Jose Carillo's Forum

ESSAYS BY JOSE CARILLO

On this webpage, Jose A. Carillo shares with English users, learners, and teachers a representative selection of his essays on the English language, particularly on its uses and misuses. One essay will be featured every week, and previously featured essays will be archived in the forum.

The bare infinitive solution to some intractable sentences

When composing sentences in English, we will sometimes encounter situations when our desire to be scrupulously grammatical in every respect could actually result in a stilted, awful-sounding sentence. This is particularly true when we use infinitive phrases in conjunction with perception verbs like “hear” and helping verbs like “make.” As we know, an infinitive phrase is an infinitive—a verb in the present tense that’s preceded by “to”—together with its modifiers, objects, or complements. But consider what happens when we use the infinitive phrase “to confess her guilt during the preliminary investigation of the murder case” with the perception verb “hear,” as in this sentence: “We all heard her to confess her guilt during the preliminary investigation of the murder case.”

From the looks of it, that sentence is grammatically perfect, but it certainly doesn’t read and sound right! The preposition “to” in the infinitive phrase “to confess her guilt during the preliminary investigation of the murder case” sticks out like a sore thumb in that sentence and spoils it structurally. Indeed, the best way to make that sentence read and sound right is to drop the “to” from the infinitive phrase altogether, as in this revised construction: “We all heard her confess her guilt during the preliminary investigation of the murder case.”

The dropping of the “to” in such sentences is what’s called the bare infinitive solution. In an essay I wrote for my English-usage column in The Manila Times in October last year, I discussed the specific instances when the bare infinitive becomes a must for straightening out certain types of sentences that just won’t read and sound well otherwise. (February 5, 2011)

Click on the title below to read the essay.

When to use the bare infinitive and the full infinitive

Take a look at these two sentences:

(1) “This section covers a breadth of important information that will help you tackle any analytical problem that is thrown at you on the exam.”

(2) “This section covers a breadth of important information that will help you to tackle any analytical problem that is thrown at you on the exam.”

Which of them is constructed properly—Sentence 1, which uses the bare infinitive “tackle” in the subordinate clause “that will help you tackle any analytical problem that is thrown at you on the exam,” or Sentence 2, which uses the full infinitive “to tackle” instead in that same subordinate clause?

A member of Jose Carillo’s English Forum who calls herself Jeanne was curious if there’s a general rule for using the bare infinitive or full infinitive, so I made the following analysis of the two sentences as a basis for making that choice:

To simplify the analysis, let’s begin with Sentence 2. In that sentence, the italicized phrase “to tackle any analytical problem that is thrown at you on the exam” is what’s called an infinitive phrase. We will recall that an infinitive phrase is simply an infinitive—a verb in the present tense that’s normally preceded by “to”—together with its modifiers, objects, or complements. In Sentence 2, that infinitive is “to tackle” and its modifier is the phrase “any analytical problem that is thrown at you on the exam.”

In Sentence 1, on the other hand, the italicized phrase “tackle any analytical problem that is thrown at you on the exam” is what’s called a bare infinitive phrase. A bare infinitive phrase is one where the infinitive—“tackle” in this case—has dropped the “to.” The bare infinitive “tackle” in Sentence 1 works in conjunction with the helping verb “help,” and you can see that it has dropped the “to” from “to tackle” without messing up the grammar and semantics of the sentence. In fact, you must have noticed that Sentence 1 with the bare infinitive even reads and sounds better than Sentence 2 with the full infinitive.

But the big question is this: Is there a general rule for using bare infinitives or full infinitives?

To work properly or at least sound right, some sentence constructions using the infinitive phrase need to drop “to” or have the option drop it. This happens in two specific instances:

(1) When the infinitive phrase works in conjunction with such perception verbs as “see,” “feel,” “hear,” and “watch”; and

(2) When the infinitive phrase works in conjunction with such helping verbs as “help,” “let,” and “make.”

Sentence 1 with the bare infinitive “tackle” belongs to the second category, and it just so happens this sentence reads and sounds better than Sentence 2 with the full infinitive “to tackle.” Even with the full infinitive, though, take note that Sentence 2 also works properly and sounds perfectly.

But certain sentence constructions absolutely need to use the bare infinitive to work properly, like this one: “We saw the building collapse like a deck of cards.” When the full infinitive is used, the sentence sounds very awkward: “We saw the building to collapse like a deck of cards.” This construction should be avoided.

