be committed to doing / to do sth

NicoBas · Post by **NicoBas** » Tue Aug 31, 2004 5:07 pm

I think I may have tried in the wrong "topic room"!

I am in need of some guidance with regard to the following:
We normally say "sb is committed to sth" (e.g. she is committed to her family) where sth may be a gerund (e.g. she is committed to looking after her family). All this makes perfect sense as a gerund functions as a noun.
However, I have come across, much less frequently, "be (jointly) committed to do sth" or "have a commitment to do sth".

Unfortunately, perusing the Collins Cobuild, Longman Dic of Cont Eng, the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary and the Webster have left me none the wiser on this issue! All confirm what I mentioned initially, i.e. that you can be committed...
a) to sth (to + noun)
b) to doing sth (to + gerund)

What appears in only ONE example (but not in any grammatical directions) is:
c) be committed to do sth (full infinitive) (the example is: Both sides committed themselves to settle the dispute peacefully.)
Conclusion: though "be committed to + infinitive" is not recorded anywhere as a possible structure, it does appear occasionally in actual texts.

So, upon close examination of the few examples I've come across, my conclusion is as follows:
It would seem to me that...
a) "be committed to doing sth" refers to energy, effort and time binding one to an ongoing activity, one that is already in progress;
b) "be committed to do sth" or "have a commitment to do sth" refers to a binding promise (can a promise be anythng but binding, I wonder?!) to do sth, to achieve sth not yet begun, only just outlined or proposed, to seek an outcome.

Let me know what you think! (There's more to come!!)

LarryLatham · Post by **LarryLatham** » Wed Sep 01, 2004 4:16 am

Nicholas wrote:So, upon close examination of the few examples I've come across, my conclusion is as follows:
It would seem to me that...
a) "be committed to doing sth" refers to energy, effort and time binding one to an ongoing activity, one that is already in progress;
b) "be committed to do sth" or "have a commitment to do sth" refers to a binding promise (can a promise be anythng but binding, I wonder?!) to do sth, to achieve sth not yet begun, only just outlined or proposed, to seek an outcome.

I don't see the sharp distinction you have postulated here, Nicholas. If I understand you correctly, you really are asking about the difference between "do" and "doing", since that seems to be the only change. In a rather fuzzy (meaning having no sharp, digital-like distinction, but rather blending somewhat smoothly from one to the other) sense, "doing", with its -ing ending, tends to suggest an ongoing event all right, just as a progressive or continuous verb form does. But the particular event in question can be merely a plan which has been made, but not yet executed. An example might be, "I am committed to doing some thinking about a job change." So there may not be, in reality, any "action" yet in evidence. There may be no energy, effort or time involved, save the time required to make the plan.

I do heartily support your contention that there is a difference between the two, which is to say they are not identical in meaning. But I suspect they're pretty close.

Larry Latham

Andrew Patterson · Post by **Andrew Patterson** » Wed Sep 01, 2004 10:07 pm

a) "be committed to doing sth" refers to energy, effort and time binding one to an ongoing activity, one that is already in progress;
b) "be committed to do sth" or "have a commitment to do sth" refers to a binding promise (can a promise be anythng but binding, I wonder?!) to do sth, to achieve sth not yet begun, only just outlined or proposed, to seek an outcome.

Let me know what you think! (There's more to come!!)

I also think that there is a significant difference between the two forms, however, I would like to slightly alter your definitions.

a) When followed by the gerund, it means that the subject promises and binds themselves to carrying out the activity. I think that the activity does indeed need to be already on-going.

b) When followed by to and the infinitive, it implies that the committment is imposed externally, either because it has been mutually agreed and the subject feels beholden to the promise, or because it has been imposed by judicial authority. For instance, a judge might sentence someone saying, "I commit you to ten years hard labour." Thus the promise or the judicial authority are the external imposition.

I shall add this to my Venn diagram. There's more to come you say,

ready when you are.

Duncan Powrie · Post by **Duncan Powrie** » Sat Sep 04, 2004 4:38 am

I am always interested in how the form under examination gets subtly (or not so subtly!) altered in the course of discussions on these forums, and can therefore often totally change in meaning.

