worried about/afraid of

Hi, Navi,

@navi posted:

1) The accident I was worried about happening finally happened.

2) The expensive plate I was worried about breaking broke.

3) The accident I was afraid of happening finally happened.

4) The expensive plate I was afraid of breaking broke.

I'd like to see what David can tell us, but the only sentence that sounds correct to me is (4) (meaning: I was afraid of breaking the expensive plate).

@Gustavo, Co-Moderator posted:

I'd like to see what David can tell us, but the only sentence that sounds correct to me is (4) (meaning: I was afraid of breaking the expensive plate).

@navi posted:

1) The accident I was worried about happening finally happened.
2) The expensive plate I was worried about breaking broke.
3) The accident I was afraid of happening finally happened.
4) The expensive plate I was afraid of breaking broke.

In '2' was I worried that the plate might break or that I might break it?
In '4' was I afraid that the plate might break or that I might break it?

Hello, Navi and Gustavo—This is a very interesting question. As usual, Navi is pressing at the boundaries of the syntax of the English language. I think that there is very, very little published about this issue in the literature.

My gut reaction is the same as Gustavo's: the only sentence that sounds correct to me is (4), with the interpretation that it was the speaker who was the potential plate-breaker ("breaking" as transitive, not intransitive/ergative).

But are the other sentences ungrammatical? What Navi is trying to do here, whether or not he realizes it, is to take an ACC-ing construction and extract the subject of that construction via wh-movement in a relative clause.

In Stephen Abney's renowned dissertation, "The English Noun Phrase in Its Sentential Aspect" (1987), he discusses the ACC-ing construction a little bit (see p. 169), citing some of its properties with reference to a 1983 article.

In that 1983 article, Eric Reuland (the author) maintains, according to Abney, that "wh-movement from subject" is permitted in the ACC-ing construction. Abney gives the example "Who did you approve of t studying linguistics?"

To me, that sentence just as grammatically questionable as Navi's sentences (1), (2), and (3). It is understandable, but sounds off, and as though it should really mean "Whom did you approve of while studying linguistics?" 

Because I have only been able to find one source saying that subject extraction from an ACC-ing construction is permitted in constructions with wh-movement, and because I think it sounds bad, I'm content to call it questionable.

Interestingly, if we allow Navi's maneuver here, both (2) and (4) will become ambiguous, having both the readings that Navi has mentioned. Is the plate potentially breaking of itself, or is the speaker potentially breaking it?

Thank you both very much, Gustavo and David,

I am so dumb that I have to read David's replies to realize how smart I can unwittingly be!

David,

a) Who did you approve of t studying linguistics?

What does the t stand for?

Are you sure that sentence isn't supposed to mean:

b) Whose studying linguistics did you approve of?

You approved of him studying linguistics.

"b" sounds odd to me, but seems grammatical.

Gratefully,

Navi

@navi posted:

a) Who did you approve of t studying linguistics?

What does the t stand for?

Hello again, Navi—The italicized "t" stands for "trace." It can also be represented as a "gap," as in "Who did you approve of __ studying linguistics?" Essentially, the trace or gap represents the place from which the interrogative pronoun "moved" as the sentence transformed from its deep structure (roughly: "[+Q, +past] you approve of whom studying linguistics"] to its surface structure ("Who[m] did you approve of studying linguistics?").

@navi posted:

Are you sure that sentence isn't supposed to mean:

b) Whose studying linguistics did you approve of?

You approved of him studying linguistics.

That's exactly what it's supposed to mean. It's just that, instead of the POSS-ing (possessive-ing) construction, which you have in (b), we have the ACC-ing (accusative-ing) construction. I am not sure whether (b) is grammatical. I tend to doubt it. The following, in which the preposition is fronted, too, seems closer to being grammatical, though even it may not be fully so:

b') Of whose studying linguistics did you approve?

Similarly, we could revise your ACC-ing specimens in your opening post to the POSS-ing construction and use Pied Piping on them. In each case, we have a fringe construction of extremely dubious grammaticality, it seems to me:

1') The accident about whose happening I was worried finally happened.
2') The expensive plate about whose breaking I was worried broke.
3') The accident of whose happening I was afraid finally happened.
4') The expensive plate of whose breaking I was afraid broke.