1

Joanna Podhorodecka

Pedagogical University of Cracow

‘Do we always like doing the things that we like to do?’

Non-finite complementation of the verb like1

Abstract

The aim of this study is to examine the usage of the two alternative non-finite complements of the verb

like, the gerundive –ing and the to-infinitive. The study is based on corpus material and uses

correlational analysis to establish which factors isolated in the data motivate the speakers‟ choice

between the two constructions. The to-infinitive, as opposed to the –ing form, is described as bounded

and more verbal in character (Hamawand 2004: 455), therefore more telic and agentive. These features

correspond to the characteristics of a prototypical transitive clause (Hopper and Thompson 1980). The

author sets out to check whether this correlation is reflected in the degree of transitivity of the

complement verbs appearing in both constructions.

Keywords: complementation, non-finite clause, -ing form, to-infinitive, transitivity

1. Introduction

The assumption that a difference in form is inevitably connected with a difference in

meaning is particularly clearly substantiated in the area of clausal complementation, where the

diversity of complement forms reflects the range of potential construals of the integration

between the main verb event and the complement event (Givon, 1993, pp. 2-3). The

possibility of a particular verb and complement combination depends on the compatibility of

the verb‟s meaning with the schematic meaning of the construction. Some verbs are

polysemous and compatible with different types of complement clauses (Hamawand, 2004, p.

452). The aim of this study is to examine one of such verbs, the positive attitude verb like, in

1 This is an uncorrected proof of the following text:

Podhorodecka, Joanna. 2014. „Do we always like doing the things that we like to do? Non-finite

complementation of the verb like.‟ In Rudnicka-Szozda, Kinga and Aleksander Szwedek (eds.) Cognitive

Linguistics in the Making, 271-285. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

2

order to establish what semantic, syntactic and pragmatic factors influence the speakers‟

choice between its two alternative complements: the gerundive –ing and the to-infinitive.

The verb like can combine with either an –ing or a to-infinitive complement, in many

contexts without an immediately apparent difference in meaning:

1a. She likes talking about her brother.2

1b. Anglers like to talk of ‘the one that got away’, but at least they occasionally bag a

fish to flesh out their claims.

Both sentences describe a habitual positive attitude of the subject towards the

complement process. We can see, however, that the nature of the positive attitude differs

slightly between pure enjoyment in 1a. and willingness or inclination in 1b. The difference

results from the way that the complement event is viewed and the degree to which it is

integrated with the main verb event. It is a difference in construal, the way that the syntactic

form of the complement structures the information, and it can be accounted for in relation to

more general properties of the –ing and to-infinitive complements.

2. The like –ing’ and ‘like to-infinitive’ complement constructions

The usage of different complement forms is motivated by iconic principles (Verspoor,

2000, p. 202). The semantic integration between the two events, the main verb event and the

complement event, is reflected in the degree of syntactic integration of the complement clause

into the main clause. A greater degree of event integration causes the complement clause to

become more nominal and less verbal in character, while a less fully integrated complement

will more closely resemble a finite, independent clause (Givon, 1993, pp. 2-3). This process

can be described in relation to a finiteness scale, extending from a lexical nominal to a finite

verb form with tense and aspect (Givon, 1993, p. 27). The two alternative non-finite

complements of the verb like, the gerundive –ing and the to-infinitive, are positioned in the

middle of the scale, but the –ing form is less finite and more nominal in character than the to-

infinitive complement.

A similar observation on the more nominal and more verbal nature of complement

constructions is made by Hamawand (2004, pp. 452-455), who describes the difference

2 All examples from the British National Corpus, emphasis and comments added.

3

between the –ing and the to-infinitive complements in terms of three basic factors: their

temporal reference, their aspect and their more nominal or more verbal character. The –ing

complement is more nominal in character, unbounded in time and non-subsequent to the main

event (either previous or simultaneous with it). The to-infinitive is more verbal, and therefore

more agentive, bounded in time and subsequent to the main event. Used in actual

communication, these features yield a number of pragmatic inferences, which may motivate

the complement choice in a specific context. The ones particularly relevant to the verb like

relate to the aspect of the to-infinitive complement: the to-infinitive event is bounded in time,

so it is usually assumed to be completed rather than uncompleted, infrequent rather than

frequent and premeditated rather than spontaneous.