In your first category, Andrew, you are presumably using an adjective still ("I am committed to working for company X for 5 years" = contracted to, promised to work for).

In your second, however, I notice that you are using a (performative) verb (with the meaning of "sentence", although I am sure "sentence" would be much more likely to be used in this context).

I suppose you could argue that there are connections between the two forms meaning-wise, but a look at most dictionaries will show you that such links are tenuous at best, and that the two forms' meaning and behaviour are actually quite different in their commonest manifestations.

LarryLatham · Post by **LarryLatham** » Sat Sep 04, 2004 4:59 am

Duncan observantly wrote:I am always interested in how the form under examination gets subtly (or not so subtly!) altered in the course of discussions on these forums, and can therefore often totally change in meaning.

Duncan, you are soooo on the money with this comment. I've also noticed this tendency, and it's bothered me but not enough to actually make a comment. But now your observation brings forth my annoyance with it too. (I only hope I haven't been guilty of altering forms in the course of my own discussion!!!)

Larry Latham

Duncan Powrie · Post by **Duncan Powrie** » Sat Sep 04, 2004 5:27 am

Hiya Larry, maybe we (both!) are just cranky because the Teacher Forums went offline for a couple of days?

Anyway, it's good that we (including Andy!) are all back!

Andrew Patterson · Post by **Andrew Patterson** » Sat Sep 04, 2004 9:25 am

I've looked at my post, and at your comments, and I just can't see how I've altered the subject.

"Be committed" could be viewed in two different ways, btw:

1. "committed" as an adjective.
2. "committed" as the past participle.

the second form makes it similar to the passive voice, though, I still show the committment.

Duncan Powrie · Post by **Duncan Powrie** » Sat Sep 04, 2004 1:29 pm

Well, Andrew, there aren't many examples on show, and that is part of the problem, but they were implicitly (until you introduced what is clearly a verb) 'be committed to doing' "versus" 'be committed to do' - both instances of adjectives with little discernible difference in meaning (whereas the verb can be quite different) - which is why I felt impelled to comment.

And making these adjectives into past participles (presumably by the addition of a "by..." agent phrase) still won't make the meaning of ?"He was committed to help(ing) by his conscience" have the same meaning as "He was committed/sentenced to ten years' hard labour (by the/that tough SOB of a judge - about the only reason to mention him, because he is so TOUGH!)". The meaning (indeed, the context!!) is totally different.

Generally, I would always like to see more actual examples on these threads, rather than try to work out or infer things from attached "explanations", paraphrases or rewordings; a good example or two would certainly be less open to interpretation (or I could at least make up my own mind about things).

I also spotted another instance of (this time, slightly more subtle) alteration in NicoBas's original post:

What appears in only ONE example (but not in any grammatical directions) is:
c) be committed to do sth (full infinitive) (the example is: Both sides committed themselves to settle the dispute peacefully.)

I think you would agree that there is at least a subtle difference between "Both sides were committed to settle/settling the dispute peacefully (by...?)" and "Both sides committed themselves to settle the dispute peacefully". The exact phrasing creates different "construals" of the background and present situation, and the examples are arguably quite different meaning-wise (and could/would thus be paraphrased or defined differently, with differing defining/"more basic" words).

Andrew Patterson · Post by **Andrew Patterson** » Sat Sep 04, 2004 1:54 pm

OK, OK, I think that I can see where you are coming from, Duncan, but rather than attempting to "alter" Nicobas's post I was mearly attempting to expand the number of possibilities to consider. Nico asked about "commit" as a verb and "comittment" as a noun. If he wants to sort this out, is it not legitimate to look at all possible parts of speach, given that there aren't that many to consider?

I note that Nico mentioned there was more to come. I was pre-empting that.

I hope Nico won't mind me saying this but, Nico sent me a private message afterwards, setting out the actual senario which as I understood it was that he wanted to say that someone was both committed to doing the act and has a committment to the person with which the commitment was entered into, asking me which form I would prefer. I chose, "I have a commitment to do something," as it seems to imply both the committment to the person and to carrying out the act, and also a sense of purpose in doing so which is missing in ther gerund form.

