Documentation

Linglib.Theories.Syntax.Minimalism.Tense.InfinitivalTense

@cite{wurmbrand-2014}: Tense and Aspect in English Infinitives #

@cite{wurmbrand-2014}

Wurmbrand's three-way classification of infinitival complements by tense properties. The key insight: infinitival complements are not uniformly "tenseless" — they fall into three classes with distinct temporal behavior.

Core Mechanisms #

  1. Three-way classification: future irrealis, propositional, tenseless simultaneous
  2. Woll decomposition: will = PRES + woll; would = PAST + woll
  3. Temporal orientation is determined by complement class, not tense morphology
  4. Dependent vs independent tense: restructuring complements share the matrix temporal domain; propositional complements have NOW-anchoring
  5. Episodic interpretation diagnostics: the three classes make distinct predictions about whether bare (nonprogressive) episodic VPs are possible
  6. Complement size: infinitival tense class correlates with complement size (wollP, TP, or vP/AspP)

Classification (Table 4) #

ClassExample verbsTemporal compositionComplement size
Irrealis futuredecide, expectwoll (future modal)wollP
Propositionalbelieve, claimRef time = att. holder NOWTP
Nonpropositional (no att.)try, begin, seemRef time = matrix ref timevP/AspP

Episodic Interpretations (Table 3) #

ClassEpisodic interp.Reason
Futurepossiblewoll gives unrestricted ref time
Propositional attitudeimpossibleNOW = short interval, perf fails
Tenseless simultaneousmatrix-dependentref time = matrix ref time

Limitations #

@cite{wurmbrand-2014}'s three-way classification of infinitival tense.

The paper's final characterization (Table 4):

  • Irrealis future: tenseless + woll → future-oriented
  • Propositional: reference time = attitude holder's NOW → simultaneous
  • Tenseless simultaneous: no attitude holder, reference time = matrix reference time → dependent on matrix

The third class is labeled "Nonpropositional; no attitude holder" in Table 4 and subsumes both restructuring verbs (try, manage) and raising verbs (begin, seem).

  • futureIrrealis : InfinitivalTenseClass

    decide, want, expect: tenseless + woll → future-oriented

  • propositional : InfinitivalTenseClass

    believe, claim, expect: NOW-anchored → simultaneous with attitude time

  • restructuring : InfinitivalTenseClass

    try, begin, manage, seem: no attitude holder, reference time = matrix reference time → dependent on matrix. Labeled "Nonpropositional; no attitude holder" in Table 4. Subsumes both restructuring and raising infinitives.

Instances For
    Equations
    • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
    Instances For

      Complement size hierarchy (@cite{wurmbrand-2014} §5; @cite{wurmbrand-2001}).

      The three infinitival classes correspond to different complement sizes in the clausal spine. The functional domain is built uniformly from the bottom up; restructuring is special only in that the functional domain is not built up to the top. Higher projections entail lower ones — a wollP cannot exist without a vP below it.

      • wollP : ComplementSize

        wollP: contains the future modal woll. Entails vP below. Selected by future-irrealis verbs (decide, plan, promise).

      • tP : ComplementSize

        TP: contains a tense head anchored to attitude holder's NOW. Selected by propositional attitude verbs (believe, claim).

      • vP_AspP : ComplementSize

        vP/AspP: bare aspectual projection, no independent tense or modal. Selected by restructuring/raising verbs (try, begin, seem).

      Instances For
        Equations
        • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
        Instances For

          Woll: abstract future modal (@cite{wurmbrand-2014} §2). will = PRES + woll; would = PAST + woll.

          This decomposes English future auxiliaries into a tense component and a modal component (woll). The tense component is what undergoes SOT; woll provides the future orientation.

          Instances For
            Equations
            • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
            Instances For
              Equations
              • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
              Instances For

                The temporal orientation of a complement relative to the matrix event. @cite{wurmbrand-2014}'s classification predicts distinct temporal relations for each class.

                Instances For
                  Equations
                  • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                  Instances For

                    Availability of bare (nonprogressive) episodic interpretations in infinitival complements (@cite{wurmbrand-2014} §4).

                    The three infinitival classes make distinct predictions about episodic VPs. Episodic interpretations require perfective aspect, which requires the event time to be included in the reference time interval. The three classes impose different reference time constraints, yielding different episodic patterns.

                    • possible : EpisodicAvailability

                      Episodic interpretations are possible because woll provides an unrestricted future reference time (large enough for perfective). Example: "John decided to sing in the shower" — episodic OK.

                    • impossible : EpisodicAvailability

                      Episodic interpretations are impossible because the reference time is the attitude holder's NOW — a near-instantaneous interval too short for perfective aspect to be satisfied. Example: "*Leo believes Julia to sing in the shower right now."

