The role of for in Modal (FOR) TO complements

A Modal (FOR) TO complement clause can be in subject, object or post-object function in the main clause. When in object function it is open to passivization (although in fact Modal (FOR) TO complements seldom are passivized, for semantic reasons). A Modal (FOR) TO clause in subject—including derived passive subject—function is most often extra-posed, as in (42b).

(42a) They had intended for Mary to lead the parade

(42b) It had been intended for Mary to lead the parade

A Modal complement clause can include for before its subject. Or it can omit the for while still retaining this underlying subject NP, which then becomes surface direct object of the main verb, as in (43a). It is this NP which is then subject to passivization, as in (43b).

(43a) They had intended Mary to lead the parade

(43b) Mary had been intended to lead the parade

We stated that for can only be omitted when the complement clause immediately follows a transitive main verb (and gave a list of the other possible positions for a Modal (FOR) TO clause, when for must be retained). This is because the complement clause subject then becomes main clause object, and an object NP must immediately follow its verb.

We mentioned that an adverb cannot intrude between a verb and an NP object; however, it may come between verb and complement clause object. An adverbial phrase like quite seriously could in (42a) be placed after had or after intended; in (43a) it could only come after had, since here intended has an NP object.

What is the semantic consequence of omitting for? This can best be inferred from study of those verbs which do allow it to be either included or omitted.

Consider also:

(44a) I had wished for Mary to win the prize

(44b) I wish Mary to stand up

(45a) I’d like it for you to kiss Auntie Daphne every time she calls

(45b) I’d like you to kiss Auntie Daphne now (she’s just arrived)

(With LIKING an it is generally included before a Modal (FOR) TO clause; it drops when the for drops.)

A construction without for and with the underlying subject of the Modal (FOR) TO clause as main clause object is used when the sentence relates directly to the referent of that NP: (44b) might be used in addressing a class of children that included Mary; (45b) is an instruction to the addressee to kiss Auntie Daphne at once. In contrast, a construction with the for retained is likely to be used for a more general statement, without the same pragmatic pressure directed towards the complement clause subject. Sentence (44a) could be a wistful thought, which Mary wasn’t even aware of; (45a) is a general request concerning what the addressee should do whenever an appropriate occasion arises, i.e. when Auntie Daphne calls. (Note that it for could be omitted from (45a), giving this sentence more pragmatic force; but it for could not be included in (45b).)

Similar semantic considerations apply to complement clauses—with and without for—following intend. Little difference may be discernible between (42a) and (43a) but when different NPs are chosen the contrast becomes plainer. Suppose I had understood that I was to lead the parade and then saw someone else in position. I would be more likely to say to the organizer You said (that) you intended me to lead the parade, rather than You said (that) you intended for me to lead the parade. Omitting for and making me (rather than the whole clause for me to lead the parade) the object of intended adds force to my complaint about how the organizer had wronged me in this instance.

In summary, when the activity referred to by the main clause relates directly to the subject of a Modal (FOR) TO complement clause, in object function, then the for will be omitted and the complement clause subject becomes surface direct object of the main verb.

Some verbs that take a Modal (FOR) TO complement never omit the for when the complement clause subject is retained, e.g. hope, long, decide, undertake, remember. The meanings of these verbs are incompatible with the pragmatic implications of having complement clause subject become main clause object. There is a second set of verbs that may either retain or omit the for—besides intend, choose, wish, like (and other LIKING verbs), this set includes desire, propose, recommend, urge.

A third class of verbs—including want, need, require, order—may have the verb followed by an adverb and then a complement beginning with for, but when there is no adverb the for will be omitted. Thus I need most urgently for Mary to give me an injection but only I need Mary to give me an injection, not (in most dialects) *I need for Mary to give me an injection. It seems that the pragmatic force of these verbs is such that the complement clause subject should normally also be main clause object. But verbs of this class do not readily take an adverb between subject and verb (?I most urgently need . . . sounds odd, although not totally impossible). Because of this there is a preference for the adverb to follow the verb and in such circumstances a for must be included.

A final class comprises Secondary-C verbs of the MAKING and HELPING types. The meanings of these verbs require complement clause subject to become main clause object, and for must be omitted. It is not permissible to include an adverb after a verb from these types, e.g. we can only say He stupidly forced her to sign the paper, not *He forced stupidly for her to sign the paper.

The question as to whether for can be, or may be, or may not be included in a Modal (FOR) TO clause is largely determined by the semantic nature of the main verb. The meaning of the Modal (FOR) TO complement—relating to its subject getting involved in the activity referred to—is basically the same in each instance. Consider:

(46a) The boss decided for Dr Jane Smith to examine Mary Brown (but she refused)

(46b) The boss decided for Mary Brown to be examined by Dr Jane Smith (but she refused)

(47a) The boss expected Dr Jane Smith to examine Mary Brown (but she refused)

(47b) The boss expected Mary Brown to be examined by Dr Jane Smith (but she refused)

(48a) The boss tried to force Dr Jane Smith to examine Mary Brown (but she refused)

(48b) The boss tried to force Mary Brown to be examined by Dr Jane Smith (but she refused)

It has been suggested that force differs syntactically from verbs like decide and expect. The reason given is that active and passive complement constructions with force—as in (48a/b)—show a striking difference in meaning, which is not the case for active and passive constructions with verbs like expect and decide (as in (47a/b), (46a/b)).

In fact (46a/b), (47a/b) and (48a/b) are syntactically parallel. They involve the same syntactic and also semantic differences; it is just that the semantic differences are more evident with force, because of the meaning of that verb.

The semantic congruence of (46a/b), (47a/b) and (48a/b) can be seen with the addition of but she refused. In each of the six sentences the she is taken to refer to the complement clause subject—to Dr Jane Smith in (46a), (47a) and (48a), and to Mary Brown in (46b), (47b) and (48b). Active and passive versions of a Modal (FOR) TO clause show the same basic semantic difference for every main verb, because a different NP is in the crucial complement clause subject slot in the two alternatives; the meaning of the Modal (FOR) TO construction relates to this complement clause subject becoming involved in the activity (or state) referred to by that clause.

This provides a further point of difference from Judgement TO complements, where the substitution of passive for active in the complement clause provides no more overall difference in meaning than this substitution produces in a main clause, e.g. I believed Dr Jane Smith to have examined Mary Brown and I believed Mary Brown to have been examined by Dr Jane Smith. One could add but she denied it to these two sentences and in each case the reference of she is unclear—it could be to Dr Jane Smith or to Mary Brown. A Judgement TO construction does not provide the semantic means to resolve this ambiguity, as a Modal (FOR) TO construction does.