Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-npwhs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-29T01:25:18.035Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

11 - The System of Clausal Complementation

from Part II - Tracking Change in the History of English

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 October 2025

Joan C. Beal
Affiliation:
University of Sheffield
Get access

Summary

This chapter addresses the history of the English system of clausal complementation. It is organised around four major questions. First, where do complement clauses (or CCs) come from? The history of English indicates that adverbial clauses can turn into CCs (e.g. lest-complements), or phrasal units undergo clausalisation (e.g. the gerund) – or both these mechanisms come into play (e.g. the to-infinitive). Second, what changes can CCs undergo? Changes to CCs may affect their internal syntax. For example, subjectless non-finite clauses have a strong tendency to develop subjects (e.g. ECM constructions, for…to-infinitives, secondary predicates). Often, CCs also undergo distributional change as they spread to new CC-taking predicates. The characteristic pattern is one of lexical diffusion. Third, how does the system change as a whole? English sees an unmistakable trend towards more non-finite complementation – a development known as the ‘Great Complement Shift’. This leads to a great number of variation hotspots, where finite CCs compete with non-finite alternatives, or non-finite alternatives compete among themselves. Fourth, what eventually becomes of CCs? At least two pathways of change appear to be open to CCs. In both cases CCs become more main-clause like. Either the matrix clause develops into an operator (i.e. an auxiliary or parenthetical), or the matrix clause disappears altogether, leading to insubordination.

