Infinitives are tenseless
Synopsis. A common view since Stowell (1982) holds that infinitival complements can be tensed or
tenseless, and that the presence vs. absence of infinitival tense correlates with different syntactic struc-
tures or properties (see e.g., Boskovi 1996, 1997, Martin 1996, 2001, Pesetsky 1992, Pesetsky and Tor-
rego 2004, Landau 2000, Wurmbrand 2001). This paper argues against the presence of any kind of infini-
tival tense and suggests alternative accounts for the properties previously attributed to tense.
Infinitival future vs. finite future. While there is some disagreement regarding the classification of
tensed vs. tenseless infinitives, future irrealis infinitives are generally considered to involve tense. Com-
paring these infinitives with finite future complements, however, reveals two crucial differences. First,
while finite future must be evaluated relative to the utterance time (UT) in English (cf. (1)a), infinitival
future can refer to a time before the UT (cf. (1)b). Second, while a past tense complement in the scope of
a finite future cannot be interpreted as occurring simultaneously with the future event (cf. (2)a), a simul-
taneous interpretation is possible for past tense complements embedded under a future infinitive (cf. (2)b).
Proposal. I argue that the differences between finite and infinitival future follow from the presence (fi-
nite) vs. absence (non-finite) of tense. First, a standard account of (1)a is based on two assumptions (see
among others Dowty 1982, Abusch 1988, 1997, 1998, Ogihara 1996): i) (finite) future is not a simple
tense but composed of PRES tense plus a modal woll which entails future; ii) English PRES is absolute--
i.e., evaluated with respect to the UT. The PRES tense part of the future is thus responsible for the abso-
lute nature of English future contexts such as (1)a. Assuming that infinitival future lacks the PRES tense
part and only involves the modal woll, it follows that infinitival future does not require an absolute inter-
pretation--i.e., the time of the infinitival event can be before or after the UT.
Second, I assume that English is subject to the Sequence of tense rule in (3) which states that a tense
is (optionally) deleted if it is in the scope of another tense with the same value (PRES or PAST) and no
other tense is intervening between the two tenses. The difference between (2)a and (2)b then follows from
the different structures suggested (see (4)). Since in (2)a the highest PAST is not local enough for the
lowest PAST, deletion of the latter cannot apply and hence a simultaneous interpretation is not possible.
In contrast, infinitival future lacks tense, and hence the highest PAST will be the local tense for the lowest
PAST, allowing deletion and as result a simultaneous interpretation. If, on the other hand, infinitives were
to involve (any type of) PRES tense, the difference between (2)a and (2)b would be left unexplained.
Lastly, I show that infinitival tense is also crucially different from would (i.e., PAST + woll). While
the assumption of a silent would in infinitives (Martin 1996, 2001) would account for (1) and (2), it runs
into problems for cases such as (5). As shown in (5)a, non-conditional would is impossible embedded un-
der future. I assume that this follows from a special obligatory SOT requirement associated with would in
certain contexts. Since would in (5)a is not in an SOT environment (PAST is under PRES; see (5)a'),
SOT cannot apply, resulting in ungrammaticality. The minimally different infinitival construction in (5)b,
on the other hand, is fully grammatical. This difference, while unexplained if infinitival tense corresponds
to would, follows from the proposal that infinitives lack tense: since there is no PAST, the special would
requirement does not apply. Moreover, the tenseless structure (but not the would structure) correctly pre-
dicts that deletion of the lowest PAST is impossible since it is not under another PAST (see (5)b').
The syntax of tenseless infinitives The claim that infinitives lack tense is further supported by the
distribution of eventive predicates. As shown in (6), (non-generic) eventive predicates are impossible in
present, but possible in past and future contexts in English. Since PRES does not license eventive predi-
cates, the felicity of (6)c must be attributed to woll. Assuming that future infinitives are tenseless but in-
volve woll then correctly accounts for the possibility of eventive predicates in these contexts (cf. (7)a).
