Az Eszterházy Károly Tanárképző Főiskola Tudományos Közleményei. 1994. [Vol. 2.] Eger Journal of American Studies. (Acta Academiae Paedagogicae Agriensis : Nova series ; Tom. 22)

STUDIES - Csaba Czeglédi: On the Distribution of Infinitival and Gerundive Complements in English

them. In (18 b) the plural noun suggests the repetition of the action, which is the reason why the -ing complement, they claim, is preferred to the infinitive. Compare also (19) a. I heard them shoot at him. b. I heard them shooting at him. where the -ing clause complement in (19b) expresses the repetition of shots. In addition to differences in aspect, relative temporal deixis, and the potentiality vs. performance dichotomy, semantic contrasts of a different kind have also been noted in the literature. Dixon (1984) (quoted in Wierzbicka 1988:85) argues that a semantic difference in implication and presupposition underlies the grammatical difference between the nonfinite complements in sentences like (20a and b)

. (20) a. Mary began to hit John, b. Mary began hitting John. In his analysis, (20b) implies that the action described in the complement clause did actually happen, while (20a) has no such implication. Klein's (1982) findings also seem to confirm a similar hypothesis formulated in terms of strong versus weak pragmatic implicativeness (a refinement of the implicative

—nonimplicative distinction introduced by Karttunen 1971). He argues that, for matrix verbs which allow either type of complement, gerundive complements are associated with stronger pragmatic implicativeness than infinitival complement clauses as regards the realization of the event described in the complement The hypothesis As we have seen in this very brief review of some interesting proposals that seek to explain the distribution of nonfinite complements in English on semantic or pragmatic grounds, choice between infinitival and -ing clause complementation often appears to be predictable in terms of as19