Information

Type
Chapter
Information
The New Cambridge History of the English Language
Transmission, Change and Ideology
, pp. 301 - 325
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aarts, Bas. 1992. Small Clauses in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1968. Entailment and the meaning of structures. Glossa 2: 119127.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1980. Wanna and the gradience of auxiliaries. In Brettschneider, Gunter and Lehmann, Christian (eds.), Wege zur Universalienforschung: Sprachwissenschaftliche Beiträge zum 60. Geburtstag von Hansjakob Seiler [Paths in the Research of Universals. Linguistic Studies for Hansjakob Seiler on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday] Tübingen: Gunter Narr, pp. 292299.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 1996. Pragmatic Markers in English: Grammaticalization and Discourse Functions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110907582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brook, Marisa. 2018. Taking it up a level: copy-raising and cascaded tiers of morphosyntactic change. Language Variation and Change 30: 231260.Google Scholar
Castro-Chao, Noelia. 2022. The emergence and loss of the English minor complementizers till and until. Journal of English Linguistics 50.4: 354383.Google Scholar
Chappell, Hilary. 2008. Variation in the grammaticalization of complementizers from verba dicendi in Sinitic languages. Linguistic Typology 12.1: 4598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cuyckens, Hubert and D’hoedt, Frauke. 2015. Variability in clausal verb complementation: the case of admit. In Höglund, Mikko, Rickman, Paul, Rudanko, Juhani and Havu, Jukka (eds.), Perspectives on Complementation: Structure, Variation and Boundaries. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 77100.Google Scholar
Cuyckens, Hubert, D’hoedt, Frauke and Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2014. Variability in verb complementation in Late Modern English: finite vs. non-finite patterns. In Hundt, Marianne (ed.), Late Modern English Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 182203.10.1017/CBO9781139507226.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, Ewa. 2008. Questions with long-distance dependencies: a usage-based perspective. Cognitive Linguistics 19.3: 391425.Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik. 2007. For … to-infinitives as verbal complements in late modern and present-day English: between motivation and change. English Studies 88.1: 6794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik. 2008. Functional motivations in the development of nominal and verbal gerunds in Middle and Early Modern English. English Language and Linguistics 12: 55102.10.1017/S136067430700250XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik. 2010. English -ing-clauses and their problems: the structure of grammatical categories. Linguistics 48.6: 11531193.Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik. 2013. Spreading Patterns: Diffusional Change in the English System of Complementation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik. 2014. Constrained confusion: the gerund/participle distinction in Late Modern English. In Hundt, Marianne (ed.), Late Modern English Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 224238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik. 2015. Participle clauses between adverbial and complement. Word 61.1: 3974.Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik and Cuyckens, Hubert. 2005. Pragmatic strengthening and the meaning of complement constructions: the case of like and love with the to-infinitive. Journal of English Linguistics 33.1: 334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik and Cuyckens, Hubert. 2007. Diachronic aspects of complementation: constructions, entrenchment and the matching problem. In Cain, Christopher and Russom, Geoffrey (eds.), Studies in the History of the English Language III: Managing Chaos – Strategies for Identifying Change in English. 137. Berlin: Mouton, pp. 137.Google Scholar
D’hoedt, Frauke. 2017. Language change in constructional networks: the development of the English Secondary Predicate Construction. Doctoral dissertation, KU Leuven.Google Scholar
D’hoedt, Frauke and Cuyckens, Hubert. 2017. The development of the as-Secondary Predicate Construction: constructionalization and internalization. Language Sciences 59: 1635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D’hoedt, Frauke, De Smet, Hendrik and Cuyckens, Hubert. 2019. Constructions waxing and waning: a diachronic overview of the zero-Secondary Predicate Construction. Journal of English Linguistics 47.1: 328.Google Scholar
Duffley, Patrick J. 2000. Gerund versus infinitive as complement of transitive verbs in English: the problems of ‘tense’ and ‘control’. Journal of English Linguistics 28: 221248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Nicholas. 2007. Insubordination and its uses. In Nikolaeva, Irina (ed.), Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 366431.Google Scholar
Fanego, Teresa. 1996a. The development of gerunds as objects of subject-control verbs in English (1400–1760). Diachronica 13: 2962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fanego, Teresa. 1996b. On the historical development of English retrospective verbs. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 97: 7179.Google Scholar
Fanego, Teresa. 2004. On reanalysis and actualization in syntactic change: the rise and development of English verbal gerunds. Diachronica 21: 555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fanego, Teresa. 2007. Drift and the development of sentential complements in British and American English from 1700 to the present day. In Pérez-Guerra, Javier, González-Álvarez, Dolores, Bueno-Alonso, Jorge L. and Rama-Martínez, Esperanza (eds.), ‘Of Varying Language and Opposing Creed’: New Insights into Late Modern English. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 161236.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga. 1992. Syntactic change and borrowing: the case of the accusative-and-infinitive construction in English. In Gerritsen, Marinel and Stein, Dieter (eds.), Internal and External Factors in Syntactic Change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Olga. 1994. The fortunes of the Latin-type accusative and infinitive construction in Dutch and English compared. In Swan, Toril, Mørck, Endre and Westvik, Olaf Jansen (eds.), Language Change and Language Structure in a Comparative Perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 91133.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga. 1998. On negative raising in the history of English. In Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid, Tottie, Gunnel and Van der Wurff, Wim (eds.), Negation in the History of English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 55100.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga, Koopman, Willem and Van Kemenade, Ans. 2000. The Syntax of Early English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga, De Smet, Hendrik and van der Wurff, Wim. 2017. A Brief History of English Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fonteyn, Lauren. 2019. Categoriality in Language Change: The Case of the English Gerund. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fonteyn, Lauren, De Smet, Hendrik and Heyvaert, Liesbet. 2015. What it means to verbalize: the changing discourse functions of the English gerund. Journal of English Linguistics 43.1: 3660.10.1177/0075424214564365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
García-Castro, Laura. 2020. The diachronic evolution of the complementation profile of remember from Late Modern to Present-Day British English. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 121.1: 144180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gentens, Caroline. 2020. The Factive-Reported Distinction in English: Representational and Interpersonal Semantics. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Gentens, Caroline and Rudanko, Juhani. 2019. The Great Complement Shift and the role of understood subjects: the case of fearful. Folia Linguistica 53.1: 5186.10.1515/flin-2019-2004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 2009. The Genesis of Syntactic Complexity: Diachrony, Ontogeny, Neuro-Cognition, Evolution. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Green, Clarence. 2017. Patterns and Development in the English Clause System. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
Grund, Peter J. and Walker, Terry. 2021. Speech Representation in the History of English: Topics and Approaches. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Harris, Martin. 1978. The Evolution of French Syntax: A Comparative Approach. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1989. From purposive to infinitive: a universal path of grammaticalization. Folia Linguistica Historica 10: 287310.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1986. A Comparative Typology of English and German: Unifying the Contrasts. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd and Kuteva, Tania. 2007. The Genesis of Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hendery, Rachel. 2012. Relative Clauses in Time and Space: A Case Study in the Methods of Diachronic Typology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney and Pullum, Geoffrey. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jack, George. 1988. The origins of the English gerund. Nowele 12: 1575.Google Scholar
Kaunisto, Mark and Rudanko, Juhani. 2019. Variation in Non-finite Constructions in English. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd. 1991. Free Adjuncts and Absolutes in English: Problems of Control and Interpretation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kranich, Svenja. 2010. The Progressive in Modern English: A Corpus-Based Study of Grammaticalization and Related Changes. Amsterdam: Rodopi.10.1163/9789042031449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krug, Manfred. 2000. Emerging English Modals: A Corpus-Based Study of Grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
López-Couso, María-José. 2007. Adverbial connectives within and beyond adverbial subordination: the history of lest. In Lenker, Ursula and Meurman-Solin, Anneli (eds.), Connectives in the History of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1127.10.1075/cilt.283.03lopCrossRefGoogle Scholar
López-Couso, María-José and Méndez-Naya, Belén. 2001. On the history of if and though-links with declarative complement clauses. English Language and Linguistics 5.1: 93107.Google Scholar
López-Couso, María-José and Méndez-Naya, Belén. 2012. On the use of as if, as though, and like in present-day complementation structures. Journal of English Linguistics 40.2: 172195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
López-Couso, María-José and Méndez-Naya, Belén. 2015. Secondary grammaticalization in clause combining: from adverbial subordination to complementation in English. Language Sciences 47: 188198.Google Scholar
Lorenz, David. 2013. Contractions of English semi-modals: the emancipating effect of frequency. Doctoral dissertation, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg.Google Scholar
Los, Bettelou. 2005. The Rise of the To-Infinitive. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Los, Bettelou. 2015. A Historical Syntax of English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.10.1515/9780748694563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mair, Christian. 1990. Infinitival Complement Clauses in English: A Study of Syntax in Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Miller, Gary D. 2001. Nonfinite Structures in Theory and Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Moessner, Lilo. 1989. Early Middle English Syntax. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Noonan, Michael. 1985. Complementation. In Shopen, Timothy (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. 2: Complex Constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 42110.Google Scholar
Percillier, Michael. 2020. Allostructions, homostructions or a constructional family? Changes in the network of secondary predicate constructions in Middle English. In Sommerer, Lotte and Smirnova, Elena (eds.), Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 214242.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter. 1995. On the replacement of finite complement clauses by infinitives in English. English Studies 76.4: 367388.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter. 1996. Cognitive complexity and increased grammatical explicitness in English. Cognitive Linguistics 7: 149182.10.1515/cogl.1996.7.2.149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter. 2003. Cognitive complexity and horror aequi as factors determining the use of interrogative clause linkers in English. In Rohdenburg, Günter and Mondorf, Britta (eds.), Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 205249.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter. 2006. The role of functional constraints in the evolution of the English complementation system. In Dalton-Puffer, Christiane, Kastovsky, Dieter, Ritt, Nikolaus and Schendl, Herbert (eds.), Syntax, Style and Grammatical Norms: English from 1500–2000. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 143166.Google Scholar
Rudanko, Juhani. 2017. Infinitives and Gerunds in Recent English: Studies on Non-finite Complements with Data from Large Corpora. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
Rudanko, Juhani and Paul, Rickman. 2022. Analyzing the gerundial patterns of prevent: new corpus evidence from recent English. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 67.1–2: 7187.Google Scholar
Ruohonen, Juho and Rudanko, Juhani. 2020. Infinitival vs Gerundial Complementation with Afraid, Accustomed, and Prone. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
Saarimäki, Veera. 2018. Sentential complementation of propose in recent British English. In Kaunisto, Mark, Höglund, Mikko and Rickman, Paul (eds.), Changing Structures: Studies in Constructions and Complementation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 109128.10.1075/slcs.195.07saaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sansiñena, Maria-Sol, De Smet, Hendrik and Cornillie, Bert. 2015. Between subordinate and insubordinate: paths towards complementizer-initial main clauses. Journal of Pragmatics 77: 319.10.1016/j.pragma.2014.12.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlüter, Julia. 2005. Rhythmic Grammar: The Influence of Rhythm on Grammatical Variation and Change in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schmidtke-Bode, Kasper. 2014. Complement clauses and complementation systems: a cross-linguistic study of grammatical organization. PhD thesis, University of Jena.Google Scholar
Tajima, Matsuji. 1985. The Syntactic Development of the Gerund in Middle English. Tokyo: Nan’un-do.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. and Mulac, Anthony. 1991. A quantitative perspective on the grammaticalization of epistemic parentheticals in English. In Elizabeth, C. Traugott and Heine, Bernd (eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. 2: Focus on Types of Grammatical Markers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 313329.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: an example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 65.1: 3155.Google Scholar
Van Bogaert, Julie. 2011. I think and other complement-taking mental predicates: a case of and for constructional grammaticalization. Linguistics 49: 295332.Google Scholar
Van der Auwera, Johan and Noël, Dirk. 2011. Raising: Dutch between English and German. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 23.1: 136.10.1017/S1470542710000048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van linden, An. 2010. From premodal to modal meaning: adjectival pathways in English. Cognitive Linguistics 21: 537571.10.1515/COGL.2010.018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Visser, Fredericus T. 1963–1973. An Historical Syntax of the English Language. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Vosberg, Uwe. 2006. Die Grosse Komplementverschiebung. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Warner, Anthony. 1982. Complementation in Middle English and the Methodology of Historical Syntax: A Study of the Wyclifite Sermons. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Weiß, Helmut. 2020. Where do complementizers come from and how did they come about? In Padovan, Andrea (ed.), Lexical Issues in the Architecture of the Language Faculty. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 3055.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1988. The Semantics of Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.0 A

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

The PDF of this book conforms to version 2.0 of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), ensuring core accessibility principles are addressed and meets the basic (A) level of WCAG compliance, addressing essential accessibility barriers.

Content Navigation

Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.

Reading Order & Textual Equivalents

Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
Full alternative textual descriptions
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.

Visual Accessibility

Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.

Structural and Technical Features

ARIA roles provided
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×