Verspoor (1996, 1999) contrasts the –ing form and the to-infinitive in respect of such

features of construal as the viewing frame (the part of the event that is in focus) and

conceptual proximity or distance, i.e. direct or indirect experience of the event. The –ing

complement form construes the event as directly experienced and viewed from internal

perspective, i.e. “such a close range that the boundaries of the event are not within the

subject‟s perceptual scope” (Verspoor, 1996, p. 436). Direct experience and a close vantage

point cause the event to be viewed subjectively, which makes this complement form

compatible with many verbs of emotion. The event is also factive: using the –ing form

typically implies that the complement event has actually happened.

The to-infinitive on the other hand construes the event as experienced indirectly and it

has a “distancing function” (Verspoor, 1999, p. 505) in that it signifies either temporal or

epistemic distance. This is to a great extent motivated by the fact that the to-infinitive inherits

from the preposition to its path-goal sense, which entails the notions of both distance and

direction (Egan, 2008, p. 95). In other words, the to-infinitive expresses “a moving towards an

action, but not being there yet” (Verspoor, 1999, p. 524). Such a perspective means that the

point of view is situated before the event and that the event is viewed as a whole. Thus, while

the –ing complement construction expresses “a personal, emotional reaction to the event”, the

to-infinitive describes “a projected attitude towards a future event, not a reaction to it”

(Verspoor, 1996, p. 447). In other words, the causal relations between the events are reversed:

with „like –ing‟, the subject experiences the complement event directly and consequently

attributes to it a positive value, while with „like to-infinitive‟, the subject attributes positive

value to the complement event and consequently aims to bring it about whenever possible.

In the light of the above mentioned features of the two alternative complements of like,

let us consider once again the examples in 1a. and 1b., repeated here for convenience:

4

2a. She likes talking about her brother.

2b. Anglers like to talk of ‘the one that got away’, but at least they occasionally bag a

fish to flesh out their claims.

The „like –ing‟ construction describes the enjoyment of the activity in progress, at the

moment of being directly experienced by the subject. The enjoyment is simultaneous with the

process, and because it is experienced directly, the focus is on the person‟s subjective reaction

to it. By contrast, the to-infinitive exemplified in 2b. can more adequately be described in

terms of a habitual tendency rather than enjoyment, “a prior disposition inclining the subject

to actualize the infinitive‟s event” (Duffley, 2006, p. 86). The construction is more verbal, and

therefore more agentive: it describes the subject‟s volition directed at the complement

process: anglers are willing to talk about that particular subject. The complement process is

construed as bounded and instead of an unspecified duration it profiles “a series of individual

occurrences” (Dirven, 1989, p. 115), so 2b. evokes repeated mentions of the fish that got

away rather than a continuous discussion of the subject. The event is completed: the anglers

not so much enjoy the communicative process itself, but find a measure of satisfaction in

successfully conveying a particular message and making a specific impression on the listener

(‘The fish got away, but it was that big!‟).

Another pair of examples should make more apparent the difference between the two

constructions related to the boundedness of the complement process:

3a. He likes making things out of wood.

3b. I'm a manufacturer, I like to make things, I like to hold something at the end of day

and say that's something that's been created.

In 3a., the subject finds the creative process itself enjoyable, so the positive value is

attributed to the actual experience of the activity in progress. The complement process is

construed as unbounded: we „zoom into‟ the event, so its completeness is not important, only

its internal stages. In 3b. it is no longer the direct experience of the event as it happens, but an

indirect, more rational assessment of its results. Unbounded duration in 3a. is contrasted with

a series of individual occurrences of the process in 3b. The positive value is attributed to each

completed instance of the process and its actual product.

5

The aspect of agentivity and control in the two constructions can be illustrated by 4a.

and 4b. below:

4a. There are actors who like making movies, but I've never enjoyed it.

4b. (…) the kind of person television companies like to make films about

In 4a. the actors enjoy the ongoing process of movie making. The event is frequent, in

a sense that it happens routinely and bringing it about does not require any special effort on

the part of the subject. In 4b. the companies tend to produce films about a particular type of

people. The process does not occur in the normal course of events, but depends on the

subject‟s volition and choice. Typically, television companies have more control over the

process of film making, but it is the individual actor that is more directly involved in it and

can emotionally react to it – the company cannot be said to actually enjoy the process.