More interesting, however, are simultaneous infinitives such as the ones in (7)b, which despite the lack of
a future interpretation nevertheless allow eventive predicates. I propose that simultaneous infinitives lack
both tense and woll--i.e., they are simple vPs syntactically. Furthermore, these infinitives involve a cer-
tain degree of clause union/restructuring (Wurmbrand 2001) in that they share the tense domain with the
matrix clause. Evidence for this proposal is provided by (7)c vs. (7)d: In these restructuring infinitives,
embedded eventive predicates are possible when the matrix tense is PAST, but impossible when the ma-
trix tense is PRES. The dependency of embedded eventive predicates on the matrix tense strongly sup-
ports the view that these infinitives lack a tense domain altogether.
Infinitives are tenseless
(1) a. Leo decided a week ago that he will go to the party (*yesterday) party: *before UT
party: OKbefore UT
b. Leo decided a week ago to go to the party (yesterday)
(2) a. John promised me yesterday that he will tell his mother tomorrow that they were having their
last meal together (when...).
*Interpretation: John promised me to say to his mother tomorrow "We are (now) having our
last meal together".
b. John promised me yesterday to tell his mother tomorrow that they were having their last meal
together.
Possible interpretation: John promised me to say to his mother tomorrow "We are (now) hav-
ing our last meal together".
(3) The SOT rule [Ogihara 1996:134]
If a tense feature B is the local tense feature of a tense feature A at LF, and A and B are occurrences
of the same feature (i.e., either [+past] or [+pres]), A and the tense associated with A (if any) are
optionally deleted. N.B.: (i) The tense features include [+past] and [+pres] and nothing else. (ii) A
tense feature A is "in the scope" of a tense feature B iff B is associated with a common noun and
asymmetrically c-commands A, or B is associated with a tense or a perfect and asymmetrically
commands A. (iii) A tense feature B is the local tense feature of a tense feature A iff A is "in the
scope" of B and there is no tense feature C "in the scope"of B such that A is "in the scope" of C.
(4) (2)a: [Matrix PAST promise [CP PRES woll tell [CP PAST meal
(2)b: [Matrix PAST promise [Infinitive woll tell [CP PAST meal SOT
(5) a. *John will promise me tonight that he would tell his mother tomorrow that...
[OK if conditional]
b. John will promise me tonight to tell his mother tomorrow that they were having their last
meal together (when...).
*Interpretation: John will promise me tonight to say to his mother tomorrow "We are (now)
having our last meal together".
(5)a': *[Matrix PRES woll promise [Infinitive PAST woll tell... *SOT/*no SOT
(5)b': [Matrix PRES woll promise [Infinitive woll tell [CP PAST meal *SOT
(6) a. Leo sings in the shower (*right now). PRES: *eventive
PAST: OKeventive
b. Leo sang in the shower right then.
FUT: OKeventive
c. Leo will sing in the shower.
woll: OKeventive
(7) a. Leo decided to sing in the shower tomorrow.
b. Leo tried/began/managed/seemed to sing in the shower (*tomorrow). no woll
c. The tower seems to fall over (*right now). Matrix PRES: *eventive
Matrix PAST: OKeventive
d. The tower seemed to fall over right then.
Selected references:
Abusch, D. 1997. Sequence of tense and temporal de re. Linguistics and Philosophy 20:1-50. Abusch, D. 1998.
Generalizing tense semantics for future contexts. In Events and grammar, ed. by S. D. Rothstein. Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic Publishers. Boskovi, Z. 1997. The syntax of nonfinite complementation. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Dowty, D. 1982. Tenses, time adverbs, and compositional semantic theory. Linguistics & Philosophy 9:405-426.
Landau, I. 2000. Elements of control: Structure and meaning in infinitival constructions. Dordrecht/Bos-
ton/London: Kluwer. Martin, R. 2001. Null case and the distribution of PRO. Linguistic Inquiry 32.1:141-166.
Ogihara, T. 1996. Tense, attitude, and scope. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Pesetsky, D. 1992. Zero syntax II: An essay on
infinitives. Ms., MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Pesetsky, D. & E. Torrego. 2004. Tense, case, and the nature of syntactic
categories. In The syntax of time, ed. by J. Guéron and J. Lecarme, 495-537. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Stowell,
T. 1982. The tense of infinitives. Linguistic Inquiry 13:561-570. Wurmbrand, S. 2001. Infinitives: Restructuring
and clause structure. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.