                    • matrixDependent : EpisodicAvailability

                      Episodic interpretations depend on the matrix tense: possible when the matrix reference time is large enough (past tense), but not when it is restricted to a short interval (present tense). Example: "Leo seemed to sing in the shower yesterday" — OK with past matrix; "*Leo seems to sing in the shower right now" — bad.

                    Instances For
                      Equations
                      • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                      Instances For

                        Map each infinitival tense class to its episodic interpretation prediction (Table 3, p.432).

                        Equations
                        • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                        Instances For

                          Propositional infinitives exclude bare episodic interpretations: the reference time (attitude holder's NOW) is too short for perfective aspect. Only imperfective/progressive is possible.

                          Restructuring infinitives' episodic availability is determined by the matrix tense (their reference time IS the matrix reference time): past matrix → large reference time → perfective OK → episodic OK; present matrix → short reference time → perfective fails → episodic bad.

                          Future infinitives allow episodic interpretations regardless of matrix tense, because woll shifts the reference time to the future (an unrestricted interval).

                          Classification of infinitival complement verbs.

                          Instances For
                            Equations
                            • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                            Instances For

                              "want" is future irrealis: "John wanted to leave" → leaving after wanting.

                              Equations
                              Instances For

                                "decide" is future irrealis: "John decided to leave" → leaving after deciding.

                                Equations
                                Instances For

                                  "plan" is future irrealis: "John planned to leave" → leaving after planning.

                                  Equations
                                  Instances For

                                    "promise" is future irrealis: "John promised to leave" → leaving after promising.

                                    Equations
                                    Instances For

                                      "believe" is propositional: "John believes Mary to be sick" → simultaneous.

                                      Equations
                                      Instances For

                                        "claim" is propositional: "John claims to be sick" → simultaneous.

                                        Equations
                                        Instances For

                                          "try" is tenseless simultaneous (restructuring): "John tried to leave" → same temporal domain.

                                          Equations
                                          Instances For

                                            "begin" is tenseless simultaneous (raising): "John began to sing" → same temporal domain.

                                            Equations
                                            Instances For

                                              "manage" is tenseless simultaneous (restructuring): "John managed to escape" → same temporal domain.

                                              Equations
                                              Instances For

                                                A verb that is ambiguous between two infinitival tense classes. Some verbs allow multiple temporal construals depending on context.

                                                Instances For
                                                  Equations
                                                  • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                                                  Instances For

                                                    expect is ambiguous between future irrealis and propositional (@cite{wurmbrand-2014} §3, §4.3).

                                                    • Future: "The bridge is expected to collapse right now" ≈ scheduled to collapse (near future)
                                                    • Propositional: "I expected Leo to be sleeping then" ≈ believed Leo was sleeping (simultaneous)

                                                    Under the propositional reading, bare episodic interpretations are impossible (only imperfective/progressive is possible), just like believe. Under the future reading, episodic interpretations are possible, just like decide.

                                                    Equations
                                                    • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                                                    Instances For

                                                      seem is primarily tenseless simultaneous (like try, begin), but can also be construed propositionally when an experiencer is present (@cite{wurmbrand-2014} §4.4).

                                                      • Without experiencer: "The bridge seemed to tremble" → tenseless, dependent on matrix tense
                                                      • With experiencer: "John seems to be sleeping" → can use the experiencer's NOW as reference time, patterning with propositional attitude infinitives
                                                      Equations
                                                      • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                                                      Instances For

                                                        expect admits both future and propositional readings.

                                                        seem admits both restructuring and propositional readings.

                                                        Future-irrealis infinitives are future-oriented: the future orientation comes from woll, not from tense.

                                                        Propositional infinitives impose NOW-anchoring: the complement's reference time is simultaneous with the attitude holder's time.

                                                        Restructuring infinitives share the matrix temporal domain: there is no independent temporal reference in the complement.

                                                        Propositional NOW-anchoring connects to the tense pronoun architecture: propositional infinitives require that the complement's reference time be anchored to a shifted evaluation time (the attitude holder's NOW), exactly as AttitudeTemporalSemantics specifies via shiftEvalTime.

                                                        standardShift computes embedded eval time as matrix event time. Propositional infinitives use this as their reference time, yielding the simultaneous reading.

                                                        Restructuring infinitives lack independent tense: they share the matrix temporal domain. This manifests as both dependent orientation AND the smallest complement size (vP_AspP) AND absence of woll.

                                                        Future-oriented complements have woll AND project a wollP: the future modal is structurally present. This is what distinguishes the temporal composition of future infinitives from the other two classes: future orientation comes from a syntactic element (woll), not from the lexical semantics of the matrix predicate alone.

                                                        The three classes form a decreasing complement size hierarchy: wollP > TP > vP/AspP. This is @cite{wurmbrand-2001}'s insight that restructuring is complement truncation from the top.

                                                        Woll presence correlates exactly with future orientation: a class has woll iff its orientation is future-oriented.