in the lab to be examined

[navi tasan]

1) The animals are in the lab to examine.
2) The animals are in the lab to be examined.

Are both sentences correct?

I find #2 unremarkable, but I think #1 sounds a bit strange although it is grammatically correct (one would not assume that the animals are examining something and 'examine' is transitive anyway).

The sentences are mine.

 

[Annabel Lee]

1) The animals are in the lab to examine.

. . . I think #1 sounds a bit strange although it is grammatically correct (one would not assume that the animals are examining something and 'examine' is transitive anyway).

I agree. It sounds strange to me, too, and yet it seems grammatically correct. After all, we could have:

The animals are in the zoo to view.

Comparing sentence 1 with the above example, I think that perhaps the strangeness of 1 has to do with its implying that anyone can examine the animals in the lab; the examiners needn't be scientists or medical professionals. The sentence might sound less strange in a context (perhaps a university) in which anyone there could examine the animals in the lab.

 

[jutfrank]

I don't agree that 1 is grammatically correct and I'm slightly surprised that two peope think it is. It implies that the animals are the agents doing the examining, not the patients. I think the same for Annabel Lee's variation in post #2—I can't sense a difference.

I'm curious—what do you mean by "'examine' is transitive anyway"?

 

[5jj]

I don't agree that 1 is grammatically correct and I'm slightly surprised that two people think it is.

Three.

 

[Annabel Lee]

I don't agree that 1 is grammatically correct and I'm slightly surprised that two peope think it is. It implies that the animals are the agents doing the examining, not the patients. I think the same for Annabel Lee's variation in post #2—I can't sense a difference.

The sentences work like this one below, in which the food is to be eaten:

The food is on the table to eat.

If you would agree that the above sentence can be used instead of:

The food is on the table for you/anyone to eat.
The food is on the table to be eaten.

your perception of 1 and my zoo/view variation on it may change.

 

[Skrej]

I wouldn't use it, but I see nothing ungrammatical about #1.

@navi tasan 'examine' can be both transitive and intransitive, although I imagine it's much more commonly used transitively.

 

[jutfrank]

... your perception of 1 and my zoo/view variation on it may change.

No real change. I judge your 'food' sentence to be marginally more acceptable perhaps since it includes a verb that can be intransitive, which I think makes a difference. This is why I'm curious to know what navi tasan means by mentioning that "'examine' is transitive anyway".

The problem I think with all these sentences is with pinning down the subject of the verb. I would argue that in the grammatical structure locative be + locative adverbial + to-infinitive, the natural subject of the infinitive is identifiable with the sentence subject. To give a most basic example, I don't think there would be any difficulty in interpretating who's doing the helping in the following:

I'm here to help.

In cases such as the 'food on the table' and 'lab animals' sentences, the listener is required to do extra work to interpret what the subject of the infinitive is, since it goes against what is the default or the 'natural' interpretation given the grammatical structure. To support my case, I'm currently trying to come up with a nice example using an ergative to-infinitive verb to create ambiguous sentence that I can test out on the estemmed members here but I haven't found a really good one yet.

I do think that the particular semantics of the infinitive verb does play a part in this too, as does whether the to-infinitive expresses purpose. We can go into that if anyone would like to.

 

[navi tasan]

Thank you all very much,

I thought that 'examine' was transitive and therefore 'the animals' could not its subject in '1' and could only be its object.

I think if I heard: 'The scientists are in the lab to examine.' I would ask: 'Examine what?'. I would find the sentence incomplete and incorrect, unless the scientists were in the lab to be examined.

Respectfully,
Navi

 

[emsr2d2]

I thought that 'examine' was transitive and therefore 'the animals' could not its subject in '1' and could only be its object.

If we haven't already recommended OneLook to you, I am doing so now. You can enter any word and it will bring up dozens of dictionary links as well as links to examples of a word in use. I just did it and chose the very first dictionary from the list - HERE's the link. As you can see, it clearly shows that "examine" can be transitive and intransitive.

 

[jutfrank]

'Examine' is used intransitively? Really? Is this an American thing? Could somebody perhaps offer an example for us?

 

[Annabel Lee]

'Examine' is used intransitively? Really? Is this an American thing? Could somebody perhaps offer an example for us?

