Cover not available

Article published In: The Diachrony of Infinitival Patterns: Their origin, development and loss
Edited by Ulrike Demske and Łukasz Jędrzejowski
[Journal of Historical Linguistics 5:1] 2015
► pp. 41–71

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

AcI and control infinitives: How different are they?

A diachronic approach

 | Saarland University
Published online: 28 August 2015
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/jhl.5.1.02spe
In German, there are two infinitive constructions for complement infinitives, the accusativus cum infinitivo (AcI) and the object control infinitive construction (OCIC). Both constructions have nearly identical structures, where the logical subject of the infinitive is a distinct constituent from the rest of the infinitival clause, although in Modern German they show differences in form: the AcI is coherent and governs the bare infinitive, while the OCIC is incoherent and governs the zu-infinitive. It can be shown that these differences only developed over time and are reflexes of semantic differences between the constructions rather than of structural differences. Superficial binding differences that suggest a structural difference follow instead from the structures of the involved verb phrases.
References (54)
Bonner FnhdC Besch, Werner, Winfried Lenders, Hugo Moser & Hugo Stopp eds. 1972–1985. Das Bonner Frühneuhochdeutschkorpus. Available at [URL].Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
MHDBDB Schmidt, Klaus M., Margarete Springeth & Horst P. Pütz. 1982. Mittelhochdeutsche Begriffsdatenbank. Available at [URL].
TITUS Gippert, Jost, et al. eds. 1994–. Thesaurus indogermanischer Text- und Sprachmaterialien (TITUS). Available at [URL].Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Akmajian, Adrian. 1977. The Complement Structure of Perception Verbs in an Autonomous Syntax Framework. Formal Syntax ed. by Peter Culicover, Thomas Wasow & Adrian Akmajian, 427–460. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Askedal, John Ole. 1998. Zur Syntax infiniter Verbalformen in den Berthold von Regensburg zugeschriebenen deutschen Predigten. Vorstufe der topologischen Kohährenz-Inkohärenz-Opposition. Historische germanische und deutsche Syntax. Akten des Internationalen Symposiums anlässlich des 100. Geburtstages von Ingerid Dal, Oslo, 27.9–1.10.1995 ed. by John Ole Askedal, 231–259. Frankfurt: Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bech, Gunnar. 1955. Studien über das deutsche Verbum infinitum. 1. Band. København: Munksgaard.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh. 2002. The Raising Analysis of Relative Clauses: Evidence from adjectival modification. Natural Language Semantics 101.43–90. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1971. Conditions on transformations. Bloomington: Indiana Linguistic Club.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Howard Lasnik. 1977. Filters and Control. Linguistic Inquiry 81.425–504.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coleman, Robert. 1985. The Indo-European Origins and Latin Development of the Accusative with Infinitive Construction. Syntaxe et Latin ed. by Christian Touratier, 307–342. Aix-en Provence: Université de Provence.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Declerck, Renaat. 1981. On the Role of Progressive Aspect in Nonfinite Perception Verb Complements. Glossa 151.83–114.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Demske, Ulrike. 2001. Zur Distribution von Infinitivkomplementen im Althochdeutschen. Modalität und Modalverben im Deutschen (Linguistische Berichte Sonderheft 9) ed. by Reimar Müller & Marga Reis, 61–86. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Denecke, Arthur. 1880. Der Gebrauch des Infinitives bei den althochdeutschen Übersetzern des 8. und 9. Jahrhunderts. Leipzig: Pöschel & Trepte.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dowty, David R. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ebert, Robert P. 1976. Infinitival Complement Constructions in Early New High German. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eisenberg, Peter. 1994. Grundriß der deutschen Grammatik. 3rd ed. Stuttgart & Weimar: Metzler. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eisenberg, Peter, Jörg Peters, Peter Gallmann, Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen, Damaris Nübling, Irmhild Barz, Thomas Fritz & Reinhard Fiehler. 2006. Duden Die Grammatik. 7th ed. Mannheim: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Evers, Arnold. 1986. Clause Union in French and German. Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik 281.170–201.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haider, Hubert. 1984. Was zu haben ist und was zu sein hat. Bemerkungen zum Infinitiv. Papiere zur Linguistik 301.23–36.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2009. The Syntax of German. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection. The View from Building 20 ed. by Kenneth Hale & Samuel J. Keyser, 111–176. Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hettrich, Heinrich. 1992. Die Entstehung des lateinischen und griechischen AcI. Rekonstruktion und relative Chronologie ed. by Robert Beekes, Alexander Lubotsky & Jos Weitenberg, 211–234. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1997. Syntaktische Rekonstruktion bei Delbrück und heute: Nochmals zum lateinischen und griechischen AcI. Berthold Delbrück y la sintaxis indoeuropea hoy ed. by Emilio Crespo & José Luis García Ramón, 219–238. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kretschmar, Alexandra. 2013. The Witness Wins It All. The Interplay of Evidentiality, Factivity and Event Type: The German Conjunction wie ‘how’ Following Verbs of Perception. Zeitschrift für Sprache und Sprachen 451.32–54.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony. 1989. Function and Grammar in the History of English Periphrastic do . Language Change and Variation ed. by Ralph Fasold & Deborah Schiffrin, 133–172. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2000. Syntactic Change. The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory ed. by Mark Baltin & Chris Collins, 629–739. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Larson, Richard. 1988. On the Double Object Construction. Linguistic Inquiry 191.335–391.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maché, Jakob & Werner Abraham. 2011. Infinitivkomplemente im Frühneuhochdeutschen - satzwertig oder nicht? Frühneuhochdeutsch - Aufgaben und Probleme seiner linguistischen Beschreibung ed. by Oskar Reichmann & Anja Lobendsten-Reichmann, 235–274. Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mittwoch, Anita. 1990. On the Distribution of Bare Infinitive Complements in English. Journal of Linguistics 261.103–131. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nye, Rachel. 2013. How Complement Clauses Distribute: Complementiser-how and the Case against Clause-Type. Universiteit Gent PhD dissertation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pittner, Karin. 1991. AcI-Konstruktionen und Valenz. Betriebslinguistik und Linguistikbetrieb ed. by Eberhard Klein, Francoise Puradier Duteil & Karl Heinz Wagner, 245–251. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. Verb Movement, Universal Grammar, and the Structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 201.365–424.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rapp, Irene. 1997. Partizipien und semantische Struktur. Zu passivischen Konstruktionen mit dem 3. Status. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya & Eric Reuland. 1993. Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry 241.657–720.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reis, Marga. 1976. Reflexivierung in deutschen A.c.I.-Konstruktionen. Ein transformationsgrammatisches Dilemma. Papiere zur Linguistik 91.5–82. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rinas, Karsten. 1997. Präsuppositionen und Komplementierung. Zur Erklärung von A.c.I-Konstruktionen, langen Extraktionen, ‘Neg-Raising’, Verbzweit-Einbettungen, kohärenten Konstruktionen und verwandten Phänomenen. Trier: Wisenschaftl. Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian. 1985. Agreement Parameters and the Development of English Modal Auxiliaries. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31.21–58. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, Peter. 1967. The Grammar of English Predicate Complement Constructions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rouveret, Alain & Jean-Roger Vergnaud. 1980. Specifying Reference to the Subject: French Causatives and Conditions on Representation. Linguistic Inquiry 111.97–202.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rubenbauer, Hans, Johann Baptist Hofmann & Rolf Heine. 1989. Lateinische Grammatik. Bamberg: Buchners.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sabel, Joachim. 2002. Das deutsche Verbum Infinitum. Deutsche Sprache 291.148–175.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldor. 2008. The Case of PRO. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 261.403–450. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Smirnova, Elena. 2011. Zur diachronen Entwicklung deutscher Komplementsatz-Konstruktionen. Konstruktionsgrammatik III. Aktuelle Fragen und Lösungsansätze ed. by Alexander Lasch & Alexander Ziem, 77–93. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Speyer, Augustin. 2001. Ursprung und Ausbreitung der AcI-Konstruktion im Deutschen. Sprachwissenschaft 261.145–187.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. To appear. Semantic Factors for the Status of Control Infinitives in the History of German. Infinitives at the Syntax-Semantics-Interface: A Diachronic Perspective ed. by Lukasz Jedrzejowski & Ulrike Demske. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
. In prep. Links im deutschen Satz. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Sternefeld, Wolfgang. 2006. Syntax. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stowell, Tim. 1982. The Tense of Infinitives. Linguistic Inquiry 131.561–570.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vendler, Zeno. 1957. Verbs and Times. The Philosophical Review 661.143–160. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Von Stechow, Arnim. 1990. Status Government and Coherence in German. Scrambling and Barriers ed. by Günther Grewendorf & Wolfgang Sternefeld, 143–198. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wöllstein-Leisten, Angelika, Axel Heilmann, Peter Stepan & Sten Vikner. 1997. Deutsche Satzstruktur. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wurmbrand, Susanne. 2001. Infinitives: Restructuring and Clause Structure. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Rivas, Javier, Esther L. Brown & Mayra Cortés-Torres
2018. Variable subject pronominal expression in non-finite clauses: Implications for variant patterns and emergent contexts. Lingua 215 ► pp. 27 ff. DOI logo
Smirnova, Elena
2016. Die Entwicklung des deutschen zu-Infinitivs:. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 138:4 ► pp. 491 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 13 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue