Last updated 26 Nov 07
Abstract
In the course of its history, English has seen a substantial increase in its reliance on non-finite clauses. This general increase has been accompanied by a recurrent change: the recruitment of an element from the matrix clause as subject to a non-finite clause. The change can be characterized in terms of a shift from a pragmatic control relationship to a syntactic subject-predicate relationship.
The best-known example is the development of the for...to-infinitive, where a (benefactive) for-NP serving as complement to a matrix verb/adjective/noun shifted from being the controller of the following to-infinitive to being its subject (cp. Fischer 1988). Compare:
(1) Window locks can make it extremely difficult for the thief to break in (CB)
(2) In these cases it is wise for
patients to be taken to casualty first (CB)
Drawing on Middle and Modern English corpus data (PPCME2, PPCEME, CLMETEV, CB), it is shown in this paper that the development of the for...to-infinitive is not an isolated phenomenon. Similar changes include, among others, the development of on...to-infinitives following the verbs count and depend (3) (cp. Rudanko 1988); the development of of...to-infinitives (4); the development of participial with-clauses (5); the development of presentative there-constructions (6); the development of participial pseudo-modifiers following nouns such as sight and sound (7) (cp. Declerck 1982); and the development of ECM constructions (8) (Los 2005).
(3) But can I count on your software to do everything you claim it will? (CB)
(4) they're re very afraid of their children to move around because of shelling or sniping. (CB)
(5) Well with there being so few people erm did you all do everything [...]? (CB)
(6) but, instead of the Queen, there was the leg of mutton sitting in the chair. (CLMETEV)
(7) the sound of the river raging among the rocks [...] spoke of a power mighty as Omnipotence (CLMETEV)
(8) the court ordered the boy to be held in custody (CB)
Apart from their overall similarity, a closer analysis of the various changes also reveals important differences. Firstly, the starting point of change differs across the various developments. The historically original relation between a non-finite clause and its controller may be one of postmodification, as, for instance, in the participial pseudo-modifier construction, but may also involve simple linear contiguity, as in the case of the for...to-infinitive. Secondly, while each change results in tighter integration between a non-finite clause and its controller, there is neither a simple rebracketing from controller to subject, nor have all changes reached the stage where the original controller has actually turned into a constituent of the non-finite clause. Telling in this respect are the difficulties some of the constructions pose to traditional constituency analysis (e.g. the presentative there-construction), or the hybrid nature of certain elements (with in participial with-clauses, on in the on...to-infinitive). As such, the various instances of change discussed show the interaction between a recurring development from controller to subject and the more or less idiosyncratic properties of specific constructions.
References
Declerck, R. 1982. The triple origin of participial perception verb complements. Linguistic analysis 10: 1-26.
Fischer, O. 1988. The rise of the for NP to V construction. In G. Nixon & J. Honey (eds). An historic tongue. London: Routledge. 67-88.
Los, B. 2005. The rise of the to-infinitive. Oxford: OUP.
Rudanko, J. 1988. On the grammar of for clauses in English. English Studies 69: 433-452.
Data sources
PPCME2 = Penn-Helsinki Parsed corpus of Middle English, Second edition.
PPCEME = Penn-Helsinki Parsed corpus of Early Modern English.
CLMETEV = Corpus of Late Modern English texts (extended version).
CB = Collins Cobuild Corpus.
© 2007 Hubert Cuyckens
Last updated 26 Nov 07