Because of the institutional nature of the subject, the notion of enjoyment is backgrounded

and the aspect of meaning that is in focus is the habitual repetition of the event.

The examples above have hopefully demonstrated that due to the more verbal and

therefore more agentive construal of its complement process, the „like to-infinitive‟

construction brings together the notions of volition, habituality and satisfaction rather than

enjoyment. Thus, the answer to the question posed in the title, whether we always like doing

the things that we like to do, turns out to be negative: linguistic data abound in examples of

actions, such as solving problems or getting one‟s shopping done early, that are not strictly

speaking enjoyable in themselves, but once successfully completed, bring one certain benefits

and a measure of satisfaction.

3. The usage of ‘like –ing’ and ‘like to-infinitive’

3.1. The Scope and Methods of the Analysis

In what follows I will examine the actual usage of the „like –ing‟ and „like to-

infinitive‟ in order to establish which features of the complement verbs could possibly

motivate the choice between the two constructions. Particular attention will be paid to the

properties related to the notion of transitivity. This study was prompted by the observation

that many features ascribed to the to-infinitive complement correspond fairly closely to the

transitive clause prototype as described by Hopper and Thompson (1980, p. 252). In a

6

prototypical transitive clause, a volitional agent and an affected patient participate in a

dynamic, perfective event. The event is real rather than hypothetical; it involves kinetic action

and results in energy transfer. Clauses describing typically transitive events are more likely to

exhibit typically transitive syntactic behavior, in terms of e.g. case marking or passivization.

The to-inf complement clause, as opposed to the –ing, is more verbal and therefore

agentive, implying a higher degree of subject control (Hamawand, 2004, p. 455). It is

bounded in time (Egan, 2008, p. 99), so it usually denotes a complete, telic event. Features

such as agentivity, volitionality and telicity are important elements of the transitive prototype.

By contrast, the –ing form is unbounded and non-agentive. Could this imply that the to-inf

complement clause as a construction is characterized by a higher degree of transitivity and

consequently is likely to attract more transitive verbs?

In order to examine the potential relationship between transitivity and complement

choice, a sample of 300 tokens of the verb like was downloaded from the British National

Corpus, 150 of them followed by the –ing complement and the remaining 150 by the to-

infinitive. Modalized verbs, preceded by would, should or might, were excluded from the

analysis. The examples were coded for a number of syntactic, semantic and pragmatic factors

related to the transitive prototype and analyzed by means of R statistical programming

environment.

3.2. The features related to the main verb: register, polarity and agency hierarchy

The features that proved statistically significant for the distinction between the –ing or

to-infinitive complement of like can be divided into two general categories: those related to

the main verb and those related to the complement verb. The first group comprises the

register, the polarity of the clause (positive or negative) and the agency hierarchy of the main

subject, while the second one includes the aktionsart (lexical aspect) the complement verb, its

semantic field and transitivity type. The results of the correspondence analysis of the first

group of factors are presented in Figure 1 below:

7

Figure 1. The correspondence analysis of like –ing and like to-inf. Factors: register, polarity and agency

hierarchy of the main subject.

The figure above shows the strength of correlation between particular factors: the

closer the two features are situated in the graph, the more closely they are correlated in the

data. In terms of register, the –ing form of the complement is clearly more characteristic of

spoken language and slightly more likely to appear in fiction, whereas the contexts more

typical for the to-infinitive are news and academic language (acad), and to a lesser extent,

non-fiction (non-fic) and magazines (mag). This seems to indicate that the to-infinitive

complement is more likely to occur in more formal registers.

