Other Primary-B types

Verbs from the COMPARING type—e.g. resemble, differ from—and Adjectives from the SIMILARITY type—e.g. like, unlike, similar (to), different (from)—must have subject and post-predicate (direct object or prepositional object) constituents with comparable meanings. Both may refer to people, things or places, e.g. Adelaide resembles Auckland in some ways. Or both may relate to kinds of activity, which can be referred to through subjectless ING complements, e.g. Trying to get John to smile is like getting blood out of a stone.

Verbs from the RELATING type refer to some natural or logical relationship. The possibilities for both subject and object slots are: (i) an NP, often with a SPEECH ACT noun as head; (ii) an NP of this kind followed by a THAT clause which is referred to by the head noun of the NP, e.g. the report that John is lost or the verdict that he is guilty; (iii) a plain THAT clause; (iv) an ING complement; or (v) a WH- complement clause. A THAT complement in subject slot with a verb from this type is most unlikely to be extraposed to the end of the main clause, e.g. That John was found innocent indicates that the jury was made up of fools, not *It indicates that the jury was made up of fools that John was found innocent.

Indicate, show, demonstrate and suggest (in their meanings that fall within the RELATING type) take any of (i)–(iv) as subject. They may describe how the situation referred to by a THAT clause in object slot follows from that referred to by the subject, e.g. The fact that John didn’t turn up suggests that he may be sick, Mary’s having slept through the concert shows that she doesn’t care for Mozart. Or the referent of the subject may help resolve some point of clarification posed by a WH- clause as object, e.g. The fact that John had flecks of cream in his beard suggests (to me) who it was that stole the trifle. Imply is limited to the first sense, with a THAT object clause; it does not take a WH- clause in object slot.

Relate (and is related to) simply state that two things are connected. The subject may be any of (i)–(v) and the object any of these save a plain THAT clause, e.g. Mrs Smith’s being so rude to you relates to the fact that she was friendly with my first wife. Depend on will typically link two hypotheticals, both expressed by WH- clauses, e.g. How we climb the mountain depends on what equipment John brings. Result from deals with a connection between two actual states or activities; it must take NP or NP-plus-THAT-clause or ING clause in subject and object slots, e.g. The fact that John was found innocent results from the jury (’s) being totally incompetent. None of relate to, depend on and result from may take a plain THAT clause in object slot; this may be at least in part because the preposition, which is an important component of each verb, would then have to drop before that. Compare That Arwon won the Melbourne Cup demonstrates (the fact) that he is a horse of quality, with That Arwon won the Melbourne Cup relates to the fact that he is a horse of quality, where the fact could not be omitted.

Some verbs from the ACTING type may relate either to an entity (shown by an NP), e.g. She copied the poem on the board, or to some activity (shown by an ING complement clause), e.g. She copied John’s eating his cake with a fork.

Verbs such as experience and undergo, from the HAPENNING type, have in O slot a description of something that happens to the subject. This can be expressed through an ACTIVITY or STATE noun or through an ING complement clause (often in the passive, as is appropriate for something that befalls the subject), e.g. She underwent an operation for appendicitis, She underwent having her belly cut open and the appendix taken out.

The classic paper on parentheticals is Urmson (1952). He gives an example which is similar to my (8a/b). Suppose John knows that the trains are on strike and sees Mary rush to the station. John could then use a THAT complement construction, Mary believes that the trains are running. But he could not, in these circumstances, use the parenthetical construction The trains, Mary believes, are running since by so doing he would be implying that the trains are running. Another paper dealing with parentheticals is Hooper (1975).

The omission or inclusion of ’s in an ING complement clause is not an automatic matter, and may sometimes carry a meaning difference. This is a topic that will repay further research.

Rosenbaum (1967) drew a distinction between ‘noun phrase complements’ and ‘verb phrase complements’. Verbs like force, help and order were said to take VP complements while believe, expect, remember and others were said to take NP complements. This categorization has been repeated in many works since, e.g. Perlmutter and Soames (1979). There is no essential syntactic or semantic difference between the Modal (FOR) TO complements with force, help, order, expect and remember. Believe takes a quite different variety of complement construction, Judgement TO. Other differences that have been quoted in the literature between verbs like force and help, on the one hand, and verbs like believe and expect, on the other hand, are a consequence of differences in meaning, and carry no syntactic implications. The Rosenbaum distinction is simply incorrect. (For a line of argument similar to that followed here, see Schmerling 1978.)

Henry (1992) describes the inclusion of for in Belfast English, where one can say things like I want for to meet him and It is difficult for to see that. Henry’s paper includes references to publications on other dialects which include for in places where Standard English would not have it.

Borkin (1973, 1984) discuss conditions for the omission of to be.