Class 17 - ING and the Infinitive

Verbs followed by a to-infinitive

Some verbs can be followed immediately by a to-infinitive:

afford demand like pretend

agree fail love promise

arrange forget manage refuse

ask hate mean (= intend) remember

begin help need start

choose hope offer try

continue intend plan want

decide learn prefer

I can’t afford to go on holiday.

It began to rain.

She hopes to go to university next year.

My mother never learnt to swim.

Did you remember to ring Nigel?

Verbs followed by a to-infinitive or -ing

Hate, like, love, prefer

Hate, like, love and prefer can be followed either by -ing or a to-infinitive. The
difference in meaning is often small. The -ing form emphasises the verb itself.
The to-infinitive puts the emphasis more on the preference for, or the results
of, the action.

Compare

-ing form to-infinitive

I love cooking Indian I like to drink juice in the morning, and

food. (emphasis on the process tea at lunchtime. (emphasis more on
itself and enjoyment of it) the preference or habit)

I hate to be the only person to

She hates cleaning her
disagree. (emphasis more on the
room. (emphasis on the process
result: I would prefer not to be in that
itself and no enjoyment of it)
situation.)

We prefer to drive during the day

Most people prefer watching a
film at the cinema rather than on
TV. (emphasis on the process
itself and enjoyment of it)
whenever we can. (emphasis more on
the result and on the habit or
preference. The speaker doesn’t
necessarily enjoy the process of driving
at any time of day.)

Hate, like, love, prefer with would or should

When hate, like, love and prefer are used with would or should, only the to-
infinitive is used, not the -ing form:

She’d love to get a job nearer home.

Not: She’d love getting a job nearer home.

Would you like to have dinner with us on Friday?

To-infinitive or -ing form with a change in meaning

Some verbs can be followed by a to-infinitive or the -ing form, but with a
change in meaning:

go on need remember try

mean regret stop want

Compare

-ing form to-infinitive

Working in London means

leaving home at
I didn’t mean to make you cry. (I didn’t
6.30. (Because I work in
intend to make you cry.)
London, this is the result or
consequence.)

He went on singing after

She recited a poem, then went on
everyone else had
to sing a lovely folk song. (She recited the
finished. (He continued
poem first, then she sang the song.)
singing without stopping.)

I tried searching the web and

finally found an address for I tried to email Simon but it bounced
him. (I searched the web to back. (I tried/attempted to email him but I
see what information I could did not succeed.)
find.)

She stopped crying as soon as We stopped to buy some water at the

she saw her mother. (She was motorway service area. (We were
crying, and then she didn’t travelling and we stopped for a short time
cry anymore.) in order to buy some water.)
Stop + -ing form or to-infinitive
We use the -ing form after stop to indicate that an action or event is no longer
continuing:

It’s stopped raining. Let’s go for a walk. (It was raining, but not anymore.)

We’ve stopped using plastic bags in supermarkets. We take our own bag with
us now when we go shopping.

We use the to-infinitive after stop to indicate that someone stops doing
something in order to do something else:

On the way to Edinburgh, we stopped to look at an old castle. (We were

travelling, then we stopped our journey in order to look at the castle.)

We stopped to have something to eat.

Verbs followed by an infinitive without to

Let, make

Let and make are followed by an infinitive without to in active voice sentences.
They always have an object (underlined) before the infinitive:

Let me show you this DVD I’ve got.

They made us wait while they checked our documents.

Not: They made us to wait …

Help

Help can be followed by an infinitive without to or a to-infinitive:

She helped me find a direction in life.

Everyone can help to reduce carbon emissions by using public transport.

verbs followed by -ing or an infinitive without to

A group of verbs connected with feeling, hearing and seeing can be used with -
ing or with an infinitive without to:
feel notice see

hear overhear watch

When they are used with -ing, these verbs emphasise the action or event in
progress. When they are used with an infinitive without to, they emphasise
the action or event seen as a whole, or as completed.

Compare

-ing infinitive without to

She heard people shouting in the

I heard someone shout ‘Help!’, so I
street below and looked out of the
ran to the river. (emphasises the
window. (emphasises that the
whole event: the person probably
shouting probably continued or was
shouted only once)
repeated)

A police
Emily saw Philip run out of Sandra’s
officer saw him running along the
office. (emphasises the whole event
street. (emphasises the running as it
from start to finish)
was happening)

Verbs followed by a direct object and a to-infinitive

Some verbs are used with a direct object (underlined) followed by a to-
infinitive. These verbs include:

advise hate like persuade request

ask help love prefer teach

challenge instruct need recommend tell

choose intend order remind want

forbid invite

I advised him to get a job as soon as possible.

Did Martin teach Gary to play squash?

They want me to go to Germany with them.

Summarize the following text in 320 – 450 words.

The fear of immigration is poisoning Western politics. Donald Trump owes

his job to it. Brexit would not be happening without it. Strident
nationalists wield power in Italy, Hungary, Poland and Austria, and have
gained influence elsewhere.

Even Sweden, long a country of refuge, has soured on migrants. The

Sweden Democrats, a thunderingly anti-immigrant party, could win the
most votes at an election on September 9th. Though it will not form a
government, it has already transformed Swedish politics as mainstream
parties seek to halt migrants.

The West risks a backlash of the sort that ended the previous great age of
mobility, before 1914. That would be a tragedy. Societies that close their
doors to migrants will be poorer and less tolerant. Meanwhile, those to
whom the doors are closed will see increased suffering, unable to escape
the poverty, climate change or violence that prompts them to move.

The stakes could not be higher. Yet advocates of liberal immigration, such
as this newspaper, are losing the debate. They need to find better
arguments and policies. That demands more honesty about the trade-offs
immigration involves.

