Article published in:
Corpus Interrogation and Grammatical Patterns
Edited by Kristin Davidse, Caroline Gentens, Lobke Ghesquière and Lieven Vandelanotte
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 63] 2014
► pp. 223–238

A new angle on infinitival and of -ing complements of afraid, with evidence 
from the TIME Corpus

| University of Tampere
This article argues that an approach based on semantic roles offers a new approach to the variation between to infinitival and of -ing complements of the adjective afraid. While the semantic role of the higher subject does not appear to vary, control theory makes it possible to investigate the semantic role of the lower subject. No absolute rules can be given, but regularities that are of statistical significance can be observed. The study draws on the first three decades of the TIME Corpus for authentic data. The results shed light on the semantic interpretation of to infinitival and -ing complements in subject control constructions and open a new perspective on the relevance of semantic roles to argument selection.
Published online: 14 November 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.63.16rud
References
Allerton, D
1988 ‘Infinitivitis’ in English. In Essays on the English Language and Applied Linguistics on the Occasion of Gerhard Nickel’s 60th Birthday, J. Klegraf, D. Nehls & G. Nickel (eds), 11–23. Heidelberg: Julius Groos.Google Scholar
Berman, A
1970 Agent, experiencer, and controllability. In Mathematical Linguistics and Automatic Translation, S. Kuno (ed.), 203–237. Cambridge MA: Harvard University.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D
1968 Entailment and the meaning of structures. Glossa 2: 119–127.Google Scholar
Carnie, A
2007 Syntax. Malden MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Dowty, D
1991 Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67: 547–619. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fanego, T
1996 The development of gerunds as objects of subject-control verbs in English (1400–1760). Diachronica 13: 29–62. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Faulhaber, S
2011 Verb Valency Patterns. A Challenge for Semantics-Based Accounts. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gruber, J
1967  Look and see . Language 43: 937–947. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hundt, M
2004 Animacy, agentivity, and the spread of the progressive in Modern English. English Language and Linguistics 8: 47–69. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, O
1940[1961]  A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, Part V: Syntax, Vol. IV. London & Copenhagen: George Allen and Unwin & Ejnar Munksgaard.Google Scholar
OED, The Oxford English Dictionary
1989 Prepared by J. Simpson and E. Weiner, 2nd edn. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, G
1995 On the replacement of finite complement clauses by infinitives in English. English Studies 76: 367–388. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006 The role of functional constraints in the evolution of the English complementation system. In Syntax, Style and Grammatical Norms: English from 1500–2000, C. Dalton-Puffer, D. Kastovsky, N. Ritt & H. Schendle (eds), 143–166. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Rudanko, J
1989 Complementation and Case Grammar. Albany NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
2006 Watching English Grammar change. English Language and Linguistics 10: 31–48. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010a Explaining grammatical variation and change: A case study of complementation in American English over three decades. Journal of English Linguistics 38: 4–24. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010b Change and variation in complement selection: A case study from recent English, with evidence from large corpora. In Corpus-Linguistic Applications: Current Studies, New Directions, S. Wulff, S. Gries & M. Davies (eds), 47–66. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
2011 Changes in Complementation in British and American English. Houndmills: Palgrave. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sag, I. & Pollard, C
1991 An integrated theory of complement control. Language 67: 63–113. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, J
2003 Meaning and context. In Motivation in Language. Studies in Honour of Günter Radden, H. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven & K. Panther (eds), 27–48. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vosberg, U
2003a The role of extractions and horror aequi in the evolution of -ing complements in Modern English. In Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English, G. Rohdenburg & B. Mondorf (eds), 305–327. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2003b Cognitive complexity and the establishment of -ing constructions with retrospective verbs in Modern English. In Insights into Late Modern English, M. Dossena & C. Jones (eds), 197–220. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2003c Zur Ablösung von Infinitiven durch -ing-Formen als Verbkomplemente im modernen Englischen. In Mehrsprachigkeit – Sprachkompetenz – Translation, L. Zybatow (ed.), 515–525. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2006 Die Grosse Komplementverschiebing. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka. A
1988 The Semantics of Grammar [Studies in Language Companion Series 18]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Duffley, Patrick & Ryan Fisher
2021.  To ‐Infinitive and Gerund‐Participle Clauses with the Verbs Dread and Fear . Studia Linguistica 75:1 ► pp. 72 ff. Crossref logo
Ruohonen, Juho & Juhani Rudanko
2019. Comparing explanatory principles of complement selection statistically: a case study based on Canadian English. Studia Neophilologica 91:3 ► pp. 296 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 july 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.