What is he studying? vs What is he studying to be?

[Alexey86]

Hello! How can I turn the statement "He is studying to be a teacher" into a question? Should it be "What is he studying?" or "What is he studying to be?"?

 

[Alexey86]

I think I've found the answer: "to be" remains in a question when it's part of the direct object after catenative verbs like "want/like": "He wants to be a teacher" => "What does he want to be?" The verb "study" isn't catenative.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

Also keep in mind that what he is studying is not necessarily what he is studying to be. Right now, he might be studying to pass an algebra exam, even though what he's studying to be is an oud player.

One is whatever he's studying now, the other is the future occupation he's working toward.

 

[Alexey86]

Here's an excerpt from Vines: My Life and Ministry by Jerry Vines (p. 39):


Does this mean that we can use "to be" when asking about someone's future profession?

 

[GoesStation]

What are you studying to be? is a natural question.

 

[Alexey86]

What are you studying to be? is a natural question.

So, we can use both "What are you studying?" and "What are you studying to be?" when it comes to future professions, right?

 

[GoesStation]

So, we can use both "What are you studying?" and "What are you studying to be?" when it comes to future professions, right?

No. The first asks what subject you are currently studying. The second asks about your intended career.

 

[Alexey86]

No. The first asks what subject you are currently studying. The second asks about your intended career.

A: I'm at university.
B: What are you studying/What are you studying to be?
A: I'm studying medicine. I want to be a doctor.

Are both variants possible here?

 

[GoesStation]

A: I'm at university.
B: What are you studying/What are you studying to be?
A: I'm studying medicine. I want to be a doctor.

Are both variants possible here?

Yes.

 

[Alexey86]

Yes.

That's what I meant by "So, we can use both "What are you studying?" and "What are you studying to be?" when it comes to future professions, right?"

 

[emsr2d2]

That's what I meant by "So, we can use both "What are you studying?" and "What are you studying to be?" when it comes to future professions, right? (No quotation marks here)

Both questions are possible but, as indicated above, the answers would be different.

What are you studying?
Medicine.

What are you studying to be?
A doctor.

 

[GoesStation]

Moreover, What are you studying? could be answered "the Desert Fathers and underwater basket-weaving, this term." It doesn't necessarily ask what your goal is.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

Right. See post #3.

 

[Alexey86]

What's a syntactic function of "to be a teacher" in "I'm studying to be a teacher"? It's not the direct object as it is in "I want to be a teacher".

 

[PaulMatthews]

What's a syntactic function of "to be a teacher" in "I'm studying to be a teacher"? It's not the direct object as it is in "I want to be a teacher".

[1] I'm studying to be a teacher.

[2] I want to be a teacher

In [1] the underlined infinitival clause functions as an adjunct of purpose. In [2] it's not an object but a complement of "want".

 

[Alexey86]

In [2] it's not an object but a complement of "want".

Can this complement be considered the direct object (maybe a compound one) since it answers the question "What?"?

I want (what? ->) some water.
I want (what? ->) to be a teacher.

And one more question: isn't an adjunct of purpose a kind of complement?

 

[PaulMatthews]

Can this complement be considered the direct object since it answers the question "What?"?

I want (what? ->) some water.
I want (what? ->) to be a doctor.

No: with one or two very minor exceptions, objects are noun phrases, as in your first example, not clauses.

"Want" is a catenative verb and the infinitival clause "to be a teacher" is its catenative complement.

And one more question: isn't an adjunct of purpose a kind of complement too?

No: adjuncts and complements are totally different functions. Adjuncts are optional modifiers in clause structure, while complements either have to be licensed by an appropriate head, and are often syntactically obligatory.

 

[Alexey86]

No: with one or two very minor exceptions, objects are noun phrases, as in your first example, not clauses..

So, an infinitive clause can be a subject (To be a teacher is my goal), but not an object, right?

 

[PaulMatthews]

So, an infinitive clause can be a subject (To be a teacher is my goal), but not an object, right?

Yes that's right, though some traditional grammars maintain that certain types of clause can function as direct object.

But modern grammar takes non-finite clauses as catenative complements, and the finite ones as non-catenative complements.