An interesting regularity can be noticed in the polarity of the clause: the verb with the

–ing complement is much more frequent in the negative, which happens in 35% of the

examined sample, as compared with 13% for the to-infinitive. Thus, „like –ing‟ is twice more

likely to be negated than its infinitive counterpart. This tendency makes the negative „like –

ing‟ similar to other negative attitude verbs, which either consistently take the –ing

-1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

like -ing vs like to-inf

Correspondence Analysis

Factors: Complement Register Polarity Subject

Dim 1 (19.65%)

Dim

2 (

12

.9%

)

1

2

34

56

7

8

9

1011

12

1314

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

3132

33

34

35

36

37

38

3940

414243

4445

4647

48

4950

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

616263

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

727374

7576

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

9293

9495

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103104

105106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113114115

116

117

118119120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128129

130131132133134

135

136137

138139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147148

149

150 151

152

153

154

155156

157

158159160 161162

163164

165166

167

168

169

170

171 172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179180

181

182

183

184

185

186187188189190

191

192193

194

195196

197

198

199

200

201202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210211

212

213

214

215

216

217

218219

220

221 222

223

224

225

226

227

228

229230

231

232

233

234235

236

237238

239

240

241

242

243

244

245

246

247

248

249

250251252

253

254255

256

257

258259260261

262

263

264

265

266

267

268

269

270271 272273

274

275

276277

278

279

280

281

282

283284285

286

287

288

289

290

291

292

293

294

295 296

297

298

299

300ING

TO-INF

acad

fiction

mag

newsnon-fic

spoken

neg

pos

common

pronoun

proper

SAP

8

complement (e.g. dislike or detest) or like the verb hate, show a strong tendency to do so

(Egan, 2008, p. 171).

The third distinction featured in Figure 1 is the agency hierarchy of the main subject, a

ranking of nominals according to their definiteness. It is based on the observed connection

between discourse relevance and semantic role: the clausal participants higher in the hierarchy

are more likely to be agents/subjects in unmarked constructions. The hierarchy used for this

study is based on Aissen‟s (1999, p. 674) hierarchy of person and distinguishes between the

following categories: SAP (speech act participants, i.e. first and second person pronouns),

pronoun (a third person pronoun with specific reference and the antecedent earlier in the

discourse), proper noun and common noun. The –ing complement is consistently associated

with subjects higher in the hierarchy: 65% of the tokens in the sample have speech act

participants as subjects. Proper and common nouns are more characteristic of the to-infinitive

constructions, whereas third person pronouns are almost equally typical of both complement

types. Thus, the to-infinitive form of the complement is characterized by more formal

registers and a lesser degree of discourse givenness, while the –ing is more typical of informal

context, where it appears with a first or second person subject and it is more likely to combine

with negation. These regularities seem to support Verspoor‟s (1996) description of the –ing

form as more subjective.

3.3. The features of the complement verb: aktionsart, semantic field and transitivity

The most statistically significant differences are associated with the complement verb.

The distinctions that proved particularly salient are: aktionsart (lexical aspect) of the

complement clause, the semantic field of the complement verb and its transitivity type.

The term aktionsart refers to a set of distinctions originally introduced by Vendler

(1967) and here adopted in the form presented in Croft (2012, p. 44). The system classifies

verbs according to their dynamicity, telicity and duration. It features four basic categories:

states (stative, atelic, durative), activities (dynamic, atelic, durative), accomplishments

(dynamic, telic, durative) and achievements (dynamic, telic, punctual). They are exemplified

respectively in 5a-5d below:

5a. You like to feel useful. (state)

9

5b. Roman ladies liked to sleep with their pearls. (activity)

5c. Hated writing stories but she likes reading them. (accomplishment)

5d. Some like to throw a snowball. (achievement)

The aktionsart of the complement clauses of the „like –ing‟ and „like to-infinitive‟

constructions is presented in Figure 2 below:

Figure 2: Aktionsart of the complement verb

The „like –ing‟ construction favours activities, which are durative events without an

inherent endpoint, while the complement verbs of „like to-infinitive‟ are more evenly

distributed across the event types. Activities are again the most numerous category, but their

predominance is less clearly marked: achievements, punctual and telic, are only marginally

less numerous and there is a certain number of verbs which instantiate the remaining two

categories, i.e. states and accomplishments. So, the „like –ing‟ construction fairly consistently

construes its complement as an activity, i.e. as durative and atelic, while „like to-infinitive‟

allows a number of other aspectual construals.

The main problem with characterizing the difference between „like –ing‟ and „like to-

infinitive‟ in terms of aktionsart is that the aspectual reading of a particular complement

clause is to a great extent influenced by the construction itself: the –ing form construes it

complement event as unbounded, so it prompts its atelic reading. What seems to have more

explanatory value is the characteristics of the complement verb itself: its semantic field and

transitivity type.

