Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-857557d7f7-zv5th Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-12-03T17:17:14.750Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 8 - Bayesian Multivariate Analysis of Complement Selection

Subject-Control Complements of the Verb Fear

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 December 2025

By
Juho Ruohonen  and
Juhani Rudanko
Edited by
Mikko Laitinen  and
Paula Rautionaho
Mikko Laitinen
Affiliation:
University of Eastern Finland
Paula Rautionaho
Affiliation:
University of Eastern Finland
Get access

Summary

This study is a multivariate analysis seeking to identify semantic and syntactic factors influencing the alternation between to-infinitival and bare gerundial clauses in subject-control complements of the verb fear in contemporary American English. It builds on recent qualitative discussions of this alternation and recent multivariate analyses of similar binary alternations involving a prepositionally linked (rather than bare) gerundial option. We draw upon the American component of the Corpus of News on the Web, sampling subject-control complements from a period extending from the beginning of 2010 to the end of 2021. Bayesian mixed-effects logistic regression provides varying degrees of support to numerous manifestations of the Complexity Principle, as well as strong support for the so-called Choice Principle. There is also low-quality evidence for a continuing diachronic decline of the to-infinitive.

Keywords

syntactic variationnon-finite complementationmultivariate analysisBayesian regressionChoice Principle

Information

Type
Chapter
Information
Data-Intensive Investigations of English , pp. 196 - 226
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

