1

Lecture 6: INFINITIVE COMPLEMENTS

just like that-complements, infinitive complements are arguments of main clause
predicates (i.e., they are selected by a main clause V or N or Adj); the major difference
between that complements & infinitive complements resides in their finiteness: that-
complements are finite ([+T/Agr]), while infinitive complements are non-finite (i.e., there is
no overt marking of temporal information or agreement; their mark: the infinitive marker
to, which heads the embedded Inflection):
(1) John wants [ to buy this book] /*John wants[to watched this movie]/*[to watches]
VP
V
V IP
want I
I VP
to buy this book

A. Similarities to that-complements

like that complements, infinitives can be extraposed:
(2) a. I told her [that she should be more careful in the future.]
b. I told her [to be more careful in the future.]
c. It is important that you should know what you need.
d. It is important for you to know what you need.

like that complements, infinitives can be topicalized:
(3) a. That you love her is something wonderful.
b. To love her is something really wonderful.

like that complements, infinitives can be subject to the rule of clause shift:
(4) a. She wished with all her heart that every man in the universe should stay away from
her.
b. She wished with all her heart to be left alone by every man in the universe.
c. *She wished that all men should stay away from her with all her heart.
d. * She wished to be left alone by every man in the universe with all her heart.
like that-complements, infinitives show CRP effects: they never appear as objects of
prepositions; cannot occupy the structural Accusative position and cannot appear in inversion
structures (Nominative case).
(5) a. *I would be surprised at PRO to pass the test.
b. *I consider PRO to come to be easy.
c. *Is PRO to pass the test a problem?
B. Infinitives as non-finite mood structures (alongside the gerund & the participle)
We distinguish between:
finite moods (Indicative, Conditional, Subjunctive) (moduripersonale)
2

non-finite moods (the Infinitive, the Gerund, the Participle) (i.e. modurinepersonale)
English grammar analyses non-finite structures as clauses that can hold a syntactical function
within the complex sentence. We distinguish therefore between infinitival,gerundial,
participialclauses, etc.

The main characteristic of non-finite structures:
theydo not have temporal features. E.g. to go there orgoing there do not express, in and by
themselves, an event that is anchored in a certain time (the speaker cannot tell for sure when
these events happened). Generally, such forms appear in subordinate contexts, i.e., selected by a
main verb whose tense provides an anchor or a reference time for the event denoted by the non-
finite forms:
(5) a. He wants [to go there] (now) / I wanted [to go there] (yesterday) / I will try [to go
there] (tomorrow)
even though they cannot independently encode temporal information, they have aspectual
features(therefore, in certain cases, they can place the event before (anteriority) that of the main
clause
(6) He claims [to have been fired unjustly] (the firing precedes the claiming)

As such, besides the basic/default/non-aspectual form (to leave), there are forms such as the
perfect infinitive (to have given) and the progressive infinitive (to be reading) (or the perfect
progressive infinitive (to havebeen reading))

non-finite inflection (that which is marked [-T/Agr] cannot assign Nominative case (which is
assigned in a Spec-Head configuration with finite inflection only a V which bears agreement
features can properly identify a subject). As a result, non-finite constructions do not/cannot
have Nominative subjects (cf. (7)). They are often subjectless and when they do have their own
subject, this subject bears Accusative or Possessive (Genitive) case, never Nominative
(7) Mary
i
wants[ _e
i
_ to go] / * Mary wants [he/she/they to go]/ Mary wants [him/them
Acc
to
go] // [His
Pos
going there] upset me

C. The Classification of Infinitive Complements
- this can be done function of three criteria:
1.the criterion of form: we distinguish between long or full infinitive forms vs. short or bare
infinitive forms (required by modals, make, let, help (optionally), have (with the meaning to
cause somebody to do something), perception verbs such as see, hear, watch)
(8) They told her to leave. / They saw her leave.