0

20

40

60

80

100

like -ing like to-inf

Aktionsart of the complement verb

activity accomplishment achievement state

10

Five main semantic classes of the complement verbs have been distinguished in the

data: action, motion, utterance, perception and cognition verbs. They are exemplified below:

6a. I like playing bingo games. (action)

6b. I must admit I don't like going anywhere without Arf. (motion)

6c. I don't like talking about Eve behind her back. (utterance)

6d. I don't like to see them suffer. (perception)

6e. I don't like to think of you in the cottage all by yourself. (cognition)

Figure 3 below shows the proportion of particular semantic classes among the

complements of the „like –ing‟ and „like to-infinitive‟ constructions.

Figure 3: semantic field of the complement verb

Once again, the „like –ing‟ complement construction clearly prefers one type of verb

over the others, and most frequently, in exactly two thirds of the sample, combines with

action verbs. For „like to-infinitive‟, action verbs constitute slightly over one third of the

examined sample, accompanied by a considerable number of utterance and cognition verbs.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Like -ing Like to-inf

Semantic field of the complement verb

action motion utterance perception cognition

11

Interesting regularities can be noticed in the frequency of individual verbs with both

constructions. The two most frequent verbs for „like –ing‟ turn out to be go and work,

appearing respectively 10 and 9 times within the examined sample. Both are dynamic

intransitive verbs which describe durative events. For the „like to-infinitive‟ the most frequent

verbs were think and see, with respectively 19 and 11 occurrences. Think is usually a stative

cognition verb followed by a clausal object, while see shares with other perception verbs the

ability to be construed either as a durative state or a punctual act of perception and it has a

wide range of complementation patterns. The most frequent utterance verbs for „like to-inf‟

are call, say and admit, all describing telic and relatively brief events. So, verbs

characteristically combining with „like to-infinitive‟ are either stative or telic. By contrast,

verbs frequently occurring with „like –ing‟ form a less unified category: telic say and atelic

talk, telic/stative see and atelic look and watch are equally frequent. This shows that „like –

ing‟ combines with various types of verbs, whereas „like to-infinitive‟ has a preference either

for stative verbs or for telic verbs, describing short, perfective actions.

The factor that proved the most statistically significant for the distinction between „like

–ing‟ and „like to-infinitive‟ is the transitivity of the complement verb. Tested individually

against the construction choice, it achieved the p-value of 1.43e-063. Figure 4 below shows

the proportion of the main transitivity classes among the complement verbs in the sample:

Figure 4: Transitivity class of the complement verb

3 P-value represents the probability of the correspondence being random, expressed by a number between 1 and

0. The closer to 0 the p-value is, the more significant is the correlation. The p-value of 1.43e-06 corresponds to

0.00000143, so it denotes a very high statistical significance.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Like -ing Like to-inf

Transitivity class of the complement verb

link verbs intransitive transitive

12

This time it is the „like to-infinitive‟ construction that favours a single predominant

alternative: a substantial majority of 81% of its complement verbs are transitive. For the „like

–ing‟ construction they also constitute a majority, but a much less pronounced one. The

construction has 55% of transitive complement verbs, as compared with 43% of intransitive

ones. Link verbs are a minority with both complement types.

Further correlations emerge if the division into particular transitive patterns is

introduced. The following transitivity types could be distinguished among the complement

verbs in the sample: monotransitive verbs with either nominal, prepositional or clausal

objects, complex transitive verbs and ditransitive verbs. They are exemplified in 7a-7e below:

7a. I like making decisions at work. (nominal object)

7b. Farce likes to tinker with such taboos. (prepositional object)

7c. People like to feel that they're doing something with their savings. (clausal object)

7d. I like watching him draw. (complex transitive)

7e. He liked to tell one that he was a dilettante. (ditransitive)

The proportions of the particular types of transitive complement verbs in both

constructions are presented in Figure 5 below:

Figure 5: types of transitive complement verbs

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Like -ing Like to-inf

Types of transitive complement verbs

nominal object prepositional object clausal object

complex transitive ditransitive

13

It is clearly visible that the transitive verbs combing with „like –ing‟ are predominantly

monotransitive verbs with nominal objects, while verbs with prepositional and clausal objects

are more visibly represented among the complements of „like to-infinitive‟. Additionally, the

„like to-infinitive‟ construction combines with a number of complex transitive verbs and even

a few ditransitive ones. It is the infinitival complement construction then that significantly

more often combines with transitive verbs and occurs with a greater variety of transitive

patterns. This seems to prove that transitivity is a factor involved in the choice between the

two complement types, and that there is a greater degree of compatibility of the infinitive

complement with verbs with a higher degree of transitivity.

