• Home
  • > Selected Papers
  • > Volume 1
  • > On the profiles of 'to' infinitives and 'to -ing' complements at a time of grammatical variation, with evidence from current American English

On the profiles of 'to' infinitives and 'to -ing' complements at a time of grammatical variation, with evidence from current American English

Both to infinitive and to -ing complements may involve subject control in English, but the article points to major grammatical differences between these two types of construction. In spite of the differences, some higher verbs have vacillated between the two types of complement in recent centuries, often undergoing change in their complement selection properties. The study draws on the TIME Corpus and the Spoken Part of COCA, and shows that the verb commit oneself has selected both types of complement in recent American English. It also examines explanatory principles that can be invoked to account for the variation, with the emphasis on a semantic distinction between obligational and non-obligational contexts. The distinction, it is argued, plays a significant role in explaining variation between the two types of complement.

Keywords: non-finite complements, to infinitives, gerunds, Bolinger’s Granaeralization, the Great complement Shift

References

Allerton, D. (1988). 'Infinitivitis' in English.  In J. Klegraf and D. Nehls (eds.), Essays on the English Language and Applied Linguistics on the Occasion of Gerhard Nickels 60th Birthday. Heidelberg: Julius Groos Verlag.   pp. 11-23.

Bolinger, D. (1968). Entailment and the meaning of structures.  Glossa 2: 119-127.

Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.

Denison, D. (1998).  Syntax.   In S. Romaine (ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language, volume IV: 1776-1997. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 92-329.

OED = The Oxford English Dictionary. Second edition 1989. Prepared by J. Simpson and E. Weiner. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech, and J. Svartvik (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.

Rohdenburg, G. (2006).  The role of functional constraints in the evolution of the English complementation system.  In C. Dalton-Puffer et al. (eds.), Syntax, Style and Grammatical Norms: English from 1500-2000. Bern: Peter Lang.  pp. 143-166.

Ross, J.R. (1973).  Nouniness.  In O. Fujimura (ed.), Three Dimensions of Linguistic Theory. Tokyo: TEC Company.  pp. 137-257.

Rudanko, J. (1989). Complementation and Case Grammar. Albany, N.Y.: SUNY Press.

Rudanko, J. (1998).  To infinitive and to -ing complements: A look at some matrix verbs in late modern English and later.  English Studies 79: 336-348.

Rudanko, J. (2000). Corpora and Complementation. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Rudanko, J. (2006).  Watching English grammar change: A case study on complement selection in British and American English.  English Language and Linguistics 10: 31-48.

Rudanko, J. (2009).  Exploring change in the system of English predicate complementation, with evidence from corpora of recent English.  In A. Renouf and A. Kehoe (eds.), Corpus Linguistics: Refinements and Reassessments. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi.  pp. 365-380.

Rudanko, J. (2010a).  Explaining grammatical variation and change.  Journal of English Linguistics 38: 4-24.

Rudanko, J. (2010b).  Tracking and explaining variation and change in the grammar of American English, with evidence from the TIME Corpus.  In U. Lenker, J. Huber and R. Mailhammer (eds.), English Historical Linguistics 2008: Volume 1: The History of English Verbal and Nominal Constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 29-44.

Vosberg, U. (2003).  The role of extractions and Horror Aequi in the evolution of ‑ing complements in modern English.   In G. Rohdenburg and B. Mondorf (eds.), Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.   pp. 305-327.

Vosberg, U. (2006). Die Grosse Komplementverschiebung. Tübinger: Narr.

Download

Download full text of the article as PDF