2.according to whether an adverb appears between to and the infinitive, we distinguish
betweensplit vs. unsplit infinitives:
(9) She likes to look at the painting often / She likes to often look at the painting./ Captain Picard
wanted Starship Enterprise to boldly go and explore the universe

3. according to the way in which the subject of the infinitive is expressed or understood, we
distinguish between 4 main constructions:

3

a) The Control Construction or the PRO-to construction
- this describes the most frequent situation, that in which the infinitive lacks an overt subject.
(10) They tried [to arrive in time.]

The implicit subject is understood as co-referential with a nominal in the main clause. To
represent this, an empty pronoun PRO is used to stand for the missing subject of the
infinitive. The DP in the main clause with which PRO is co-referential is called the
controllerof PRO.
(11) Theyitried [PROito arrive in time.] / Sheipromised her mother [PROito pass the exam.]
The company persuaded himi[PROito resign.]

b) the FOR-to infinitive
The infinitive has a lexical subject different from the matrix subject and the infinitive
is introduced by the complementizer for, which serves as an Accusative case-assigner to
the infinitive subject.
(12) I hope [CP FOR [IP him to win the race]]. / They arranged [CP FOR [IP her to leave the
country]].

Next are cases when the infinitive clause has an expressed lexical subject, but this subject
surfaces/appears in the Main Clause, either as the subject (the Nom+Infinitive construction)
or as the main clause object (the Accusative + Infinitive construction).

c)TheNominative + Infinitive construction: the syntactical subject in the MC is in fact an
argument of the infinitive verb (i.e., it is selected by the verb in the infinitival complement, but,
since it cannot get case from non-finite infinitive inflection, it goes to get Nominative from the
main clause verb:
(13) He appears to be a good linguist./He seems to be a good linguist

d) The Accusative + Infinitive construction: the logical subject of the infinitive is in the
Accusative:
(14) I believe him to be a good linguist.
- the D.O. of the MC verb is in reality the logical subject of the infinitive: the pronoun him gets
the Accusative from the verb believe but it is the agent (an argument) of the infinitive (to be a
good linguist.)

These last two constructions are known as the raising infinitive constructions. They are said to
belexically-governed because they depend on the lexical properties of the matrix
predicate (i.e., they are manifest only with certain kinds/classes of verbs)
D. A closer look at Control vs. Raising
(15) a. J ohn
i
seemed [t
i
to kiss a ]. (Su-to-Su raising/Nominative +Inf)
b. John
i
hoped [PRO
i
to kiss a koala]. (subject Control)

- the two constructions seem quite similar but are quite different:
4

-theControl construction contains two theta-roles: the main subject is the argument of the main
verb and the empty subject PRO is the argument of the infinitive verb; so each verb selects its
own argument(s):
- in the Raising construction, the main verb is unaccusative (seem): such verbs do not assign case
and do not assign a theta role to their subject, hence the raising construction involves only one
theta role, that assigned by the verb in the infinitive mood
In other words, in (15a), the only role that pertains to John is that of a koala-kisser(>>John is
s-selected and theta-marked ONLY by the infinitive verb); in (15b) he has both this role and that
of the agent of hope, i.e. a hoper (gets two theta roles independently from the two verbs)

N.B.: further proof for the distinction comes from other grammatical phenomena such as
ability to host idioms or expletives in Subject position: only raising structures can host idiom
chunks (16a, b), since in raising the subject position is not theta-marked (& idiom chunks are not
theta-marked)
(16) a. There seems [t to be a man in the room] / It seems [to be raining]
b. The cat seems [t to be in the bag]
c. *It hopes [PRO to be a man in the room]. / *It hopes [to be raining]
d. *The cat hopes [PRO to be in the bag].