I'll try not to "expand" the topic when replying to posts from you and Larry.

Duncan Powrie · Post by **Duncan Powrie** » Sat Sep 04, 2004 2:14 pm

Andrew Patterson wrote:OK, OK, I think that I can see where you are coming from, Duncan, but rather than attempting to "alter" Nicobas's post I was mearly attempting to expand the number of possibilities to consider. Nico asked about "commit" as a verb and "comittment" as a noun. If he wants to sort this out, is it not legitimate to look at all possible parts of speach, given that there aren't that many to consider?

It isn't possible to alter other people's posts, but we can alter our own if they are not well-written or presume too much.

I note that Nico mentioned there was more to come. I was pre-empting that.

Wait until it is posted, don't jump the gun!

I will freely admit to being a bit of a dumbass (who needs things spelled out explicitly to understand anything), but I really do believe in being slow and steady, rather than racing ahead in leaps and bounds, because it helps avoid sloppiness if not mistakes (and even if you can avoid mistakes, you will at least not "lose" the "slower" among the people trying to "keep up" with you). Certainly, you can't presume that people will realize you are thinking of e.g. a different part of speech (unless you explicitly say that you are) - some things can never be a given!

I hope you didn't find all that too patronizing, but if you did then WHAT THE HELL (the last sentence of your last post - to wit, "I'll try not to "expand" the topic when replying to posts from you and Larry" - was perhaps a bit patronizing in itself, non?).

NicoBas also sent me what I presume was a similar message, and I believe that I came up with quite an eloquent answer if not a solution to his "problem". Whether or not he divulges more is, of course, up to him!

Andrew Patterson · Post by **Andrew Patterson** » Sat Sep 04, 2004 3:52 pm

Duncan, I have just re-read my post and have to admit to making a mistake - but not the one you think. My post was nothing but a more precise definition of Nico's original distinctions of the meaning when followed by a gerund or "to" and the infinitive.

I see now that I didn't even mention adjectives, not that there would have been anything wrong with doing so. Are you trying to play mind games, Duncan?

OK, then I've given you my solution to Nico's problem. What was yours.

?

NicoBas · Post by **NicoBas** » Sat Sep 04, 2004 4:12 pm

Hi Andy and Duncan,
Firstly, many thanks for your contributions. They have been of great help. And, yes, I did send you both approximately the same question.
Secondly, I tried desperately to log in here to check all your more recent responses but it seems this part of the site was down (Iwas worried it might be my PC but that's been cleared luckily!) so I wasn't able to.
Thirdly, I was in a bit of a hurry because my contribution to the work had to be presented by yesterday (so it's not in my hands any more).
Anyway, I suggested that the "be committed to sb to do(ing) sth" be changed very much in line with your comments - the underlying idea being that he was trying to squeeze too much out of the word.
So thanks again for your invaluable help, and I shall be checking out the forum regularly from now on!
Cheers, Nicholas

Duncan Powrie · Post by **Duncan Powrie** » Sat Sep 04, 2004 5:31 pm

Andrew Patterson wrote:Duncan, I have just re-read my post and have to admit to making a mistake - but not the one you think. My post was nothing but a more precise definition of Nico's original distinctions of the meaning when followed by a gerund or "to" and the infinitive.

I see now that I didn't even mention adjectives, not that there would have been anything wrong with doing so. Are you trying to play mind games, Duncan?

OK, then I've given you my solution to Nico's problem. What was yours. ?

I am sure Nico has my message still saved, and he can post it here if he wants to (I could also post it if he also feels it is okay).

I know you are into catenatives and verb complementation, Andy, so I would need to re-read everything (including your post) and think harddd (duhhh) to see if any of what you say holds water (it might be easier if I just say right now that like Larry, I don't see a vast difference between to-ing or to-infinitive following on from "BE commiitted").