Agresti, Alan (2013). Categorical Data Analysis, 3rd ed. Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Agresti, Alan (2015). Foundations of Linear and Generalized Linear Models. Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Agresti, Alan (2018). An Introduction to Categorical Data Analysis, 3rd ed. Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Barth, Danielle and Kapatsinski, Vsevolod (2018). “Evaluating logistic mixed-effects models of corpus-linguistic data in light of lexical diffusion,” in Speelman, Dirk, Heylen, Kris and Geeraerts, Dirk (eds.), Mixed-Effects Regression Models in Linguistics. Quantitative Methods in the Humanities and Social Sciences. Cham: Springer International, pp. 99–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Mächler, Martin, Bolker, Ben and Walker, Steve (2015). “Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4,” Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berlage, Eva (2014). Noun Phrase Complexity in English. Studies in English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight (1979). “The jingle theory of double -ing,” in Allerton, David J., Holdcroft, David and Carney, Edward (eds.), Function and Context in Linguistic Analysis: A Festschrift for William Haas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 41–56.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, Shipra, Dingare and Manning, Christopher D. (2001). “Soft constraints mirror hard constraints: Voice and person in English and Lummi,” in Proceedings of the LFG ’01 Conference. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 13–32.Google Scholar
Carnie, Andrew (2012). Syntax: A Generative Introduction, 3rd ed. Introducing Linguistics, 4. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam (1986). Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use. Convergence. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Christiansen, Morten H. and MacDonald, Maryellen C. (2009). “A usage-based approach to recursion in sentence processing,” Language Learning, 59(December), 126–161. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00538.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Peter (ed.) (2015). Grammatical Change in English World-Wide. Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 67. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard (1976). Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cuyckens, Hubert, D’hoedt, Frauke and Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt (2014). “Variability in verb complementation in Late Modern English: Finite vs. nonfinite patterns,” in Hundt, Marianne (ed.), Late Modern English Syntax, 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 182–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deshors, Sandra C. and Gries, Stefan Th. (2016). “Profiling verb complementation constructions across New Englishes: A two-step Random Forests analysis of ing vs. to complements,” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 21(2), 192–218. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.21.2.03des.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David R. (1979). Word Meaning and Montague Grammar: The Semantics of Verbs and Times in Generative Semantics and in Montague’s PTQ. Synthese Language Library, 7. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duffley, Patrick and Fisher, Ryan (2020). “To‐infinitive and gerund‐participle clauses with the verbs dread and fear,” Studia Linguistica, 74(November), 72–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/stul.12150.Google Scholar
Dunkler, Daniela, Plischke, Max, Leffondré, Karen and Heinze, Georg (2014). “Augmented backward elimination: A pragmatic and purposeful way to develop statistical models,” ed. Olivier, Jake. PLoS ONE 9(11): e113677. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0113677.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fisher, Ryan and Duffley, Patrick J. (2019). “A cognitive-semantic study of verbal complementation with adjectives expressing the emotion of fear in Canadian English,” Cognitive Semantics, 5(1), 121–146. https://doi.org/10.1163/23526416-00501005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fonteyn, Lauren and Petré, Peter (2022). “On the probability and direction of morphosyntactic lifespan change,” Language Variation and Change, 34(1), 79–105. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394522000011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, John and Weisberg, Sanford (2019). An R Companion to Applied Regression, 3rd ed. Los Angeles: SAGE.Google Scholar
Gelman, Andrew, Carlin, John B., Stern, Hal S., Dunson, David B., Vehtari, Aki and Rubin, Donald B. (2014). Bayesian Data Analysis, 3rd ed. Texts in Statistical Science Series. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Gelman, Andrew, Hill, Jennifer and Vehtari, Aki (2020). Regression and Other Stories. Analytical Methods for Social Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grafmiller, Jason, Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt and Lars, Hinrichs (2018). “Restricting the restrictive relativizer: Constraints on subject and non-subject English relative clauses,” Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 14(2), 309–355. https://doi.org.libproxy.helsinki.fi/10.1515/cllt-2016-0015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedeker, Donald R. and Gibbons, Robert D. (2006). Longitudinal Data Analysis. Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Interscience.Google Scholar
Hosmer, David W., Lemeshow, Stanley and Sturdivant, Rodney X. (2013). Applied Logistic Regression, 3rd ed. Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney D. and Pullum, Geoffrey K. (2002). The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney D. and Pullum, Geoffrey K. (2005). A Student’s Introduction to English Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George (1977). “Linguistic Gestalts,” in Papers from the Thirteenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 236–287.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey (2004). “A New Gray’s Anatomy of English Grammar,” English Language and Linguistics, 8(1), 121–147. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674304001273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levshina, Natalia (2016). “When variables align: A Bayesian multinomial mixed-effects model of English permissive constructions,” Cognitive Linguistics, 27(2), 235–267. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2015-0054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levshina, Natalia (2022). “Comparing Bayesian and frequentist models of language variation: The case of help + (to-)infinitive,” in Schützler, Ole and Schlüter, Julia (eds.), Data and Methods in Corpus Linguistics, 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 224–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mair, Christian (2013). “The World System of Englishes: Accounting for the transnational importance of mobile and mediated vernaculars,” English World-Wide: A Journal of Varieties of English, 34(3), 253–278. https://doi.org/10.1075/eww.34.3.01mai.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marantz, Alec (1984). On the Nature of Grammatical Relations. Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 10. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