SO, (subject) control constructions differ from Raising constructions (Nom + Inf): control infinitives have
their own theta-bearing subjects (so they contain two theta roles); in raising infinitivals the subject is a trace
left behind by the movement of the subject DP into the matrix (so a single theta-chain is involved)

E. A closer look at Control Constructions (PRO-to)
E.1. Licensing and identification of PRO >> Why should we need PRO?
- as an empty category, PRO must be licensed (i.e. we need to account for its postulation)
>the Theta Criterion: the subject role in any verbs theta grid should always be discharged to
some syntactic position +
>the Extended Projection Principle (EPP): sentences (in English) need to have (overt) subjects.
(17) I forced them
i
[PRO
i
to leave].

E.2. Types of Control
Control configurations are divided in two types: obligatory and non-obligatory (i.e., optional)
a. Obligatory Control (OC): constructions that become illicit in the absence of an overt
controller (which argument of the main V is designated as the controller is a lexical property of
the V):

(18) a. I forced them [PRO to leave] / *I forced [PRO to leave] (obligatory d.o. control)
b. I promised him [PRO not to perjure myself] (obligatory subject control)
c. I tried [PRO to give up smoking] (idem b)

- Vs of obligatory control always select PRO-TO complements and disallow FOR-TO infinitive
clauses as complements; in OC configurations, the controller DP and the infinitive clause
which contains PRO are always co-arguments of the matrix verb.
5


b. Non-Obligatory Control (NOC): in NOC the infinitive need not be controlled by a clause-
mate DP. This can either be absent altogether (cases of arbitrary control (3)) or may be in a
clause higher than the one containing the infinitive (long-distance control (4)):

(19) a. [PRO
arb
to err] is human, [PRO
arb
to forgive] divine.
b. [PRO
arb
to vote for Vadim] would be a tremendous mistake.
(20) a. Mary
i
knew that it would damage J ohn
j
[PRO
i/j
to perjure himself
j
/herself
i
]

E.3. Verbs of Obligatory Control
By verbs of obligatory control we mean those classes of verbs that demand that only a
certain nominal inside the main clause should be co-indexed with PRO. According to this,
we can distinguish between:
verbs of subject control (where the subject in the main clause must control/is the
controller of PRO) the most frequent case in fact: attempt, promise, swear,etc.
(21) a. He
i
attempted PRO
i
to murder his wife.
b. He
i
promised her PRO
i
to give her a new ring.

The fact that only the subject he is allowed to control (hence be co-indexed with) PRO is
reinforced by the impossibility of interpreting PRO as controlled by the indirect object her:
(22) * He promised her
i
PRO
i
to watch a new show.

verbs of direct object control (where the direct object of the main clause verb must
control PRO) here mostly verbs of causation are included: authorize, direct, enable,
encourage, induce, influence, oblige, need, inspire, press, urge, inform, etc.:
(23) a. He forced the prisoner
i
PRO
i
to kneel down in front of him.
b. His curses inspired the boy
i
PRO
i
to utter foul words himself.

In this category of verbs we can also mention a small class including: appoint, elect, choose,
nominate, name, vote, etc.:
(24) She elected her husband
i
PRO
i
to run the hospital.

verbs of prepositional object control (where the prepositional object inside the main
clause must control PRO): rely on, count on, prevail on, depend on, look to, etc.
(25) You may rely on me
i
PRO
i
to help you.

verbs of indirect object control (where the indirect object in the main clause must
control PRO): tell, order, command, allow, permit,etc.:
(26) a. He told the maid
i
PRO
i
to announce her.
b. I leave it to you
i
PRO
i
to take care of it.

