He is the man to draw back.

[Veronika22]

Infinitives Used as Appositives/ Attributes

Recently, I encountered an item from a grammatical test that is really confusing：
Which of the following italicized parts serve as an appositive?
A. He is the man to draw back.
B. Tony hit back the urge to tell a lie.
C. His ambition to become an astronaut deserves our support.
The answer is B, and it was said that the infinitives in C and A serve as attributes. Why? I thought B and C looks similar in sentence structure. How come that they are different ?
I would be really appreciated if you could help me with this grammatical puzzle!!

 

[Tarheel]

A. I don't know what that means.
B. I don't know what that means either.
C. "His ambition to become an astronaut" is a noun phrase and is the subject of the sentence.
.
An appositive is simply an adjective that comes after the noun -- nothing more and nothing less.

 

[Lycidas]

I have the same problems as Tarheel regarding the meaning of (A) and (B).

Sentence (A) would make sense in a special context. Sentence (B) would make sense if "hit back" were changed to "held back."

Regarding apposition, it is only in (B) and (C) that we can relate the noun and the infinitive with a copula in a paraphrase using a relative clause.

Tony held back the urge, which was to tell a lie.
His ambition, which is to become an astronaut, deserves our support.

If we tried to do something similar in (A), the sentence would be faulty and "is to" would mean "is supposed to."

 

[5jj]

Definition of APPOSITIVE

a pair or occasionally a series of usually adjacent words, phrases, or clauses (especially nouns or noun equivalents) that have the same referent and that stand in the same syntactical relation to the rest of the sentence (such as the poet and Burns in 'a biography of the… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

 

[Lycidas]

I think the OP is asking about the infinitival-clause correlate of clauses like the that-clause in "My belief that cows fly is false," which are often called "appositive clauses."

In formal syntax, at least in mainstream generative grammar in the United States, they are called noun-complement clauses. They can be finite or nonfinite.

While it makes sense to analyze the infinitival clause in (B) and (C) as a noun-complement clause, it does not make sense so to analyze the infinitival clause in (A).

In (A), we have an infinitival relative clause, not an infinitival noun-complement ("appositive") clause. Paraphrase: "He is the man who is to draw back."

 

[jutfrank]

I share members' lack of understanding of what A is supposed to mean, but I don't have a serious problem with the meaning of B.

I also can't see clearly the difference between B and C. In C, it's clear enough that to become an astronaut is the ambition but I'm not sure you can reasonably say that to tell a lie is the urge. I think one way of analysing whether an infinitival is an appositive is by parenthesising the element:

His ambition (to become an astronaut) deserves our support.

That seems okay.

He hit back the urge (to tell a lie).

That doesn't really work, I don't think. The infinitival phrase here complements the urge in such a way that it is essential to the meaning. If you remove the bracketed part, it doesn't have a complete meaning, which means it's an attribute, not an appositive.

I'm not sure if that's right but it makes some sense to me.

 

[Lycidas]

In (A), we have an infinitival relative clause, not an infinitival noun-complement ("appositive") clause. Paraphrase: "He is the man who is to draw back."

It has occurred to me that the infinitival relative is syntactically ambiguous in "He is the man to draw back."

(a) "The man" is the subject of "draw back." "Draw back" is intransitive. Paraphrase: He is the man who is to draw back.
(b) "The man" is the direct object of "draw back." "Draw back" is transitive. Paraphrase: He is the man whom we are to draw back.

 

[Lycidas]

I also can't see clearly the difference between B and C. In C, it's clear enough that to become an astronaut is the ambition but I'm not sure you can reasonably say that to tell a lie is the urge. I think one way of analysing whether an infinitival is an appositive is by parenthesising the element:

His ambition (to become an astronaut) deserves our support.

That seems okay.

He hit back the urge (to tell a lie).

That doesn't really work, I don't think. The infinitival phrase here complements the urge in such a way that it is essential to the meaning. If you remove the bracketed part, it doesn't have a complete meaning, which means it's an attribute, not an appositive.

I think that "He hit/held back the urge" is complete is the same way that "His ambition deserves our support" is complete. Hearers who already know what his urge was and what his ambition is will not be in the dark as to the meaning. If I say, "My belief is false," I have formulated as complete an utterance as I have if I say "My belief that cows fly is false." The appositive clause can be present or absent.

One thing that can be observed about the infinitival clauses in "his ambition to become an astronaut" and "the urge to tell a lie" is that the noun phrase preceding the infinitival clause is not functioning either as the subject or as the direct object of the verb in the infinitival clause. His ambition will not become an astronaut, and neither will his urge tell a lie. In (A), by contrast, "the man" functions either as the subject or as the direct object of "draw back," as explained in post #7.

Interestingly, it is possible, with slightly varied examples, to give the infinitival clause an explicit subject in (B) and (C).