International law categorises migrants either as refugees, who are entitled

to sanctuary, or as economic migrants, who have no right to go anywhere
that does not want them. Yet the distinctions are blurry. Poor countries
next to war zones receive huge influxes, while rich countries try to shirk
their obligations. And since rich countries admit virtually no economic
migrants from poor countries unless they have exceptional skills or family
ties, many of them try their luck by posing as refugees. It does not help
that states have different rules on who is a refugee. Or that they struggle
to send home those who are denied asylum, not least because many of
their countries refuse to take them back.

This mess feeds disaffection in the West, and it is a waste. The act of
moving from a poor country to a rich one makes workers dramatically
more productive. A world with more migration would be substantially
richer. The snag is that the biggest benefits of moving accrue to the
migrants themselves, while the power to admit them rests with voters in
rich countries. Fair enough: democratic accountability is vested largely in
national governments. Yet most Western countries, struggling with ageing
populations and shrinking workforces, need more migrants. So they have
to find ways to make migration policy work for everyone.

The first step is to recognise the causes of the backlash against

newcomers. Several stand out: the belief that governments have lost
control of their borders; the fear that migrants drain already-strained
welfare systems; the perception that migrants are undercutting local
workers; and the fear of being swamped by alien cultures.

Assuaging these concerns requires toughness and imagination. Start by

regaining control. Overhaul the outdated international systems for aiding
refugees; at the same time, open routes for well-regulated economic
migration to the West. This will require countries to secure borders and
enforce laws: by preventing the hiring of illegal immigrants and deporting
those denied asylum, for example. Where they do not exist, the
introduction of ID cards can help.

Second, encourage all migrants, including refugees, to work, while limiting

the welfare benefits that they can receive. In America, where the safety
net is skimpy, labour rules are flexible and entry-level jobs plentiful, even
migrants who dropped out of high school are net contributors to the
public finances. Sweden, by contrast has a policy that seems designed to
stir resentment, showering refugees with benefits while making it hard for
them to work. Turkey does a better job at integrating refugees, even if it
does not recognise them as such.
A sensible approach would be to allow migrants to get public education
and health care immediately, but limit their access to welfare benefits for
several years. This may seem discriminatory, but migrants will still be
better off than if they had stayed at home. An extreme illustration can be
seen in the oil-rich Gulf, where migrants are ruthlessly excluded from the
opulent welfare that citizens enjoy. The Gulf is not a model. Migrant
workers receive too little protection against coercion and abuse. But
because they so obviously pay their way, the native-born are happy to
admit them in vast numbers. Elements of that logic are worth considering
in the West.

Third, ensure that the gains from migration are more explicitly shared
between migrants and the native-born in the host country. One way is to
tie public spending, particularly on visible services such as schools or
hospitals, more directly to the number of migrants in a region. Another,
more radical idea might be to tax migrants themselves, either by charging
for entry or, more plausibly, by applying a surtax on their income for a
period after arrival. The proceeds could be spent on public infrastructure,
or simply divided among citizens. The more immigrants, the bigger the
dividend.

Cultural objections to immigration are harder to assuage. Newcomers

flavour the host culture. And there will inevitably be people who resist
that change. History suggests that over time more pluralist countries
become more tolerant of immigration. They do so most easily when the
flow of migration is smooth (to prevent the sudden surges that make host
societies feel swamped) and when newcomers are integrated into the
local culture. Ensuring that they work and learn the local language are two
powerful levers for achieving that.

How much migration makes sense? The answer will vary from country to
country. Belgium is not Canada. Done properly, migration brings economic
dynamism. But the shortcomings of today’s policies mean that most
Western countries are far more closed than they should be, and they feed
the rise of populism. That is both a colossal wasted opportunity and an
unnecessary danger.
The way forward on immigration to the West – The Economist

Composition
Belief in “the green light, the orgiastic future that year by year recedes
before us,” as F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote in The Great Gatsby, is a
characteristic American trait. But hope in a better future is not uniquely
American, even if it has long been a more potent secular faith in the
United States than elsewhere. The belief has older roots. It was the
product of a shift in the temporal location of the golden age from a long-
lost past to an ever-brighter future.

That shift was conceived and realized with the Enlightenment and then
the Industrial Revolution. As human beings gained ever-greater control of
the forces of nature and their economies became ever more productive,
they started to hope for lives more like those of the gods their ancestors
had imagined.

People might never be immortal, but their lives would be healthy and
long. People might never move instantaneously, but they could transport
themselves and their possessions swiftly and cheaply across great
distances. People might never live on Mount Olympus, but they could
enjoy a temperate climate, 24-hour lighting, and abundant food. People
might never speak mind to mind, but they could communicate with as
many others as they desired, anywhere on the planet. People might never
enjoy infinite wisdom, but they could gain immediate access to the
knowledge accumulated over millennia.

All of this has already happened in the world’s richest countries. It is what
the people of the rest of the world hope still to enjoy.

Is a yet more orgiastic future beckoning? Today’s Gatsbys have no doubt

that the answer is yes: humanity stands on the verge of breakthroughs in
information technology, robotics, and artificial intelligence that will dwarf
what has been achieved in the past two centuries. Human beings will be
able to live still more like gods because they are about to create machines
like gods: not just strong and swift but also supremely intelligent and even
self-creating.

Yet this is the optimistic version. Since Mary Shelley created the
cautionary tale of Frankenstein, the idea of intelligent machines has also
frightened us. Many duly point to great dangers, including those of soaring
unemployment and inequality.
 The tecno-optimists are wrong – Martin Wolf – Foreign Affairs Magazine

Taking due consideration of the above text, write a 400-450 words

composition on the impact of technology on 21st century international
relations.