McElreath, Richard (2020). Statistical Rethinking, 2nd ed. New York: Chapman and Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melnick, Robin and Wasow, Thomas. (2019). “Priming and inhibition of optional infinitival to,” in Proceedings of the Ninth Workshop on Cognitive Modeling and Computational Linguistics, Association for Computational Linguistics, St. Julians, Malta.Google Scholar
Nash, John C. and Varadhan, Ravi (2011). “Unifying optimization algorithms to aid software system users: Optimx for R,” Journal of Statistical Software, 43(9), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v043.i09.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Postal, Paul M. (1970). “On coreferential complement subject deletion,” Linguistic Inquiry, 1(4), 439–500.Google Scholar
Poutsma, Hendrik (1905). A Grammar of Late Modern English: Part 1. The Sentence, 1st ed. Groningen: P. Noordhoff. Copyright Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Poutsma, Hendrik (1929). A Grammar of Late Modern English: Part 1. The Sentence, 2nd ed. Groningen: P. Noordhoff. Copyright Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Poutsma, Hendrik (n.d.). “Dictionary of Constructions of Verbs, Adjectives, and Nouns,” unpublished manuscript. Copyright Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey and Svartvik, Jan (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, 2nd rev. ed. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter (1996). “Cognitive complexity and increased grammatical explicitness in English,” Cognitive Linguistics, 7(2), 149–182. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1996.7.2.149.CrossRefGoogle 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. 205–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter (2006). “The role of functional constraints in the evolution of the English complementation system,” in Dalton-Puffer, Christiane, Kastovsky, Dieter and Ritt, Nikolaus (eds.), Syntax, Style and Grammatical Norms: English from 1500–2000. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 144–166.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter (2016). “Testing two processing principles with respect to the extraction of elements out of complement clauses in English,” English Language & Linguistics, 20(3), 463–486. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674316000307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbaum, Peter (1967). The Grammar of English Predicate Complement Constructions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ross, John R. (1972). “Doubl-Ing,” Linguistic Inquiry, 3(1), 61–86. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004372986_013.Google Scholar
Ross, John R. (2004). “Nouniness,” in Aarts, Bas, Denison, David, Keizer, Evelien and Popova, Gergana (eds.), Fuzzy Grammar: A Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 351–422.Google Scholar
Rudanko, Juhani (2006). “Watching English grammar change: A case study on complement selection in British and American English,” English Language and Linguistics, 10(1), 31–48. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674306001791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudanko, Juhani (2017). Infinitives and Gerunds in Recent English: Studies on Non-finite Complements with Data from Large Corpora, 1st ed. Cham: Springer International.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruohonen, Juho and Rudanko, Juhani (2021). Infinitival vs. Gerundial Complementation with Afraid, Accustomed, and Prone: Multivariate Corpus Studies. Cham: Springer International.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Carlota S. (1997). The Parameter of Aspect, 2nd ed. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, 43. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strobl, Carolin, Malley, James and Tutz, Gerhard (2009). “An introduction to recursive partitioning: Rationale, application, and characteristics of classification and regression trees, bagging, and Random Forests,” Psychological Methods, 14(4), 323–348. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016973.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tagliamonte, Sali (2012). Variationist Sociolinguistics: Change, Observation, Interpretation. Language in Society, 40. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tottie, Gunnel (1991). “Lexical diffusion in syntactic change: Frequency as a determinant in the development of negation in English,” in Kastovsky, Dieter (ed.), Historical English Syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 439–467.Google Scholar
Tyrkkö, Jukka and Rudanko, Juhani (2022). “Grammar, text type, and diachrony as factors influencing complement choice in historical American English,” in Kytö, Merja and Siebers, Lucia (eds.), Earlier North American Englishes. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 123–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vehtari, Aki, Gelman, Andrew, Simpson, Daniel, Carpenter, Bob and Bürkner, Paul-Christian (2021). “Rank-normalization, folding, and localization: An improved Rˆ for assessing convergence of MCMC (with discussion),” Bayesian Analysis, 16(2), 667–718. https://doi.org/10.1214/20-BA1221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vittinghoff, Eric and McCulloch, Charles E. (2007). “Relaxing the rule of ten events per variable in logistic and cox regression,” American Journal of Epidemiology, 165(6), 710–718. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwk052.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vosberg, Uwe (2006). Die Grosse Komplementverschiebung: Aussersemantische Einflüsse Auf Die Entwicklung Satzwertiger Ergänzungen Im Neuenglischen. Language in Performance, 34. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Vosberg, Uwe (2022). “Book Review: Juho Ruohonen and Juhani Rudanko, Infinitival vs Gerundial Complementation with Afraid, Accustomed, and Prone: Multivariate Corpus Studies. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2021. pp. xiii, 161. ISBN 9783030567576,” English Language and Linguistics, 26 (May), 1–8.Google Scholar
Wanner, Anja (2009). Deconstructing the English Passive. Topics in English Linguistics, 41. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Accessibility standard: Inaccessible, or known limited accessibility

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 is known to have missing or limited accessibility features. We may be reviewing its accessibility for future improvement, but final compliance is not yet assured and may be subject to legal exceptions. If you have any questions, please contact accessibility@cambridge.org.

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.

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
×