BEGINNING, TRYING, HURRYING and DARING

A Secondary-A verb shares all the semantic roles of the verb it modifies. It is thus, on a priori syntactic grounds, restricted to a choice from ING and Modal (FOR) TO, the only complement types that may omit the complement clause subject when it is coreferential with main clause subject. In fact, these two complement constructions reflect the semantic possibilities of a Secondary-A verb: an ING clause is used when the Secondary verb construction refers to an activity taking place over a period of time, and a reduced Modal (FOR) TO complement is used in a construction that refers to the subject’s getting involved in an activity.

The semantic contrast between ING and Modal (FOR) TO complements with Secondary-A verbs is illustrated in:

(64a) Mary tried telling that joke about nuns (but no one laughed)

(64b) Mary tried to tell that joke about nuns (but forgot how it went)

(65a) Fred started hitting Mary (but she cried so much he stopped)

(65b) Fred started to hit Mary (but checked himself before actually delivering the blow)

(66a) John continued painting the wall (despite all the distractions)

(66b) John continued to paint the wall (after that interruption)

Sentence (64a) implies that Mary did tell the joke (or a good part of it); hearing (64b) one might infer that, despite her best efforts, Mary wasn’t able properly to become involved in telling it. Sentence (65a) implies that Fred hit Mary for a period; (65b) could be used if he raised his stick, ready to bring it down on her head—if nothing else were said one would assume that he did hit her at least once, but the sentence could be continued as in the parenthesis of (65b). Sentence (66a) states that John carried on with an established activity, rather than stopping it, whereas (66b) might be used when he becomes involved again after having stopped.

All BEGINNING verbs can take an ING complement. Members of this type refer to the inception, continuation or ending of some continuous activity referred to by the verb of the complement clause. Begin, start, continue, go on and cease also occur with TO complements, whereas commence, keep (on), finish, stop, complete and discontinue do not. For most (perhaps all) of these verbs there is a semantic explanation as to why they do not take TO.

As discussed, finish has ‘object orientation’; in John has finished peeling the potatoes the activity terminates because the potatoes are all peeled. It would not be appropriate to use a Modal (FOR) TO construction, since this must relate to the subject’s involvement in (here, finishing) an activity. Cease, in contrast, relates to an activity terminating because of something to do with the subject—they withdraw involvement; so we could, conceivably, say He ceased to shell the peas.

Commence and complete are also object-oriented, referring to some definite and significant piece of work, and must take an ING clause referring to the durative activity needed to achieve the work. Keep (on (with)) implies uninterrupted pursuit of some task, and is restricted to ING. Continue (with) and go on (with) can refer to an activity continuing without a break and then take ING, as in (66a). Or they can—unlike keep (on (with))—refer to something being restarted, and may then take Modal (FOR) TO, as in (66b).

Cease, stop and discontinue have rather similar meanings, but there are also crucial differences. As discussed, cease can imply ‘gradually falling away’, e.g. My faith gradually faded during those adolescent years and I finally ceased to believe in God on my sixteenth birthday. Stop tends to refer to something terminating rather abruptly, e.g. I stopped believing anything Bush said when no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. But this does not explain why stop should not take a TO complement. The crucial factor here may be syntactic interference from the intransitive REST verb stop, which typically takes an (in order) to construction; thus stop in I stopped to eat is always identified as the REST verb, not the BEGINNING one.

Discontinue has subject orientation, like cease and continue, and on these grounds would be expected to take a Modal (FOR) TO complement. Interestingly, most verbs commencing with the negative prefix dis- may not take any kind of TO complement clause, even though the corresponding positive verb does—compare agree/disagree, believe/disbelieve, claim/disclaim, like/ dislike, prove/disprove, allow/disallow and persuade/dissuade, encourage/discourage. This lack may be in some way connected with the meanings of dis-and of TO complement constructions

Turning now to the TRYING type, we mentioned that try itself has two different senses. The first, which correlates with a Modal (FOR) TO complement, relates to the subject making efforts to get involved in some activity (but not necessarily being able to). The second, which takes an ING complement, relates to them engaging in it for a sample period.

As their meanings were described, attempt, manage—and fail, in many contexts—all imply considerable effort on the part of the subject, which is why they are found most often with a Modal (FOR) TO complement (although attempt and manage are, occasionally, used in an ING construction). Succeed and miss have a wider, more general meaning—it is possible to succeed with scarcely any effort, and one can miss (e.g. seeing someone) entirely by chance; only the ING complement is compatible with these meanings. The semantic difference between fail and miss is brought out in He just failed to run her over (i.e. he tried to slap her, but didn’t manage it), where a Modal (FOR) TO clause indicates volition, and He just missed running her over (he didn’t intend to hit her, but she seemed just to step in front of the car and he had to swerve), where the choice of an ING clause shows that the subject did not attempt to get involved in the deed.

Practise refers to a continuous activity, which must be described by an ING clause. Repeat refers to a complete activity being done again; once more ING is, on semantic grounds, the appropriate choice.

Looking now at the HURRYING type, hurry (over/with) takes both ING and Modal (FOR) TO complement clauses:

(67a) Tom hurried over eating his dinner

(67b) Tom hurried to eat up his dinner

Sentence (67a) would be used appropriately to describe Tom eating quickly right through the meal, whereas (67b) might describe him hurrying only towards the end, perhaps when he realized that it would be taken away if he didn’t eat everything before the bell sounded. (The inclusion of up adds a completive sense; (67b) has a very similar meaning to Tom hurried to finish eating his dinner.) An ING clause is likely to describe the subject doing something fast over the whole duration of an activity, whereas a Modal (FOR) TO clause is likely to describe the subject doing something fast to reach a particular goal. Hasten (over/with) has a similar meaning to hurry (over/with) but is more often used to describe an action directed towards a goal, and is thus more often found with a Modal (FOR) TO complement (although ING is also possible). Dawdle (over) refers to doing something slowly over the whole duration of the activity, and is restricted to an ING construction.

Hesitate (over/with) relates to uncertainty on the part of the subject over whether to engage in some activity, referred to by the complement clause. When an ING complement is used the unmarked implication is that the subject did undertake the activity, e.g. She hesitated over writing the letter (but eventually she did write it). When a Modal (FOR) TO complement is used a listener might understand—if nothing else were said—that the subject did not in the end get involved in the activity, e.g. She hesitated to write the letter herself (and finally prevailed upon her mother to write it for her).

Dare, and venture, from the DARING type, indicate that the subject has sufficient courage to become involved in some activity; they are thus naturally restricted to a Modal (FOR) TO complement construction.