The results of the correspondence analysis for the three factors related to the

complement verb, aktionsart, semantic field and transitivity type, are presented below:

Figure 6. The correspondence analysis of like –ing and like to-inf. Factors: aktionsart, semantic field and

transitivity type of the complement verb.

-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

-3-2

-10

12

like -ing vs like to-inf

Correspondence Analysis

Factors: Complement Field Pattern Aktionsart

Dim 1 (17.66%)

Dim

2 (

12

.87

%) 1

2

34

56

78

9

101112

13141516

17

18

19

20

2122

232425

26

27

28

2930

31

32

33

343536

37

38

39

4041

424344454647

4849

50

51

52535455

56

57

5859

60

61

6263

64

65

6667

6869

70

71

727374

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84858687

88

89

90

91

9293

949596

9798

99

100

101

102103

104

105

106

107

108109110

111112

113114

115

116

117118

119120121

122123124125

126

127128129

130131132133

134

135

136

137138139140

141

142143

144

145

146147

148

149150

151

152

153154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164165

166

167168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177178

179

180

181182

183

184 185

186187

188189190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202203204

205206

207

208

209

210211212

213

214215

216

217

218

219

220221

222223

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

231

232

233

234

235

236

237

238

239

240241

242243244

245

246

247

248249250

251

252

253254

255256

257

258

259

260

261

262

263

264

265

266267268

269

270

271

272

273

274275276

277

278279280

281

282

283

284

285

286

287

288

289

290

291

292

293

294

295

296

297298

299

300

ING

TO-INF

action

cognition

motion

percept

utterance

intr

link

tr-clausal

tr-compl

tr-di

tr-NP.tr-prep

accompl

achiev

activity

state

14

The most noticeable result is that the cluster of features surrounding the „like –ing‟

complement type, situated in the upper left-hand area of the graph, is dense to the point of

being illegible. It is constituted by a number of interrelated features: the aktionsart of activity

and accomplishment (so close that they actually overlap), verbs of action and motion, and

finally intransitive verbs and monotransitive verbs with a nominal object. The tight clustering

of the features in the graph signifies that they are closely correlated in actual usage and that

the complement verbs of the „like –ing‟ construction form a particularly uniform group in the

examined sample. The most typical examples of the construction would thus be the ones

presented in 8a and 8b below:

8a. I like going to parties. (motion verb, intransitive, accomplishment)

8b. I liked helping my father with the sheep. (action verb, activity, nominal object)

For the „like to-infinitive‟ construction, two clusters of features are visible in the right-

hand area of the graph. Both of them are less dense than the „like –ing‟ cluster, and situated to

the right of the points marking both constructions (ING and TO-INF), though still visibly

closer to TO-INF than to ING. This means that although they are less numerous in the data

than the features making up the „like –ing‟ cluster, they are highly characteristic for „like to-

infinitive‟, as they normally do not co-occur with the other construction. The first cluster,

situated in the upper part of the graph, represents stative cognition verbs with a clausal object,

and the second one, situated directly below the TO-INF marker, connects perception and

utterance verbs with achievements, i.e. events which are punctual and telic. The transitivity

patterns that correlate with them are complex transitive verbs, ditransitive verbs and

monotransitive verbs with prepositional objects. The combinations which are the most typical

for the „like to-infinitive‟ complement construction are exemplified in 9a-9c:

9a. And I like to think I've learned my lessons. (cognition, clausal object, state)

9b. They (…) liked to see his thin face suffuse with frustration. (complex transitive,

perception, achievement)

15

9c. No one, Dexter reflected, likes to admit to an act of cowardice. (utterance,

prepositional object, achievement)

4. Conclusions

The results of the correspondence analysis clearly delineate the differences between

the most characteristic examples „like –ing‟ and „like to-infinitive‟. They are briefly

summarized in Table 1. below. The features with particularly high statistical significance have

been struck out in bold.

‘Like –ing’ ‘Like to-infinitive’

Less formal registers (spoken language and

fiction)

More definite subject (usually SAP)

More likely in the negative

More formal registers (academic, news and

magazines)

Less definite subject (proper and common nouns)

Durative and atelic verbs

Verbs of action and motion

Intransitive verbs

Monotransitive verbs with a nominal object

Stative and telic verbs

Utterance, perception and cognition verbs

Transitive verbs

Complex transitive and ditransitive verbs

Monotransitive verbs with prepositional and

clausal objects

Table 1. The main differences in the usage of „like –ing‟ and „like to-infinitive‟

It must be borne in mind, however, that there is a considerable area of overlap between

the two constructions. For all the distinctions discussed above, the feature which was the most

characteristic for the „like –ing‟ construction (activity, action verb, transitive structure with a

nominal subject) is also the most numerous alternative for „like to-infinitive‟, but its

predominance is less clearly marked, allowing for a number of other possibilities. This

16

supports Egan‟s (2008: 162) observation that the difference between the two constructions

“may not be relevant in all contexts of actual usage.”

The results of the research justify treating the „like to-infinitive‟ structure as the

marked member of the pair, as the features characterized by the highest statistical significance

are invariably connected with this complement type, rather than the unmarked, though fairly

uniform, „like –ing‟. The features of the to-infinitive complement that in individual testing for

complement choice achieved p-values below 0.003 are the following: cognition and utterance

verbs, clausal object, complex transitive pattern, and the lexical aspect of achievement and

state. This proves that despite the considerable overlap between the two complement types,

„like to-infinitive‟ has a number of characteristic uses that it does not share with the more

uniform „like –ing‟ construction.

TOOLS AND SOURCES:

The British National Corpus, version 3 (BNC XML Edition). (2007). Distributed by Oxford

University Computing Services on behalf of the BNC Consortium. URL:

http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/

Husson, F., J. Josse, S. Le and J. Mazet. 2007. FactoMineR: Factor Analysis and Data Mining

with R. R package version 1.04. http://factominer.free.fr/

R Development Core Team (2008). R: A language and environment for statistical computing.

R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL

http://www.R-project.org.

REFERENCES:

Aissen, J. (1999). Markedness and subject choice in optimality theory. In Natural Language

and Linguistic Theory, 17, 673-711.

Croft, W. (2012). Verbs: Aspect and Causal Structure. Oxford: OUP.

Dirven, R. (1989). A cognitive perspective on complementation. In Jaspers, D. et al. (Eds.),

Sentential Complementation and the Lexicon: Studies in Honour of Wim de Geest (pp. 113-

139). Dordrecht: Foris.

17

Duffley, P. J. (2006). The English Gerund-participle. A Comparison with the Infinitive. New

York: Peter Lang.

Egan, Th. (2008). Non-finite Complementation. A Usage-based Study of Infinitive and –ing

Clauses in English. Rodopi: Amsterdam – New York.

Givon, T. (1993). English Grammar. A Function-based Introduction. Vol. 2.

Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Hamawand, Z. (2004). Determinants of complement clause variation in English. English

Studies, 5, 451-464.

Hopper, P.J. and S. A. Thompson. (1980). Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language,

56, 251-299.

Vendler, Z. (1967). Verbs and times. In Zeno Vendler (Ed.), Linguistics in Philosophy (pp.

97-121). Ithaca: Cornell University Press

Verspoor, M. (1996). The story of –ing: a subjective perspective. In M. Pütz and R. Dirven

(Eds.), The Construal of Space in Language and Thought (pp. 417-454). Berlin: Mouton de

Gruyter.

Verspoor, M. (1999). To infinitives. In L. de Stadler and Ch. Eyrich (Eds.), Issues in

Cognitive Linguistics: 1993 Proceedings of the International Cognitive Linguistics

Conference (pp. 505-526). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Verspoor, M. (2000). Iconicity in English complement constructions: conceptual distance and

cognitive processing levels. In Horie, K. (Ed.), Complementation: Cognitive and Functional

Perspectives (pp. 199-225). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.