Omitting to from Modal (FOR) TO complements

As already mentioned, verbs from the MAKING and HELPING subtypes must omit for from a Modal (FOR) TO complement. Most of them do retain to, e.g. force, cause, get, tempt, permit, allow, assist. However, make, have and let must omit the to in an active sentence:

(49) Mary made/had/let John drive the car

Make may be used in the passive and to is then retained, e.g. John was made to drive the car. Let is only used in the passive in a few idiomatic combinations and no to is included, e.g. The balloons/pigeons/prisoners were let go. The causative sense of have is (like the other senses of this word) not used in the passive.

We were able to focus on the semantic role of for by considering those verbs that allow it optionally to be omitted and seeing what semantic effect this has. There is one verb for which to may be either included or omitted; this is help. (see also Erades 1950a and Bolinger 1974: 75).

Now consider:

(50a) John helped me to write the letter

(50b) John helped me write the letter

Sentence (50a) might be used to describe John facilitating my writing the letter—suppose that he provided pen and ink, suggested some appropriate phrases and told me how one should address a bishop. But, in this scenario, I actually wrote the letter myself. Sentence (50b), on the other hand, might be used to describe a cooperative effort where John and I did the letter together, perhaps writing alternate paragraphs.

Sentence (50b)—without to—is likely to imply that John gave direct help; there is here a direct link between the referents of main and complement clause verbs. In contrast, (50a) is more likely to be used if he gave indirect assistance. This semantic principle explains, at least in part, the inclusion or omission of to with MAKING verbs. Cause can be used of indirect action which brings about a certain result; it naturally takes to. Make, in contrast, relates to something done—on purpose or accidentally—to bring something about directly. Let focuses on the main clause subject, and the effect it has on the subject of the complement clause. These two verbs naturally exclude to. (This does not, however, explain why force, which often relates to coercion, takes to; and why the causative sense of have, which may involve some indirect means, omits to.)

There is a small group of ATTENTION verbs which (together with know) take what appears to be a variety of Modal (FOR) TO complement; to is omitted in the active but included in the passive:

(51a) They saw/heard/noticed John kick Mary

(51b) John was seen/heard/noticed to kick Mary

These do demonstrate the semantic characteristics of a Modal (FOR) TO complement—they describe John becoming involved in the activity of kicking Mary. (Note that if the complement clause is passivized we get an unacceptable sentence *They saw/heard/noticed Mary (to) be kicked by John, simply because Mary—who is now complement clause subject—is not the participant who initiates the activity.) See, hear and notice do, in this construction, imply direct and often spontaneous perception of some activity (without the additional semantic overtones carried by verbs such as recognize, discover and witness, which do not occur in the construction). It may be because of this that the to is omitted.

But why is it that to must be included when make, see, hear and notice are used in the passive? Putting (49) (with make) or (51a) in the passive, in the context of a Modal (FOR) TO complement clause, loses the pragmatic immediacy of (49) and (51a). The passive verges towards being the description of a state, and that is why to is included. (Help may include or omit to in the passive, as in the active, but—for the same reason—it does seem more likely to include it in the passive.) Interestingly, watch and listen to occur in a construction like (51a) (They watched John kick Mary, I listened to him sing), but there is no corresponding passive, either with or without to (*John was watched (to) kick Mary, *John was listened (to) sing). One must instead employ what could be analyzed as a reduced relative clause with imperfective aspect (John was watched kicking Mary). The meanings of watch and listen to imply perception over a period of time, which is highly compatible with a reduced relative in imperfective aspect. A Modal (FOR) TO construction is allowed in the active, but its passive equivalent (‘in a state of being watched/listened to’) is rejected in favor of a construction more in keeping with the meanings of watch and listen to.