main clause denotes an RT; Portner (1994) believes the complement clause denotes an alternative situation to the situation expressed by the main clause. This means, the situation denoted by the complement clause develops out of the RT of the main clause, it is ‘a continuation of the reference situation introduced by the main verb’ (Cornilescu: 242).

75