The Infinitive

Historically, the infinitive is a verbal noun. Hence its double nature: it combines the features of the verb with those of the noun. It is the form of the verb which expresses a process in general, i.e. a process that is not restricted (i.e. concretized) by person, number, tense, and mood. Because of its generalprocess meaning, the infinitive is treated as the head-form of the whole paradigm of the verb. In this respect it reminds us of the nominative case of the noun in inflected languages. From the infinitive we derive all the forms of the verb.

The infinitive has two presentation forms: marked and unmarked. The marked infinitive is distinguished be the grammatical word-morpheme to, historically a preposition. Similar to other grammatical word morphemes, to

can be used to represent the corresponding construction as a whole, e.g. you can read any of the books if you want to (read). It can also be separated from its notional part by a word or phrase, usually of adverbial nature, forming the socalled split infinitive, e.g. To systematically rid this town of layabouts, we must adopt a special law. The marked infinitive is an analytic grammatical form. The other form of the infinitive is unmarked; it is traditionally called the bare infinitive. It is used in various analytic forms (non-modal and modal), with verbs of physical perceptions, with the verbs let, bid, make, help (optionally), with a few modal phrases (had better, would rather, would have, etc.), with the relative why.

The Verbal Features of the Infinitive.

First, let us examine the morphological features of the infinitive. Like the finite form of verb, the infinitive distinguishes the categories of aspect, voice, and order.

to write (non-progressive, non-passive, non-perfect)

to be writing (progressive, non-passive, non-perfect)

to have written (non-progressive, non-passive, perfect)

to have been writing (progressive, non-passive, perfect)

vs. to be written (non-progressive, non-perfect, passive)

vs. to be being written (progressive, passive, non-perfect)

vs. to have been written (non-progressive, passive, perfect)

vs. to have been being written (progressive, passive, perfect)

It will be obvious that the paradigm of the infinitive is determined by the semantico-syntactic properties of the process. If the process is intransitive, we shall not be able to derive voice forms, e.g. to walk – to be walking vs. *to be being walked to have walked – to have been walking vs. *to have been being walked Consider a few examples:

1. John hopes to learn Chinese.

2. The courses to be taught are listed in the catalogue.

3. The term ‘discourse’ is seen to be being used extremely diversely.

4. He’s lucky to have found such a wonderful wife.

5. It’s better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all.

6. He looked too young to have been publishing for five years.

7. This bridge seems to have been being built for two years.

Of all the forms of the infinitive, the most common are non-perfect nonpassive forms. Such forms as used in sentence (3) and sentence (7) are less common. The principle is: the more simple the form is, the more common it is. Syntactically, the infinitive is similar to the finite form of verb in several respects: first, it is part of the predicate; second, it can be followed by an objective complement (e.g. John hopes to learn Chinese, where hopes to learn is the predicate and the infinitive is its notional part; Chinese is an objective complement of the predicate and, of course, of the infinitive; third, it can function as an adjunct, e.g. Man eats to live. Cf. Man eats so that he can live; last but not least, it can replace the finite form of the verb, e.g. All I need is the money. Ah, but how to get it? Transformationally, sentences like John hopes to learn Chinese have an embedded sentence of the form He learns Chinese. In other words, the said sentence is based on two predications: John hopes + John learns Chinese. This treatment is in keeping with the history of such sentences. According to G. O. Curme (1931: 49), the infinitive clause introduced by to was originally a clause introduced by that and constituted by a subject and a finite verb. Cf. I am not eager that I should go _I am not eager to go. As the subject of the subordinate clause refers to the same entity as the subject of the principal clause, the use of such a subject was redundant and, consequently, suppressed. Cf. John hopes that he will learn Chinese. vs. John hopes to learn Chinese. However, in cases where clauses contained different subjects, the subject of the subordinate clause was not suppressed. Cf. I should prefer to wait until evening. vs. I should prefer you to wait until evening. As already said, the temporal meaning of the non-finites is determined by its categorial properties: if the infinitive is non-perfect, it denotes a process which is simultaneous with the process of the finite verb; if the infinitive is perfect, it denotes a process preceding the process of the finite verb. As to their meaning in the co-text, the infinitives can be divided into two groups: non-factive and factive. Consider:

Mary does not want this news to be made public yet.

Mary remembered to visit her old friend.

The infinitive, unsimilar to the gerund, is said to express something hypothetical, unfulfilled, or future (Cf. D. Bolinger, 1968). Indeed, in the first sentence to be made public is non-factive, i.e. it denotes only a hypothetical process. In the second sentence, however, to visit is factive, i.e. it denotes an accomplished process. The actual meaning of the infinitive depends on the meaning of the finite verb or the finite- verb construction as a whole: if the finite verb is not implicative (e.g. want, plan, hope, be eager, be sure, etc.), the infinitive denotes a hypothetical process; if the finite verb is implicative, the infinitive denotes an accomplished process. To implicative verbs, or verb phrases, belong: manage, fail, remember, dare, care, venture, happen, begin, start, take the opportunity, etc. These verbs can be divided into two groups: positive and negative. (They were first described by L. Kartunen (1971)). Note that if you negate a positive implicative verb, you get a negative, or a nonfactive meaning, e.g.

John managed to get the loan (it implies that John got the loan). vs.

John failed (did not manage) to get the loan (it implies that John did not

get it).

But if you negate a negative implicative verb, you get a positive, or factive meaning, e.g. We didn’t fail to finish the job in time (it implies that we finished the job in time). The majority of verbs taking infinitive complements are not implicative (Marianne Celce-Murcia, Diane Larsen-Freeman, 1983:438).

The Nounal Features of the Infinitive

Semantically and morphologically, the infinitive is much more similar to the verb than to the noun: its verbal features outweigh its nounal features. What reminds us of the noun is the syntax of the infinitive. Similar to the noun, the infinitive can be used as the subject or part of the subject, part of the objective complement, the predicative, and the attribute1. Consider:

A.

To see his children again will make him very happy.

It will make him very happy to see his children again.

He was seen to leave the house.

B.

I saw the man cross the road.

Did anyone hear John leave the house?

We can’t let the matter rest here.

She would like John to go abroad.

They thought him to be an honest man.

C.

To decide is to act.

Our intention was to help you.

His desire was to leave the country.

1 The said functions are not on a par: the functions of subject and object are nounal

functions proper, while those of predicative, attribute and adverbial are shared by other

parts of speech.

D.

She was the last to learn the news.

He is not the man to do such a thing.

It was a sight to gladden one’s heart.

Поиск по сайту: