The Accusative Plus Infinitive Construction in English
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This chapter focuses on the English accusative plus infinitive (A + I) construction, which in the generative literature is known as the raising to object construction and the exceptional case‐marking construction. The A + I construction is an example par excellence of a syntax–semantics mismatch and so has played a central role in our understanding of grammatical relations, semantic relations, and the ways in which syntax coordinates both of these. This chapter discusses what we call the two major “brands” of analysis: raising to object and exceptional case‐marking. We provide an overview of the evidence that has accumulated both for and against each of the brands over the decades. Further, we discuss more recent analyses that countenance the possibility that both brands may coexist. We review more recent research that investigates cases where A + I is interestingly blocked, a topic with renewed interest in the last decade. Finally, we discuss semantic issues associated with A + I and facts that challenge the assumption that A + I and related finite clauses are synonymous.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it