Variation within individual texts

A quick look at any concordance produced by a simple lemma search on prevent will show that the NP-ing and NP from-ing complementation patterns are used by many authors even in the same text.

In fact, only one author in the sample used NP from-ing exclusively, while others used both variants to varying degrees. The variation could be random, or vary according to the register or the style of the text, or perhaps some semantic factors. Some examples from the High frequency sample will now be studied from a semantic point of view.

The following examples (1-3) are from the same text (talking about flying gliders) and use almost identical words in the near environment of prevent, yet (3) has a from-less -ing:

(1) Care must be taken not to keep the stick forward for too long, as too much forward movement during the take-off run will prevent the glider from leaving the ground until a much higher speed is reached. (A0H, 637) (2) The launch should always be stopped if an overrun occurs, and if the launch continues in spite of pulling the release the pilot should make every effort to prevent the glider from leaving the ground by keeping the stick right forward. (A0H, 759)

(3) Opening the airbrakes at that moment will prevent the glider leaving the ground again. (A0H, 691)

It is very difficult to find any straightforward reasons which might have caused the writer to use NP-ing in the last sentence. The followNP-ing are also very similar:

(4) The wing unstalls immediately and prevents the spin from developing.

(A0H, 1023)

(5) Any forward movement will prevent a spin from developing, whereas failure to move forwards can result either in the spin continuing or, if the opposite rudder has been applied, in the direction of the spin suddenly reversing. (A0H, 1032)

(6) This shows conclusively that any movement forward will prevent a spin developing even if the rudder is forgotten altogether. (A0H, 1025)

Dixon’s idea (1995, see 4.2.2) that the from-less variant involve a more direct, physical interaction between the actor and the goal of action is difficult to perceive here because the referents of the subject and the object are inanimate. Rudanko (2002:58, see 4.2.2) also says that NP from-ing may be more indeterminate and less specific and NP-ing more immediate, involving a sense of external observability. With this distinction in mind, (4) and (5) may sound more hypothetical, as in giving instructions beforehand, while (6) has a sense of the writer imagining the scenario in action in his or her mind’s eye, but this is probably due to the adverbial at that moment. Then again, (4) is part of a description of a demonstration by an instructor, and the verb unstalls in the 3rd person present tense gives the sentence a very immediate feel.

The examples below are from the same text as well: all these examples of prevent had from-ing except one, (10):

(7) RIGHT Regular exercise off the leash will help to prevent a young dog from becoming destructive around the home. (CJE, 1106)

(8) Yet if it is not alarmed by this procedure, you may well be able to relieve the obstruction and so prevent the dog from choking at a time when rapid action is required. (CJE, 771)

(9) In an emergency this may prevent a dog from straying into a potentially dangerous situation, for example if you should suddenly encounter riders on horseback when you are out for a walk along a narrow path (CJE, 569)

(10) Desperate owners sometimes ask their vet if it is possible to prevent a dog barking by surgical means. (CJE, 1038)

(10) is perhaps different semantically from (7-9) in that barking is a permanent quality of the dog, while the other three describe prevention of potentially harmful scenarios to the dog. Judging by these particular examples, it could be said that NP from-ing is used when talking about hypothetical, unrealized situations, and NP-ing is used when talking about an “event” or a quality of the object NP that already exists. The two different readings suggested by Rudanko (2003), “act on” and “bring about”, might also apply here: perhaps the goal of action in (7-9) is only represented by the -ing

form, while in (10) the object NP a dog and the -ing form barking together denote this goal.

However, these readings may in fact be in contradiction with Dixon's (1995) idea, because with his distinction it would be with the from-ing clauses that the object NP is involved in direct interaction with the matrix subject, and not with the NP -ing clauses.

While these kind of explanations may apply to some examples, it is very likely that they are not relevant in all cases where there is similar variation, like Dixon's (1995) distinction in (1)-(6) above which have inanimate nouns as object NPs. (2) above possibly describes a situation that has already taken place but which should be prevented from happening again during the same

flight/glide (will prevent the glider leaving the ground again), and thus similar to (10), in that both scenarios are no longer only hypothetical - but between (5) and (6) above it is difficult to see any differences in meaning.

Examples (11) and (12) below are also puzzling:

(11) Father Morrow said he had acted “in an attempt to prevent future comatose, disabled and elderly patients from sharing the fate of Tony Bland.

(CFB, 1201)

(12) He said he had acted “in an attempt to prevent future coma, disabled and elderly patients suffering the same fate as Tony Bland. (CFB, 1227)

These examples are nearly identical and any semantic distinctions of immediacy and such are hardly relevant. It is most likely the case that sometimes the variants are simply used

interchangeably by some speakers, but this does not necessarily mean that there are no differences in some cases.

Especially (13) and (14) seem curious because both variants are used in such close vicinity:

(13) ...By including express restrictive covenants in an employment contract an employer will seek to achieve three goals once employment is over: (a) to prevent the ex-employee canvassing orders from the employer's customers; (b) to prevent the ex-employee competing with his business (usually within a defined geographical area); (c) to prevent the ex-employee from

using/disclosing any legitimate business secrets. (J7B, 1309)

(14) Note that (a) and (c) alone are not enough: neither would prevent an employee from serving those customers of his ex-employer who approached him. (J7B, 1310)

Perhaps (a) and (b) in (13) are “events” that are commonplace because they are not generally considered unethical per se, while most ex-employees would probably consider (c) dishonest and it is therefore a more hypothetical and unlikely scenario than (a) and (b). The event to be prevented in (14) could have been considered equally hypothetical by the writer.

All in all, it could be concluded that similar examples from the same text where the goal of prevention is hypothetical are more likely to choose NP from-ing, while examples where the goal of prevention is an already existing property of the object NP (example 10) or where the goal is an event that is very likely to happen or has already happened before (examples 13 (a) and (b)), NP -ing is the more likely option. Nevertheless, this hypothesis needs more support, and more examples will be analysed in the next section, more specifically examples that are not from the same text, in order to determine whether any of the distinctions mentioned can hold outside individual texts.