F. The distribution & Syntactic Functions of the PRO-to and For-to
constructions
F.1. The Distribution of PRO-TO Constructions
In this subsection we discuss which are the most likely contexts in which these structures appear:
6

a) verbs that imply the idea of responsibility and control: attempt, fail, try, manage, agree to,
aspire to, seek (= try), endeavour, contrive, refuse, decline, condescend, deign, presume,
venture, arrange, omit, scheme, care to, etc.
(27) a. He
i
sought PRO
i
to find out the truth about Freddie Mercurys death.

b) verbs such as abide, bear, afford, deserve, need, scorn, etc.:
(28) I
i
cannot abide PRO
i
to see such cruelty.

c) verbs of liking and disliking: choose, desire, expect, like, dislike, intend, mean, hate, prefer,
propose, want, wish, hope, etc.:
(29) a. She
i
wanted PRO
i
to become a famous opera singer.
Some of these verbs accept an accusative +infinitive variant as well. Compare:
(30) a. She
i
expected PRO
i
to receive an expensive gift from her boy-friend.
b. She expected her boyfriend to give her an expensive present.

Some of these verbs also allow a FOR-TO construction or a that clause:
(31) a. I would like for him to become president of the country.
b. I hate that you should say a thing like this.

d) verbs of mental state and linguistic communication: remember, forget, ask, conclude,
claim, threaten, suggest,etc.
Most of these verbs allow alternative that constructions:
(32) a. I remembered that I had to go to the post office.
b. I
i
remembered PRO
i
to go to the post office.

F.2. The Distribution of FOR TO Constructions
These structures normally appear in combination with intransitive verbs or adjectives:
arrange, endeavour, verbs of liking and disliking, bear, stand, be important, possible,
desirable, etc. The complement clause is usually extraposed:
(33) a. For all of them to have been killed is, however, unlikely.
b. It is however unlikely for all of them to have been killed.

The logical subject of the FOR-TO construction can be also represented by the expletive there
subject as well:
(34) It is impossible for there to be a war between your country and mine.

F.3. Syntactic Functions of PRO-TO and FOR-TO Constructions

Subject Clauses
(35) a. It was nice of you
i
PRO
i
to allow me to come here.
b. PRO to love ones parents so deeply is a natural thing.(PRO is interpreted generically)
c. It was important for them to be there.

Predicative Clauses
(36) a. The tendency was for the instructions to be more detailed.
b. Our
i
task is PRO
i
to investigate the details of this case.
7


Direct Objects
(37) a. I meant for him to be alone with her tonight.
b. I
i
would love PRO
i
to listen to this concert.

Prepositional Objects
They appear after verbs or adjectives which normally select prepositional complements (PPs).
Like in the case of that complements, the preposition is deleted, but the meaning remains; this is
why we call these objects prepositional objects:
(39) a. I decided [for J ohn to represent us.]
b. I
i
am curious [PRO
i
to see whether they will come on time.]

Attribute
This situation happens with:
a) relative infinitive constructions
(40) They bought her a book [with which PRO
i
to step on the path of knowledge.]

b) complement constructions (after abstract nouns derived from verbs or adjectives)
(41) My
i
attempt [PRO
i
to escape her] was a failure.

Adverbial
- adverbial of purpose (the most common function met with adverbial infinitives)
(42) I
i
slapped him PRO
i
in order to calm him down.

- adverbial of result
(43) The plate was too hot to touch.
- exclamatory, final or introductory infinitive. In this case, the infinitive is an independent
clause:
(44) To be perfectly frank, youre a bad driver. / Ive never met him, to tell you the truth. / Oh,
to be young again! (exclamative)

G. The distribution of Raising Constructions
G.1. The Distribution of the Nominative + Infinitive Construction
As previously mentioned, this construction is lexically governed, i.e. it normally appears after
certain verbs with special semantic properties:
a) A- verbs: appear, seem, happen, etc.:
(45) She appears to like him.

b) inchoative verbs (or change of state verbs): get, grow, come,etc.
(46) She grew to like him in the end.
c) constructions including the verb be: be to, be about to, be going to, etc.
(47) He is to come any day now.
!! With be going to there are two interpretations:
- The Nominative +Infinitive one: (47) I am going to be late / faint.
- Control construction: (48) I
i
am going PRO
i
to meet her at 5.
8


The meaning of (48), that of intention, is well supported by the syntactical analysis, that
presupposes the fact that PRO is controlled by the subject of the main clause. In (47), the subject
cannot control the action in any way (since we cannot speak about the intention of the subject to
be late or faint), hence there is no control situation whatsoever.

d) modal expressions such as have to or ought to:
(49) He
i
has PRO
i
to tell her the truth.

e) verbs of mental perception in the passive: be said, be thought, be rumoured, be claimed, be
considered, be alleged, be reported, etc.:
(50) He was rumoured to have murdered his wife.

