1

I intended Kim to interview both candidates. [raised object]

I intended for Kim to interview both candidates. [subject]

As shown above, The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language analyzes an intervening NP (e.g., Kim) not as subject of to-infinitivals (e.g., to interview both candidate) but as a raise object of the matrix verb (e.g., intended) unless for is present before the NP (e.g., Kim), in which case the NP (e.g., Kim) is analyzes as subject of to-infinitivals (e.g., to interview both candidate).

Also, CGEL (Page 1204) says:

A crucial difference between gerund-participials and to-infinitivals is that a non-genitive NP can function as subject of the former but not of the latter unless for is present (cf. §§1.4–5):

[13] i What I resented was Kim mistreating my cat.

ii *What I intended was Kim to interview both candidates.

iii What I intended was for Kim to interview both candidates.

CGEL continues on the next page:

We have no reason, therefore, to analyse the NP following resent as a raised object--instead we take it as subordinate subject, so that the syntactic structure matches the semantics.

Here, I think CGEL is assuming in [13ii] that [Kim to interview both candidates] (without for) does not constitute a subordinate clause (having Kim as subordinate subject), just because [Kim to interview both candidates] cannot follow [What I intended was].

Based on that assumption, CGEL is claiming in [13i] that [Kim mistreating my cat] does constitute a subordinate clause (having Kim as subordinate subject) just because [Kim mistreating my cat] can follow [What I resented was].

QUESTION 1

But does the (in)ability of 'NP + gerund-participial phrase' (e.g., Kim mistreating my cat) to be the predicative complement in a what-cleft construction determine whether the 'NP + gerund-participial phrase' constitutes a subordinate clause (having the NP as subordinate subject) both in the what-cleft construction (e.g., [13i]) and in the original construction (I resented Kim mistreating my cat.)?

MY RESEARCH

Then, see these examples:

(1) I didn't want Kim to mistreat my cat. [raised object]

(2) I didn't want Kim mistreating my cat. [raised object]

(2') *I didn't want Kim's mistreating my cat.

(3) What I didn't want was for Kim to mistreat my cat. [subject]

(4) What I didn't want was Kim mistreating my cat. [raised object?]

CGEL says Kim in (1) is a raised object.

Since (2) works and (2') doesn't, I think CGEL would also regard Kim in (2) as a raised object.

If so, Kim in (4) has to be a raised object as well, because there is no reason to analyze [Kim mistreating my cat] in (4) as a different construction from that in (2).

I think this suggests that just because (4) is possible doesn't mean [Kim mistreating my cat] in (4) constitutes a subordinate clause (having Kim as subordinate subject).

This I think effectively disproves the above assumption of CGEL, thereby possibly refuting the CGEL's claim in [13i] that [Kim mistreating my cat] constitutes a subordinate clause (having Kim as subordinate subject) simply because [Kim mistreating my cat] can follow [What I resented was].

QUESTION 2

Am I missing something or is CGEL's conclusion that [Kim mistreating my cat] in [13i] is a subordinate clause baseless?

Your Answer

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

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.