I'm a native speaker of American English, and I was just as surprised as you! Here are some examples from the OED:

"To examine into the nature of the real good." -Matthew Arnold, Culture and Anarchy, 1869

I'd use inquire there, but I can't say I have a problem with the one below, where a direct object essentially seems implied.

"He had to . . . see his steward and his bailiff -- to examine and compute." -Jane Austen, Mansfield Park, 1814

There's another intransitive sense listed for examine, where it means set or conduct an examination. For example:

"I [have] already allowed how hard it is to examine on literature." -A. Quiller-Couch, Art of Reading, 1920

 

[5jj]

I see that the most recent of those examples was published over a century ago.

 

[Annabel Lee]

I see that the most recent of those examples was published over a century ago.

The most recent example the OED gives in the list with the Jane Austen example is this one, which is only 32 years old:

"Because zero-base budgeting generates new ideas, managers spend more time examining, discussing, and deciding."
-J. J. Fay, Encycl. Security Management 774, 1993

 

[Annabel Lee]

I would argue that in the grammatical structure locative be + locative adverbial + to-infinitive, the natural subject of the infinitive is identifiable with the sentence subject. To give a most basic example, I don't think there would be any difficulty in interpretating who's doing the helping in the following:

I'm here to help.

In cases such as the 'food on the table' and 'lab animals' sentences, the listener is required to do extra work to interpret what the subject of the infinitive is, since it goes against what is the default or the 'natural' interpretation given the grammatical structure.

I think you're right, Jutfrank, for the vast majority of cases. But the structure Navi is asking about does seem to exist.

At first I thought your "I'm here to help" sentence was a knock-down counterexample, but what about this case? Let's imagine that a teacher says the following to a librarian in reference to a tutoring room in the library. I'm actually thinking about the ESL lab in the community college where I teach ESL classes and sometimes work in the ESL lab.

Are there any students there to help?

I could imagine myself uttering such a sentence. While perhaps the default meaning of such a sentence is that it is in reference to student helpers (student tutors), in the context provided it seems clear enough that the sentence is in reference to students who customarily come to that place to be helped by teachers or tutors.

 

[jutfrank]

Are there any students there to help?

Thanks, Annabel. This is a decent example for the purposes of a test, since it can be construed in two different ways: are the students doing the helping or are they being helped? If what I'm saying is right, then given no other context we would expect people naturally to interpret the former.

Still, I'd rather stick more adhesively to the exact pattern of the original example (locative 'be' + locative phrase + to-infinitive) to perform my test; I think the following variation serves this purpose well:

Some students will be there to help.

What do you think your initial interpretation would be here? Who does the helping? To make my point, it's important that there be no contextual or paralinguistic cues to disambiguate either way—just the surface syntactic structure.

 

[Annabel Lee]

This is a decent example for the purposes of a test, since it can be construed in two different ways: are the students doing the helping or are they being helped? If what I'm saying is right, then given no other context we would expect people naturally to interpret the former.

We are agreed on that point.

Still, I'd rather stick more adhesively to the exact pattern of the original example (locative 'be' + locative phrase + to-infinitive) to perform my test; I think the following variation serves this purpose well:

Some students will be there to help.

What do you think your initial interpretation would be here? Who does the helping? To make my point, it's important that there be no contextual or paralinguistic cues to disambiguate either way—just the surface syntactic structure.

I do not find myself able to interpret some students as the implied direct object of help in that sentence. I myself am only able to interpret some students as the implied subject of help there. On the other hand, I do find it possible to interpret some students as the implied direct object of help in the variation below, which some might consider a transformation:

There will be some students there to help.

In any case, using an overt subject of the infinitive would force that interpretation, even without existential-there:

There will be some students there for you to help.
Some students will be there for you to help.

 

[jutfrank]

... I do find it possible to interpret some students as the implied direct object of help in the variation below, which some might consider a transformation:

There will be some students there to help.

That's interesting because I played with this variation before settling on my simpler version. I agree that it's possible; indeed, I think it's easier to interpret some students as the object in this sentence than it is in my sentence. I can't yet come up with a theory why this might be. Can you?

 

[Annabel Lee]

I agree that it's possible; indeed, I think it's easier to interpret some students as the object in this sentence than it is in my sentence. I can't yet come up with a theory why this might be. Can you?

