Cover not available
Part of
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

ORCID logo | 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
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.63.16rud
References (25)
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Faulhaber, S. 2011. Verb Valency Patterns. A Challenge for Semantics-Based Accounts. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gruber, J. 1967. Look and see . Language 43: 937–947. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hundt, M. 2004. Animacy, agentivity, and the spread of the progressive in Modern English. English Language and Linguistics 8: 47–69. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sag, I. & Pollard, C. 1991. An integrated theory of complement control. Language 67: 63–113. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two 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. DOI 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. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 july 2024. 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.