The bare-infinitive construction is also called for in the following sentence where the infinitive “to rise” works in conjunction with the perception verb “watch”: “They watched the young man rise spectacularly in the organization without making any effort at all.” Now see how awful and stilted that sentence becomes when it uses the full infinitive “to rise”: “They watched the young man to rise spectacularly in the organization without making any effort at all.”

Indeed, there aren’t any hard-and-fast rules for making the choice between using a full infinitive and a bare infinitive in a sentence. We ultimately just have to play it by ear. (October 2, 2010)

-------------------
From the weekly column “English Plain and Simple” by Jose A. Carillo in
The Manila Times, October 2, 2010 © 2010 by the Manila Times Publishing Corp. All rights reserved.

Click here to discuss/comment


Previously Featured Essay:

The grammar of antecedents in English

Do you have a clear idea of what an antecedent in English grammar is?

Recall now that an antecedent is the noun, noun phrase, or noun clause that a pronoun refers to in a sentence. It’s normally found in a sentence before a pronoun, but it can sometimes also come after that pronoun. In any case, the grammar rule is that any pronoun that refers to this antecedent must agree with it in person (whether first, second, or third person), case (whether nominative or subjective, objective, or possessive), and number (whether singular or plural). For example, the noun “Roberto” is the antecedent of the pronoun “he” in this sentence: “Roberto finally found the book he had been looking for.”

An antecedent need not be a noun; it can also be a noun phrase, as in this sentence: “The basic computer course that Ana wants to take is currently offered by the school, but it costs twice her budget for it.” Here, the antecedent is the entire noun phrase “the basic computer course that Ana wants to take,” and the pronoun “it” refers to that antecedent.

And an antecedent can also be a noun clause, as in this sentence: “What transpired during his long meeting with his boss disturbed Armando, and it gave him bad dreams for several nights.” Here, the noun clause “what transpired during his long meeting with his boss” is the antecedent of “it” in that sentence. In the noun clause, the noun “Armando” is the antecedent of the possessive pronoun “his,” which modifies the nouns “long meeting” and “boss.”

When the antecedent is in plural form or is a compound—meaning two or more nouns—the pronoun that refers to that antecedent must also be in plural form, as in this sentence: “His manager and his wife are demanding quality time from Steve, and they both won’t accept compromises.” Here, “his manager and his wife” is a compound antecedent, so the pronoun referring to it is the plural-form “they.” Note that the noun “Steve” is itself the antecedent of the possessive pronoun “his,” which is used twice in the noun phrase.

Now test your understanding of antecedents by answering the test question below in a practice test for the SAT Reasoning Test, the standardized college admissions test in the United States. The item was sent to me recently by a member of Jose Carillo’s English Forum, who asked for an explanation of the correct answer and the grammar behind that answer.

“__________ the orchestra for six concerts, Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony was scheduled.”

(A) After conducting
(B) After his conducting
(C) While conducting
(D) Although he had conducted
(E) After he had conducted

Which answer is correct?

Here’s my analysis of the answer choices: 

It couldn’t be B because the pronoun “his” in the subordinate phrase “after his conducting the orchestra for six concerts” doesn’t have a proper antecedent noun or pronoun that, logically, should denote a musical conductor. “Beethoven’s” couldn’t be that antecedent because it’s in the possessive case, and neither could it be “Ninth Symphony,” being an inanimate object.

Neither could A and C be correct because both don’t have an antecedent noun doing the action; for the same reason as in B above, “Beethoven’s” and “Ninth Symphony” couldn’t be that antecedent noun. D couldn’t be correct either, for its subordinating conjunction, “although,” makes the statement illogical.

The only answer that’s both grammatically and logically correct is E. With E as subordinate phrase to the main clause, the nominative pronoun “he” is properly supplied as doer of the action of conducting the orchestra, and the past participle “had conducted” is the correct tense for the repeated action in the indefinite past. With E, the sentence works properly because both the main clause and the subordinate phrase are properly constructed, then logically linked by the subordinating conjunction “after.” (June 19, 2010) 

-------------------
From the weekly column “English Plain and Simple” by Jose A. Carillo in The Manila Times, June 19, 2010 © 2010 by the Manila Times Publishing Corp. All rights reserved

Click here to discuss/comment


Click to read more essays (requires registration to post)




Copyright © 2010 by Aperture Web Development. All rights reserved.

Page best viewed with:

Mozilla FirefoxGoogle Chrome

Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional Valid CSS!

Page last modified: 6 February, 2011, 5:15 a.m.