G.2. The Distribution of the Accusative + Infinitive Construction
This construction normally appears in combination with:
a) verbs of physical perception
- basic ones that require bare infinitival structures: see, hear, feel, watch, overhear,etc.:
(51) They heard him insult her.

- neological verbs that require full infinitival structures: notice, observe, perceive,etc.:
(52) I perceived him to be known in his neighbourhood.

An interesting property of physical perception verbs is that they can make up both the
Nominative +Infinitive structure and the Accusative +Infinitive one. Actually, the Nom +Inf is
the passivized version of the Acc+Inf
(53) a. They heard Freddie Mercury sing last night. (Accusative +Infinitive)
b. Freddie Mercury was heard to sing last night. (Nominative +Infinitive)

b) causative verbs:
- with a bare infinitive: make, have, let
(54) Ill have you learn this in no time.
- with a full infinitive: get, cause, occasion, necessitate
(55) I couldnt get them to pay me my money.

c) verbs of mental perception : assume, believe, consider, understand, figure, picture, find,
imagine, remember, recollect, judge, deem, presume, know, discover, prove,etc.:
(56) I believe him to be a genius./ They proved him to be a liar / I consider her to be a veauty.

d) verbs of permission and command: allow, permit, suffer, order, command, etc.:
(57) a. I allowed [the trees in the yard to be cut down.] (I allowed this/it)
These verbs have the special characteristic that can be combined with PRO-TO constructions as
well:
b. I allowed the gardener
i
[PRO
i
to cut down the trees.] (I allowed him to do this/it)

e) verbs of liking and disliking: like, love, prefer, want, wish, desire, expect, mean,
choose,etc.:
9

(58) a. I would like him to be there at 5.

Like in the case of the previous class of verbs, these ones allow PRO-TO constructions as well:
b. I
i
would like PRO
i
to go there.

To sum up:
PRO-TO & FOR-TO have in common:
- the fact that they are not required by a certain class of verbs in the main clause >>
- both of them can hold practically the same syntactical functions:
Subject: a. PRO to err is human, PRO to forgive divine./b. It is important for himnot to err.
Object: a. He tried PRO to persuade her of his innocence. / b. I hoped for him to be there in time. (D.O)
a. I
i
am curious PRO
i
to see whether they will come /b. I decided for John to represent us. (P.O)
Predicative: a. Our
i
task is PRO
i
to investigate this case./ b. The order was for him to be killed
Attribute (with or without prep. or relative pron.): a. I need a knife with which to cut the bread./ b. My
i
attempt
PRO
i
to escape her was a failure./ c. My attempt for him to love me was a failure
Adjunct/Adverbial: a.He bought a housePRO to please her. b. He stepped aside for her to enter. (purpose)
a. The plate was too hot to touch / b. The package was too heavy for her to lift (result)

The Raising constructions (Nom + Inf&Acc + Inf) havein common:
- both borrow items from the main clause to round up their meaning.
- both appear only with certain main clause verbs, with special semantic and syntactic properties >>they differ
from the first two classes, which are said to be free, i.e. not required by certain verbs. 3c and 3d are lexically
governed because they are required by special verbs (such as want, seem, hate, appear, etc.)
>>
INFINITIVE COMPLEMENTS
Free Lexically governed
Control
constructions
They came PRO to
meet her.
FOR-TO
constructions
It is good for him
to meet her.
Accusative +
infinitive
They wanted him
to meet her.
Nominative +
infinitive
He is known to
admire her.