This problem is above my syntactic pay grade, to tell you the truth. I really can't say. That said, I shall hazard a guess. Maybe we're dealing with extraposed infinitival relative clauses. Consider this example, which I am straining to produce:

Many utensils are in the drawer to eat with.​

I have mixed feelings about that sentence. Do you find it grammatical? I'm not sure whether I do or not. But if it is grammatical, it seems to me that "to eat with" may indeed have the status of an infinitival relative clause:

Many utensils are in the drawer with which to eat.​

The above transformation teases out the concealed relative pronoun in the first example, if indeed there is a concealed relative pronoun there. My idea is that this would derive from:

Many utensils to eat with are in the drawer.​

Many utensils with which to eat are in the drawer. ​

The infinitival relative would then be extraposed from the noun it modifies ("utensils"), appearing instead the end of the sentence, in the same way that finite relative clauses can sometimes be extraposed.

Many utensils which you can eat with are in the drawer.​

Many utensils are in the drawer which you can eat with.​

​

Many utensils with which you can eat are in the drawer.​

Many utensils are in the drawer with which you can eat.​

Now, if all this is sound so far (a big "if"), it seems to me that perhaps the ease with which the related "there"-sentence could be processed has something to do with the closer proximity of the extraposed relative to the noun modified.

There are many utensils in the drawer to eat with.​

There are many utensils in the drawer with which to eat.​

​

There are many utensils in the drawer which you can eat with.​

There are many utensils in the drawer with which you can eat.​

 

[jutfrank]

This problem is above my syntactic pay grade, to tell you the truth. I really can't say. That said, I shall hazard a guess.

Oh, yes, I completetly understand this. I'm just looking for a hunch.

Maybe we're dealing with extraposed infinitival relative clauses. Consider this example, which I am straining to produce:

Many utensils are in the drawer to eat with.​

I have mixed feelings about that sentence. Do you find it grammatical?

I think I feel the same as you about this. I can't make up my mind.

I'm not sure whether I do or not. But if it is grammatical, it seems to me that "to eat with" may indeed have the status of an infinitival relative clause:

Many utensils are in the drawer with which to eat.​

The above transformation teases out the concealed relative pronoun in the first example, if indeed there is a concealed relative pronoun there.

Okay.

My idea is that this would derive from:

Many utensils to eat with are in the drawer.​

Many utensils with which to eat are in the drawer. ​

The infinitival relative would then be extraposed from the noun it modifies ("utensils"), appearing instead the end of the sentence, in the same way that finite relative clauses can sometimes be extraposed.

Many utensils which you can eat with are in the drawer.​

Many utensils are in the drawer which you can eat with.​

​

Many utensils with which you can eat are in the drawer.​

Many utensils are in the drawer with which you can eat.​

Yep, this all makes decent enough sense.

However, I think if I had to interpret the original sentence there would be a crucial meaning-dependency between the locative phrase in the drawer and the infinitive of purpose, such that the utensils have been deliberately placed in the drawer for a specific purpose. This is how I'm reading the lab and zoo sentences too. The animals are in the zoo only because thy have been placed there so that they may be viewed.

For your 'zoo' sentence, are you thinking that the infinitive may also have the same kind of modification? Something like: The animals, which can be viewed, are in the zoo.

Now, if all this is sound so far (a big "if"), it seems to me that perhaps the ease with which the related "there"-sentence could be processed has something to do with the closer proximity of the extraposed relative to the noun modified.

Okay, yes I follow what you're saying. Thank you very much, that's very interesting.

The different way with which I'm tending to think about this is that the locative phrase plays a crucial role in the meaning of the wider structure. So where with your 'there-be' version the PP can be omitted without affecting the meaning (There are many utensils with which to eat), in my way of thinking it can't. Obviously, in my example I'm here to help, this meaning-dependency between the locative phrase and the infinitive is crystal clear, which is why I chose it. I don't think such a meaning-dependency can be maintained when the sentence is transformed into a 'there-be' sentence.

I'll think about this a bit more from a semantics perspective. Thank you for your insight.

 

[emsr2d2]

Many utensils are in the drawer to eat with.
Many utensils are in the drawer with which to eat.

To me, both of those sentences suggest that the drawer is the thing used for eating.