Az Eszterházy Károly Tanárképző Főiskola Tudományos Közleményei. 2002. Vol. 3. Eger Journal of English Studies.(Acta Academiae Paedagogicae Agriensis : Nova series ; Tom. 29)

Csaba Ceglédi: On the Constituent Structure of Infinitives and Gerunds in English

100 CSABA CZEGLÉDI There are many speakers for whom clefted Acc-ing gerunds are just as acceptable as clefted Poss-/«g gerunds, as the following examples show: (75) a. It was the moon rising over the mountain that we saw. (Akmajian 1977) b. It's Fred losing that I can't stand the thought of. (Bresnan 1982) In view of these data, Horn's generalization cannot be maintained. At least for a group of speakers, Acc -ing gerunds and Poss-/«g gerunds do not differ as potential cleft foci. The arguments presented in this section appear to support an account on which Acc -ing gerunds and Poss-ing gerunds are different categories. In view of the nominal properties of the Poss-/;^ construction presented in this section and section 3.1 above, and the clausal properties of the Acc-ing construction discussed in this section and section 3.2 above, the proper analysis seems to be that Acc-ing gerunds are clauses and Poss-//zg gerunds are noun phrases. I take them up for a closer look in the remaining two sections. 3.4 Why Acc-ing Gerunds Are Sentences Reuland (1983) shows that at least some gerunds (what he calls NP-/«g constructions, to be distinguished from Poss-/«g gerunds) must be analyzed as CPs with an empty C position. On his account, -ing is Infi, which contains AGR, an abstract nominal agreement marker in finite clauses, which transmits Case to the subject. AGR transmits nominative Case to the subject in tensed clauses, where Infi is marked [+tense]. In NP-/«g constructions, which on his account are tenseless finite clauses, -ing realizes the nominal element AGR in Infi. The finiteness of such tensless clauses consists in Infi transmitting its Case (which it receives from the matrix verb or preposition) to the subject of the complement clause. PRO in 'subjectless' gerunds escapes government and Casemarking, because, by assumption, Affix Hopping may apply either in the syntax, disallowing -ing to transmit Case to the subject, thus licensing PRO, or in PF, allowing Case to be transmitted to an overt subject, which it governs prior to the application of Affix Hopping. Thus, when Affix Hopping takes place in the syntax, gerunds with PRO subjects are derived, when it applies in PF, gerunds with overt subjects are derived.