Summary of omission conventions

The approach to grammatical description followed here involves relating together two constructions which differ only in that one includes and the other omits some minor element(s), and which appear to have essentially the same meaning. It generally seems appropriate to take the longer construction as more basic, and say that certain omissions are involved in the shorter.

It will be useful at this stage to summarize the major conventions for omission:

A. Omission of subject NP

A1. Under coordination. If two coordinated clauses share an NP which is in subject function in each, then this NP can be omitted from the second clause in sequence.

A2. In subordinate time clauses. One variety of temporal clause has its VP beginning with an -ing verb; if the subject of this clause is coreferential with the main clause subject then it must be omitted, e.g. (While) lying on the beach, Mary got sunstroke.

A3. From an ING complement clause. If the subject of an ING complement clause in object slot is coreferential with the main clause subject, or if the subject of an ING complement clause in subject slot is coreferential with the main clause object, then it is omitted, e.g. Mary hates having to wash up and Having to wash up annoys Mary. (An exception concerns ATTENTION verbs as head of the main clause predicate. Coreferentiality is rare, but if it is encountered then omission of the complement clause subject is not possible, e.g. John watched his fighting the tiger on a video replay.)

A4. From a Modal (FOR) TO complement clause.

The subject of a Modal (FOR) TO clause, in post-predicate position, must be omitted if it is coreferential with main clause subject, following one class of verbs, e.g. I need to mow the lawn; or if it is coreferential with main clause object, following another class of main verbs, e.g. I persuaded Mary to go. If the subject of a Modal (FOR) TO complement, in subject function, is coreferential with the main clause object, then this subject (and the preceding for) may optionally be omitted, e.g. (For her) to be expected to wash the car infuriated Mary. A WH- TO clause must have its subject coreferential with the main clause subject or object, and omitted.

B. Omission of complementiser that

The initial that may often be omitted from a complement clause when it immediately follows the main clause predicate (or predicate-plus-object NP where the predicate head is promise or threaten). The that is more often omitted in casual speech (e.g. chatting between friends) than in formal communication (e.g. in court or parliament). And it is more often omitted if the complement clause refers to some minor item of information than if it describes something of significance; this can be inferred from the meaning of the main verb used, and the NPs, and the context of utterance. Thus, in the (a) sentences below it would sound infelicitous to omit the that; in the (b) sentences that could be included but might be more likely to be omitted:

(102a) He promised that he would lend me two million dollars

(102b) He promised (that) he’d buy me an ice-cream

(103a) He mentioned that the king had died

(103b) He mentioned (that) Mary was coming to tea

C. Omission of relative pronoun wh-/that

A relative pronoun that or who, which, etc. may be omitted from a restrictive relative clause if the coreferential NP was not in subject function in the relative clause, e.g. The chair (that/which) you bought is the one (that/which) I sold last week. Once again, omission is more likely in a casual speech style, and when referring to something that is not of huge importance.

D. Omission of to be from complement clause

Some verbs taking a Judgement TO complement clause, whose VP begins with be, may omit to be, e.g. I thought him (to be) crazy. In addition, just a few verbs taking a Modal (FOR) TO complement whose VP begins with be may omit to be, e.g. I need my wound (to be) dressed.

E. Omission of predicate

If two coordinated clauses have the same predicate but different subject, object, etc. then the predicate may be omitted from the second clause (this is called ‘gapping’), e.g. John dug a long trench and Freddie (dug) a tiny hole.

F. Omission of modal should from a THAT complement

There is a class of verbs which carry an implication of obligation, similar to that of should. This modal may be omitted from a THAT complement clause following such a verb, e.g. He ordered that I (should) do it, and She suggested that John (should) propose the vote of thanks.

G. Omission of preposition before complementisers that, for and to

Certain transitive verbs which have a preposition as the last element in their lexical form may take a complement clause in object function. The preposition is omitted before that, for or to, although it is retained before an ING complement clause or a plain NP as object (and may optionally be retained before a WH- clause), e.g. He confessed to the crime, He confessed to strangling Mary, but He confessed (*to) that he had strangled Mary.

H. Omission of complementiser to

This must be omitted following a subtype of ATTENTION verbs, and following make, have or let; it can optionally be omitted following help or know. For example, He let Mary (*to) go; They heard John (*to) sing in the bath; She helped John (to) wash up. Note that to is not omitted from the corresponding passive, e.g. John was heard to sing in the bath.

I. Omission of after/while

A time clause whose VP begins with an -ing verb may omit the initial after if the first word of the VP is the previous aspect auxiliary have, e.g. (After) having dug the garden, John had a shower. Similarly, an initial while may be—but less often is—omitted if the VP begins with a lexical verb, e.g. John caught a bad cold (while) waiting for the bus.

J. Omission of in order

The clause linker in order is usually omitted before to or for, e.g. Fred rose early (in order) to get to work on time, and it may occasionally be omitted before that.