His ambition for his kids to attend Oxford influences many of his parenting decisions.
He held back his urge for them to applaud him and did not pause at all. / He held back his urge to be applauded by them and did not pause at all.

There is no gap in "for his kids to attend Oxford" or in "for them to applaud him." Each is a full clause, just like "cows fly" in "my belief that cows fly." If we try to plug up gaps in (A), we produce something ungrammatical, evidencing again that in (A) we have an infinitival relative, not an appositive/complement clause.

*He is the man for them to draw him back.

 

[jutfrank]

I completely agree with your analysis of A, Lycidas. The question now, I think, is whether or how B differs from C.

 

[PaulMatthews]

Recently, I encountered an item from a grammatical test that is really confusing：
Which of the following italicized parts serve as an appositive?
A. He is the man to draw back.
B. Tony hit back the urge to tell a lie.
C. His ambition to become an astronaut deserves our support.
The answer is B, and it was said that the infinitives in C and A serve as attributes. Why? I thought B and C looks similar in sentence structure. How come that they are different ?
I would be really appreciated if you could help me with this grammatical puzzle!!

There is no appositive modifier in any of your examples. Appositives consist mainly of noun phrases, not clauses, as in the opera Carmen and my wife Lucy.

I don’t know what A. and B. mean, but I’d analyse them like this:

A. He is the man to draw back.

B. Tony hit back the urge to tell a lie.

C. His ambition to become an astronaut deserves our support.

In A, the infinitival is a relative clause modifying “man”. It has a modal meaning comparable to that expressed in finites by ”can” or “should”: He is the man to draw back, is comparable to He is the man that can/should draw back.

In B. and C. the infinitivals are complement of “urge” and “ambition”, the nouns that license them.

 

[Lycidas]

There is no appositive modifier in any of your examples. Appositives consist mainly of noun phrases, not clauses, as in the opera Carmen and my wife Lucy.

I don’t know what A. and B. mean, but I’d analyse them like this:

A. He is the man to draw back.

B. Tony hit back the urge to tell a lie.

C. His ambition to become an astronaut deserves our support.

In A, the infinitival is a relative clause modifying “man”. It has a modal meaning comparable to that expressed in finites by ”can” or “should”: He is the man to draw back, is comparable to He is the man that can/should draw back.

In B. and C. the infinitivals are complement of “urge” and “ambition”, the nouns that license them.

That's exactly what I said about B and C, minus the part about the nouns' being "licensers" of the complement clauses. In traditional grammar, noun-complement clauses were called, erroneously, "appositive clauses." Incidentally, PaulMatthews has overlooked the other possible interpretation of the infiniitival relative clause in A. As explained in Post #7, "draw back" can be transitive, with "man" as its direct object.

There is a key feature of the infinitival clauses which PaulMatthews has not addressed in his post, but which I addressed in Post #8, namely, that "urge" and "ambition" cannot be interpreted as either the subject or the object of the verb in the infinitival complement clauses, which are gapless, unlike the infinitival clause following "man," which does contain a gap and in which "man" functions as either subject or object of the verb in the infinitival clause.

I just checked The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Although "ambition" and "urge" are not among the words listed on page 1259 as taking "non-finite complements of nouns," their semantic closeness to the noun "desire," which is listed, makes them good candidates for an augmented list, should Huddleston and Pullum ever do a second edition of CGEL.

Another feature of "urge" and "ambition," but not of "man," which I personally think is relevant, is that each of those nouns is capable of being followed by an "of"-prepositional phrase with a nonfinite -ing complement. Thus, we can speak of my urge of making another post in this thread as an alternative to my urge to make another post in this thread or of Trump's ambition of becoming president again as an alternative to his ambition to become president again.

 

[Rover_KE]

Veronica22, have you gained anything at all from the above replies to your OP?

Please at least click the Like or Thanks button to let the respondents know that they haven't been wasting their time.

 

[jutfrank]

Lycidas, could you clarify one thing for me? If we were to pronounce sentence B like this:

His ambition, to become an astronaut, deserves our support.

Can we call the infinitival an appositive?

 

[Lycidas]

Lycidas, could you clarify one thing for me? If we were to pronounce sentence B like this:

His ambition, to become an astronaut, deserves our support.

Can we call the infinitival an appositive?

That's interesting, Jutfrank.

I should prefer (and this preference in no way stems from a desire not to undermine my calling the traditional designation erroneous) to call it a parenthetical.

Compare: His ambition, which, as you know, is to become an astronaut, deserves our support.

 

[Eshaan]

Apologies for jumping into this thread!

His ambition, which, as you know, is to become an astronaut, deserves our support.

His ambition, to become an astronaut, deserves our support.
Does it make sense?

 

[5jj]

Yes.