Subordinate clause types/functions

The presenting examples:

• She begged him [not to leave her].
• The colonel commanded his men [to charge].
• How can we encourage a baby [to use that toy properly]?

The first question is whether the infinitive clauses in brackets are subordinate. They certainly are; infinitive clauses are always subordinate. Main clauses must be tensed, and infinitives are untensed. That's what infinitive means. So that's clear enough.

The other question is more complicated. Are these infinitive clauses objects of the main verbs in the sentences (respectively begged, commanded, and encourage), or are they something else? And if so, what?

I would say that the infinitive clauses are in fact direct objects of these verbs. The direct object of a verb has to be a noun phrase, and infinitive clauses frequently act as noun phrases, sometimes as subject or more commonly as direct object of certain verbs. Some follow CGEL in calling them "catenative" verbs; I don't use the term because I don't have any need for it.

Some verbs can take complement clauses as direct objects, and other verbs can't. Verbs that can take direct object complement clauses can take one or more of the four types of complement clause:

1. Tensed complements
   • That-clauses (He said that it had been cancelled)
   • Wh-clauses (He asked whether it had been cancelled)
2. Untensed complements
   • Infinitives (He wants her to leave the store.)
   • Gerunds (He saw her leaving the store.)

Whether a verb takes a complement clause, and if so what kind of clause, is determined by the verb. It's arbitrary and varies a lot and doesn't make any obvious sense, especially when you get into particular distinctions between verbs.

In the presenting examples, beg and command are three-place communication predicates, with three arguments: a speaker (grammatically subject and semantically source), an addressee (grammatically indirect object and semantically receiver), and a complement clause (grammatically direct object and semantically trajector). The speaker communicates a message to the addressee, and the complement clause is the message.

The third sentence is a question, asking for means of encouragement. Encourage is another communication verb, with a speaker, an addressee, and a message depicting an action. Encouraging is not the same as begging or ordering, however, since the social roles involved are different, and the nature of the action is different. But the grammar's pretty much the same.

With these verbs, the complement is an infinitive specifying an action that has not yet happened, but is performed by the addressee, acting as subject of the infinitive. So both of these verbs have two independent references to the addressee -- He is being begged, and the action (not) referenced is to be performed by him. So he is the indirect object of the main clause, and also the subject of the complement clause. Similarly for his men and a baby (though that last example sounds generic, which complicates things even more).

At this point we find ourselves asking whether a noun phrase can be in two places at once, with different roles in each clause. The answer chosen defines a theory. I would say, no. It's in one clause or the other; if there are two of them, then there are two of them. But only one shows up, so one has to be deleted. That's one solution. The formal name is Equivalent Noun Phrase Deletion, or Equi for short.

Another solution is to say that one of the noun phrases is not there, really; it's just "understood". That's fine, except then "understood" has to be explained. How is it understood and why isn't something else understood, plus how does it change with the verb and noun phrases?

Either one of these analyses has to cope with the fact that there are other predicates that form sentences that look identical to these (except for verb choice), but work differently with respect to the subject of the infinitive. If we look at, for instance,

• She wanted him not to leave her.

it looks the same. But it's not. What she wanted was not him so much as for him to stay with her. There may be communication involved, but it's not stated in this verb -- it only refers to her mental state, not to anything she said to him. So him is not the indirect object of want (which is good, because want doesn't take an indirect object), though it is the subject of leave.

So what's the direct object of want in this sentence? It's the whole infinitive clause, (for) him not to leave her. The for part of the for..to infinitive complementizer usually gets deleted, but it's available to mark the subject when needed. The pronoun him is still in the same position as an indirect object would be, but it's treated as if it were the direct object of want. This is known as a Raised Subject, and name of the rule is Subject-Raising.

Most verbs that can take untensed complements are either Equi verbs like beg or Raising verbs like want. There are tests, involving Funny NPs and Passive, among others:

• She wanted/*begged the shit to hit the fan.

• She wanted/*begged there to be a party tonight.

• He begged Mary to examine Doris ≠ He begged Doris to be examined by Mary.

• He wanted Mary to examine Doris = He wanted Doris to be examined by Mary.

So if you want to call them objects, it's OK.