You didn't need to mention adjectives specifically, Andy, and of course there wouldn't've been anything wrong with doing so - BECAUSE THEY WERE THE MATTER UNDER DISCUSSION (or, more precisely, the patterns following the adjectives were), at least until you brought in a verb (not even a past participle) by way of your example. Am I missing something here?

NicoBas · Post by **NicoBas** » Sat Sep 04, 2004 5:52 pm

I have no objection whatsoever to the private responses being posted to the thread!
Cheers, N

Duncan Powrie · Post by **Duncan Powrie** » Sat Sep 04, 2004 6:02 pm

Okay then (maybe here's a first on Dave's!)!

NicoBas sent the following PM to me:

Hi Duncan,
Sorry to bother you, but since I liked your postings on Dave's ESL Café forum, I thought I'd pick your brains a bit! I hope you don't mind...
I'm correcting the English of a former student's PhD thesis and got looking into the topic of "be committed to doing / to do sth". I've posted it in the forum under that title, perhaps you could have a look and let me know what you think.
More importantly, though, my student has asked me about the following (here's what he asked me):
"I am worried about "committed to others". There is difference between deciding to do A and hence being in some way committed to A-ing, and promising to you that I will do A and hence being "committed to you to A-ing". I don't know how to express the idea of being committed to you to doing something. And I need to express it. If you have any suggestions I'll be happy indeed."
(He's doing Philosophy of Law, or some such crazy pusuit!)
The way I see it, "being committed to you to A-ing (or doing sth)" is not feasible. What I understand he wishes to express is sth in the reagion of "A and B have a commitment whereby they have aggreed to do X", best conveyed by: "A and B have a commitment to do (doing?) X" or "A is committed with B to do (doing?) X" though I must say I've never before seen, nor used, "committed with..."!! (maybe commas can help: "A is committed, with B, to do (doing?) X".
Anyway, I'd be really happy if you'd let me know your thoughts.
Cheers, Nicholas

I replied as follows:

Hi Nico, you are welcome to private me anytime (especially since I am luckily quite free at the moment!).

Now that you are asking a new question, I would prefer to concentrate on this new question rather than the topic of your previous thread (be committed to do vs. to doing), but I should briefly say that, like Larry, I cannot see a great difference between the two structures ("to" appears in both, it is not like that whole "to infinitive" vs. "gerund (without "to") deal!) meaning-wise, and think it will ultimately be best resolved by seeing which is the more frequent/attested - Glenski seemed to be saying that he wasn't really "familiar" with the "to do" version, and I myself suspect the gerund version is by far the more usual.

(Oops I see that there is a "third" structure - "comitted to settle the dispute" - but this is very similar to "settling", which again sounds more natural to my ear).

Following on from the above, I would tell your student to seriously examine at least a few learner dictionaries (and if possible search their CD-ROMs), if not a corpus, to see what is usual and PROBABLE (not just "possible" - e.g. we say "kill" rather than "cause to cease to live"!). [About the only use I can think of for the structure "be committed to sb..." is in examples like "I('m) committed to (working for) company X for the next five years..."].

Surely the answers to the student's question is in his own words - (reporting on) a DECISION to do sthg vs. PROMISING sb that you will do sthg. In the latter case, I guess A would simply say "I will do X" or "I promise to do X", and will be reminded by B (if necessary) that "You promised to do X!"! (A can remind himself or assure B he has not forgotten by saying, "I said/promised (you) I would do X (for you)...and I WILL."). Furthermore, in your own musings, you need to keep this "single" endeavour seperate from a joint one (I can't see where the "with" comes in or is necessary).

It seems your student (and you!) are trying to make the one item (committed) do far too much work, and are adding extra phrasing that does not need to be explicitly stated linguistically for there to be a "gentleman's agreement", provided simply that a different verb is used rather than juggling subjects and objects around one verb to produce things resembling those awful 'performative verb' "speech acts"!

To which NicoBas wrote:

Thanks a million Duncan, it's been most helpful!
I did suspect there was a sort of "overworking"-the-term problem!
I'll be in touch with any more queries that come up.
Cheers, N