To infinitive as a relative clause or a purpose adjunct

Question

(1) I brought some books to read.(2) I brought some books that I could read.(3) I brought some books in order to read.In (1), is "to read" to be interpreted as a relative clause a purpose adjunct?In other words, is (1) to be interpreted as (2) or (3)?

CalifJim · Accepted Answer

JungKimIn other words, is (1) to be interpreted as (2) or (3)?

(2).

CJ

Anonymous · Answer

1. This is okay. It means: I bought some books for the purpose of reading them.

2. This is okay, but doesn't mean the same thing as 1. Sentence 2 means: I bought some books that are at my reading level.

3. This sentence is actually awkward usage, although from a purely theoretical-grammatical point of view, it is grammatical. People don't talk like this today. The "in order" would be considered redundant.

BillJ · Answer

JungKim(1) I brought some books to read. (2) I brought some books that I could read.(3) I brought some books in order to read.In (1), is "to read" to be interpreted as a relative clause a purpose adjunct?In other words, is (1) to be interpreted as (2) or (3)?

(1) I brought some books [(for me) to read].
(2) I brought some books [that I could read].
(3) I brought some books [in order to read].

I'd say it is ambiguous: where an infinitival relative clause is within an NP functioning as object, as it is in your first two examples, the clause could alternatively be analysed as an infinitival purpose adjunct. So (1) could be interpreted either as a relative similar in meaning to (2) or as a purpose adjunct meaning the same as (3).

BillJ

JungKim · Answer

BillJSo (1) could be interpreted either as a relative similar in meaning to (2) or as a purpose adjunct meaning the same as (3).

Thanks BillJ.
Here's a follow-up question for you and any other native speaker.
But first, let me say what I know and then I'll ask about what I don't know.

(1) I brought some books [(for me) to read].
(2) I brought some books [that I could read].
(3) I brought some books [in order to read].

Here's what I know:
Let's assume for a moment that, in (1), a relative interpretation of "to read" is intended. Then, you're not allowed to put "them" in a relative construction. Hence, "*I bought some books to read them".
On the other hand, in (3), "in order" makes it clear that "in order to read" is not a relative clause but a purpose adjunct. Therefore, putting "them" after "read" is not prohibited: "I brought some books in order to read them."

Now, here goes my queston:
Given the finding that (1) could be interpreted either as a relative or as a purpose adjunct, what are the criteria for determining if putting "them" is either prohibited or required or optional in (1) and a similar construction with a noun object followed by to-infinitive clause?

Alternatively, is it safe to say that you can always omit "them" in (1) and similar constructions?

CalifJim · Answer

JungKimin (3), "in order" makes it clear that "in order to read" is not a relative clause but a purpose adjunct. Therefore, putting "them" after "read" is not prohibited: "I brought some books in order to read them."

Can you provide more examples of this structure having a purpose adjunct with the pronoun?

I ask because I have not been able to construct a single sentence like this where the pronoun sounds natural.

JungKimis it safe to say that you can always omit "them" in (1) and similar constructions?

It certainly seems so to me, given the scarcity of natural examples that explicitly state the pronoun, but I really hesitate to say "always". Perhaps this is an example where the pronoun is required: We divided the sandwich to share it.

CJ

BillJ · Answer

JungKimHere's a follow-up question for you and any other native speaker.But first, let me say what I know and then I'll ask about what I don't know. (1) I brought some books [(for me) to read].(2) I brought some books [that I could read].(3) I brought some books [in order to read].Here's what I know:Let's assume for a moment that, in (1), a relative interpretation of "to read" is intended. Then, you're not allowed to put "them" in a relative construction. Hence, "*I bought some books to read them".

In all your examples, the object of "read" is covert, but the meaning is derived from the antecedent. This becomes clear when a 'gap' is inserted to represent the covert position of the missing object:

(1) I brought some booksi [(for me) to read ___i].
(2) I brought some booksi [that I could read ___i].
(3) I brought some booksi [in order to read ___i].

The gap notation represents "some books", so "them" is not possible, though you may well find "them" used as a pro-form in (3), for example an annoyed parent to a noisy child: "I brought these books in order to read them. Now be quiet!"

BillJ

JungKim · Answer

BillJThe gap notation represents "some books", so "them" is not possible, though you may well find "them" used as a pro-form in (3), for example an annoyed parent to a noisy child: "I brought these books in order to read them. Now be quiet!"

So the reason that "them" is optional in (3) has little to do with "in order" but something to do with the context. Therefore, in your same context, the annoyed parent could have said instead: "I brought these books to read them. Now be quiet!"
No?

BillJ · Answer

JungKimo the reason that "them" is optional in (3) has little to do with "in order" but something to do with the context. Therefore, in your same context, the annoyed parent could have said instead: "I brought these books to read them. Now be quiet!"

Yes - in which case I would say it is a purpose adjunct, not a relative clause, so no ambiguity there. You could also say "I brought these books because I wanted to read them" or "I brought these books so (that) I could read them" or "I brought these books to make sure I didn't get bored", where the underlined expressions are clearly purpose adjuncts, though only the latter is an infinitival clause.

BillJ

JungKim · Answer

CalifJimCan you provide more examples of this structure having a purpose adjunct with the pronoun?I ask because I have not been able to construct a single sentence like this where the pronoun sounds natural.

"I helped MJ with her report to go out with her on Saturday." (MJ = her)
"I helped MJ with her report to date her on Saturday." (MJ = her)
In neither of these, it seems, does omitting the second "her" sound right at least to my ears. What do you think?

CalifJimPerhaps this is an example where the pronoun is required: We divided the sandwich to share it.

Isn't "to share it" a purpose adjunct and isn't this an example "having a purpose adjunct with a pronoun"??

By the way, what's wrong with omitting "it" there??
"We divided the sandwich to share" at least sounds way better than "I helped MJ with her report to go out with on Saturday."

CalifJim · Answer

JungKim"I helped MJ with her report to go out with her on Saturday." (MJ = her)"I helped MJ with her report to date her on Saturday." (MJ = her)

Not the same structure. There is no way that anyone could conceive of a thing called "the report to go out with on Saturday", so there is no ambiguity about which of the two analyses is appropriate. I thought you were interested in the ambiguous cases.

JungKimIsn't "to share it" a purpose adjunct and isn't this an example "having a purpose adjunct with a pronoun"??

Yes. You asked if it was safe to omit the pronoun in all cases. I gave you an example that illustrates that you can't omit the pronoun in all cases. I did say "perhaps", and I didn't say it was a great example. It's just the sort of thing you have to look for to get a sentence that satisfies your requirements.

CJ

To infinitive as a relative clause or a purpose adjunct

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions