The meaning of complement constructions is generally thought of as determined by the interaction of the semantics of the complement clause with the meaning of the complement-taking verb. In the case of ‘ like/love + to-infinitive’, however, the meaning of the complement construction has been affected by a process of pragmatic strengthening and subjectification. As a result, ‘ like/love + to-infinitive’has developed aspectual and epistemic uses that can no longer be explained from the semantic interaction of the pattern’s component parts but that arise as speaker-based conversational implicatures in particular discourse contexts. Using corpus data, the authors show that this account is in accordance with a number of peculiarities in the present-day use of the constructions and with attested historical fact. More generally, the development of the constructions ‘ like/love + to-infinitive’ can be seen as an instance of incipient grammaticalization with reflexes in the semantic, phonological, and morphosyntactic characteristics of the constructions.
Bladon, R. A. W.1968. Selecting the to-or-ing Nominal after Like, Love, Hate, Dislike and Prefer. English Studies49:203-214.
2.
Bolinger, Dwight. 1968. Entailment and the Meaning of Structures. Glossa2:119-127.
3.
Bolinger, Dwight. 1980. Wanna and the Gradience of Auxiliaries. In Wege zur Universalienforschung: Sprachwissenschaftliche Beiträge zum 60. Geburtstag von Hansjakob Seiler, edited by Gunter Brettschneider and Christian Lehman, 292-299. Tübingen, Germany: Gunter Narr Verlag.
4.
Brinton, Laurel J.1988. The Development of English Aspectual Systems: Aspectualizers and Post-verbal Particles. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
5.
Coates, Jennifer. 1983. The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm.
6.
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
7.
Curme, George O.1931. Syntax. Boston: Heath.
8.
Cuyckens, Hubert, and Marjolijn Verspoor. 1998. On the Road to To.In English as a Human Language: To Honour Louis Goossens, edited by Johan Van der Auwera, Frank Durieux, and Ludo Lejeune, 57-72. München, Germany: Lincom Europa.
9.
Declerck, Renaat. 1991. A Comprehensive Descriptive Grammar of English. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
10.
Dekeyser, Xavier, Betty Devriendt, Guy A. J. Tops, and Sandra Colen. 1987. Foundations of English Grammar. Antwerpen, Belgium: De Nederlandse boekhandel.
11.
De Smet, Hendrik. 2004. Semantics and the Variation in Complement Constructions: Gerunds and Infinitives following the Verb Like. Belgian Journal of English Language and Literatures2:247-260.
12.
De Smet, Hendrik. Forthcoming. A Corpus of Late Modern English Texts. ICAME Journal.
13.
De Smet, Hendrik, and Hubert Cuyckens. 2004. Diachronic Aspects of Complementation: Constructions, Entrenchment, and the Matching-Problem.
14.
Dixon, Robert M. W.1984. The Semantic Basis of Syntactic Properties. Berkeley Linguistics Society10:583-595.
15.
Duffley, Patrick J.2000. Gerund versus Infinitive as Complement of Transitive Verbs in English: The Problems of Tense and Control. Journal of English Linguistics28:221-249.
16.
Fischer, Olga. 2000. Grammaticalisation: Unidirectional, Non-reversible? The Case of to before Infinitive in English. In Pathways of Change: Grammaticalization in English, edited by Olga Fischer, Anette Rosenbach, and Dieter Stein, 149-169. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
17.
Fischer, Olga, and Frederike van der Leek. 1983. The Demise of the Old English Impersonal Construction. Journal of Linguistics19:337-368.
18.
Fitzmaurice, Susan. 2000. Remarks on the Degrammaticalisation of Infinitival Toin Present-day American English. In Pathways of Change: Grammaticalization in English, edited by Olga Fischer, Anette Rosenbach, and Dieter Stein, 171-186. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
19.
Givón, Talmy. 1984. Syntax: A Functional-Typological Introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
20.
Haspelmath, Martin. 1989. From Purposive to Infinitive: A Universal Path of Grammaticalization. Folia Linguistica Historica10:287-310.
21.
Heine, Bernd. 1993. Auxiliaries: Cognitive Forces and Grammaticalization. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
22.
Heine, Bernd. 2002. On the Role of Context in Grammaticalization. In New Reflections on Grammaticalization, edited by Ilse Wischer and Gabrielle Diewald, 83-102. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
23.
Hopper, Paul J., and Elizabeth C. Traugott. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
24.
Huddleston, Rodney D., and Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
25.
Katz, Jerold J., and Jerry A. Fodor. 1963. The Structure of a Semantic Theory. Language39:170-210.
26.
Kiparsky, Paul, and Carol Kiparsky. 1970. Fact. In Progress in Linguistics: A Collection of Papers, edited by Manfred Bierwisch and Karl E. Heidolph, 143-173. The Hague, the Netherlands: Mouton.
27.
Krug, Manfred G.2000. Emerging English Modals: A Corpus-Based Study of Grammaticalization. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
28.
Kuteva, Tania. 2001. Auxiliation: An Enquiry into the Nature of Grammaticalization. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
29.
Kytö, Merja. 1996. Manual to the Diachronic Part of the Helsinki Corpus of English Texts: Coding Conventions and Lists of Source Texts. Helsinki, Finland: Department of English.
30.
Langacker, Ronald W.1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 2, Descriptive Application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
31.
Langacker, Ronald W.1992. Prepositions as Grammatical(izing) Elements. Leuvense Bijdragen81:287-309.
32.
Lehmann, Christian. 1985. Grammaticalization: Synchronic and Diachronic Change. Lingua e Stile20:303-318.
33.
Los, Bettelou. 1999. Infinitival Complementation in Old and Middle English. The Hague, the Netherlands: Thesus.
34.
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and David Crystal. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
35.
Rudanko, Juhani. 1989. Complementation and Case Grammar: A Syntactic and Semantic Study of Selected Patterns of Complementation in Present-day English. Albany: State University of New York Press.
36.
Smith, Michael B., and Joyce Escobedo. 2002. The Semantics of to-infinitival vs. -ing Verb Complement Constructions in English. In Proceedings from the Main Session in the Chicago Linguistic Society’s Thirty-Seventh Meeting, edited by M. Andronis, C. Ball, H. Elston, and S. Neuvel, 549-564. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
37.
Spincemaille, Vincent. 2000. Nonfinite Complementation after Like, Love, Hate, and Prefer: A Corpus Analysis. Master’s thesis, University of Leuven, Department of Linguistics.
38.
Traugott, Elizabeth C.1989. On the Rise of Epistemic Meanings in English: An Example of Subjectification in Semantic Change. Language65:31-55.
39.
Traugott, Elizabeth C., and Richard B. Dasher. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
40.
Traugott, Elizabeth C., and Ekkehard König. 1991. The Semantics-Pragmatics of Grammaticalization Revisited. In Approaches to Grammaticalization, edited by Elizabeth C. Traugott and Bernd Heine, 189-218. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
41.
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1988. The Semantics of Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
42.
Wood, F. T.1956. Gerund versus Infinitive. English Language Teaching11:11-16.
