Standing vs To stand

Question

Do these have the same meaning?

Giving a 20-minute speech standing up for the most hated man in the world in a second language is really brave.
Giving a 20-minute speech to stand up for the most hated man in the world in a second language is really brave.

Your title "Giving a 20-minute speech" doesn't summarise the content of the question. Your question is about infinitives and gerunds, and your title should use those words. There are lots of other questions about infinitives and gerunds here. Have you read those? — James K, Sep 08 '20 at 20:50
@JamesK Consider that asker might not understand what those are or how they relate to their question. Also, if you feel the title or question should be changed, there is an edit feature for that! — BadZen, Sep 08 '20 at 22:05
Does this answer your question? What's the difference between "I love singing" and "I love to sing"? — ColleenV, Apr 06 '22 at 14:24

score 1 · Answer 1 · answered Jun 14 '21 at 14:18

Often when we get questions about whether to use a participial or an infinitive clause, the answer depends on the requirements of the particular word that governs the clause (eg like in "I like swimming in the pool" vs "I like to swim in the pool").

But in this case, there is no word governing the clause in question: they are adjuncts, rather than complements of anything.

When an infinitive clause is an adjunct, it is usually a purpose clause: so to stand up or the most hated man in the world is explaining the purpose of what it follows: giving a 20-minute speech. Your sentence could be paraphrased as Giving a 20-minute speech for the purpose of standing up for ...

A participial clause, on the other hand, qualifies a noun phrase, but does not express any specific relationship to that clause. A paraphrase might be a 20-minute speech which stands up for ... (or maybe which stood up for).

In this context, there is little difference in meaning that I can find; but in other cases there might be.

If in fact the speaker was not intending to stand up for the most hated man, and didn't realise that their audience would take their speech in that way, the it might be a speech standing up for but would certainly not be a speech to stand up for.

As someone who did University debating, I can confirm there are absolutely contexts where one would give 'a speech standing up for' something but not 'to stand up for' it. I never got the topic 'explain why [horrible person] actually wasn't so bad' personally, but I can easily see it happening. Debating societies, public speaking clubs/classes and philosophy papers would all be places that might set this kind of challenge as an exercise. — Toby Y., Sep 04 '22 at 23:00

Sam · Answer 2 · 2020-09-10T13:41:49.683

Do these have the same meaning?

No.

They do have similar meanings though.

Giving a 20-minute speech (standing up for ...) is really brave.

The clause in parenthesis is a participial phrase modifying only the word "speech".

"...a speech which is standing up for the man..."

Giving a 20-minute speech (to stand up for ...) is really brave.

The clause in parenthesis is an infinitive phrase modifying the entire action of "giving a 20-minute speech". Such as:

"Giving a speech in order to stand up for ..."

Because "speech" and "giving a speech" have very close meanings, it's almost the same. But what about "football" and "giving a football"? They are not the same. So, a variety of other sentences might have different meanings.

score 0 · Answer 3 · answered Jun 14 '21 at 14:27

There is some confusion in this sentence regarding "stand"/"standing" vs. the idiom "standing up for". I initially thought this was about the most hated man in the world, and how brave it was for him to stand up in order to give a 20 min. speech.

After thinking about it, I realize it makes more sense if it is about someone (else) who is brave enough to defend ("stand up for") this most hated man.

Assuming this latter intended meaning, I think both versions of your sentence do mean the same thing. The first version describes the intention of the speaker "to stand up for the most hated man in the world", and the second describes the effect of the speech itself, which is "standing up for the ..." To my ears, the second version sounds slightly more natural, but the meaning is pretty much the same either way.

However to avoid any confusion between the expressions "to stand up" "and to stand up for", it would be better to use some other expression. I suggest using defend:

Giving a 20-minute speech defending the most hated man in the world in a second language is really brave.

or

Giving a 20-minute speech to defend the most hated man in the world in a second language is really brave.

If that is indeed what you mean.

Standing vs To stand

3 Answers3