0

I would like more information about this type of construction. Good examples escape me at the moment, but it would be something along the lines of:

These conditions need to be satisfied for this plan to be successful.

I only know of it because I've seen it in newspapers/heard it on TV. But I would like to know more. Specifically, what type of construction it is, other infinitives of the same kind or family, when it can/should/shouldn't be used, etc.

Basically, a page of a grammar textbook that mentions this construction is what I would like to see.

  • 2
    Your example is of a purpose adjunct consisting of a to-infinitival that contains a subject. It's the presence of an overt subject in a to-infinitival that makes the subordinator "for" obligatory. Another example might be "The casserole should be cooked very slowly (in order) for the beef to become succulent", where "in order" is optional. – BillJ Dec 23 '18 at 15:20
  • 1
    Yes. For is part of the infinitive complementizer; it marks the subject like to marks the verb, but it's normally optional or disallowed, except when a subjectful infinitive begins a sentence, when it's required to indicate that the following clause is subordinate. One occasionally comes across a compound complementizer for to in local speech or old songs; it's generally a marker for a purpose infinitive. – John Lawler Dec 23 '18 at 18:47
2

From CaGEL p1178

To-infinitivals with and without subject

To-infinitivals with overt subject require the subordinator for

To-infinitivals containing a subject are always introduced by the subordinator for:

[20]

i [For them to withdraw now] would be a mistake. [subject]

ii It's not been necessary [for them to wait any longer]. [extraposed subject]

iii The best plan would be [for them to go alone]. [predicative comp]

iv I can think of no solution except [for them to sack him]. [comp of preposition]

If we drop the for we must also drop the subject, and conversely, for cannot appear without a following subject. Compare [20ii], for example, with:

[21]

i It is not necessary [to wait any longer].

ii * It is not necessary [them to wait any longer].

iii * It is not necessary [for to wait any longer].

Notice, moreover, that the interrogative to-infinitivals shown in [11i] and the wh- relative [11iia] cannot contain a subject:

[22]

i a. I can't decide [whether to go with them]. (=[11ia])

b. * I can't decide [whether (for) us to go with them].

ii a. He doesn't know [how to placate her]. (=[11ib])

b. * He doesn't know [how (for) us to placate her].

iii a. They have funds [with which to conduct a survey]. (=[11iia])

b. * They have funds [with which (for) us to conduct a survery].

The well-formed examples here all exclude for because the prenuclear position is occupied - by the interrogative subordinator whether, the interrogative phrase how, or the relative phrase with which. And because an infinitival cannot contain a subject unless introduced by for the asterisked examples here are as bad in the version without for as in the one where for illicitly appears.

From CaGEL p1222-1223

Adjunct of purpose

In general, infinitival clauses functioning as adjunct of purpose are sharply distinct from catenative complements. Syntactically, they can be preceded by in order and characterisically can be moved to front position:

[43]

i He walked [(in order) to save money]. [purpose adunct]

ii [(In order) to save money,]he walked. [purpose adjunct]

Semantically, they of course express the purpose of some agentive act and we accordingly have a very clear ambiguity in:

[44] He swore to impress his mates. [catenative complement or purpose adjunct]

The catenative interpretation is "He swore that he would impress his mates (in some unspecified way)", whereas with an adjunct the meaning is "He swore in order to impress his mates (by swearing)". In the adjunct reading, swore receives greater phonological prominence and in writing is likely to be followed by a comma.

With a few verbs, sch as wait and hurry, the semantic distinction is at times somewhat blurred - compare:

[45]

i. a. She was waiting for his letter to arrive. [catenative complement]

b. She waited a while to make sure he wasn't coming back. [purpose adjunct]

c. She was waiting to use the photocopier.

ii. a. He hurried to reassure her. [catenative complement]

b. He hurried, to prove he wasn't as slow as she claimed. [purpose adjunct]

c. He hurried to catch the train.

With wait the contrast is clear in [ia-ib]: the catenative complement identifies the event she was waiting for and the adjunct gives the purpose of her waiting; [ic] can be construed as a catenative construction, but at the same time there is an element of purpose. Presumably she couldn't use the photocopier immediately (someone else was using it or it needed attention), so it was necessary for her to wait. In [ii] hurry is equivalent to hasten in [iia], wher the meaning is that he quickly reassured her, or tried to do so; [iib] is straightforwardly purposive and readily allows in order and fronting; such fronting is very unlikely in [iii], but it is probably best treated as also purosive, for we could not here substitute hasten.

Go is a borderline member of the catenative category:

[46]

i She went to the Old Vic to see 'Hamlet'. [purpose adjunct]

ii She went to see 'Hamlet'. [?catenative complement]

It is quite clear that in [i] the phrase to the Old Vic is a complement with the role of goal and the infinitival is an adjunct of purpose. In [ii] (spoken without any prosodic break after went) the concept of a spatial goal is very much backgrounded and it is not implausible to regar the infinitival as having been reanalysed as a complement: we certainly cannot insert in order and do not interpret it as answering the question Why did she go?

| improve this answer | |
0

Using “for” or other related words like “in order to” communicate cause and effect. And yes, news story writers are notorious for writing like this as opposed to writing cause and effect events in temporal order with the conjunction “and”.

Using BillJ’s example and simplifying cause and effect. The casserole should be cooked very slowly, and the beef becomes succulent.

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.