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

INFINITIVES AND GERUNDS IN ENGLISII 77 Duffley and Tremblay's claim that /o-infinitives are PPs in the function of adverbials, in contrast to gerunds, which, being NPs, have the function of direct object complements on the matrix verb. In support of their proposal that /o-infinitives are PPs, Duffley and Tremblay (1994:570) argue, incorrecdy, that the to particle of the infinitive is parallel to a P in a PP in that both may be used as 'proforms' to represent the XP they head in sentences like (1) a. He crawled through the tunnel. b. Then his brother crawled through too. (2) a. He tried to open the door. c. Then I tried to as well. The argument fails simply because through is an AdvP in (lb) and not a P. A preposition cannot behave in ways claimed by Duffley and Tremblay, cf. (3) a. , John put the vase on the table, b. *Mary put the vase on too. (4) a. John sat on a chair, b. *Mary sat on too. In another argument, Duffley and Tremblay suggest a parallelism in structure between the following examples. (5) a. She longed for peace and quiet, b. She longed to be quiet. They argue that the occurrence of an infinitival complement on prepositional verbs, such as long for, which subcategorize for PPs, is not exceptional since the to particle is in fact a P. But then what about the many non-prepositional verbs like want, like, try, etc. which take infinitival complements? It would be extremely dubious to assume that they are characterized by two subcategorization frames: one with a direct object NP and another with a PP (of a unique sort which may contain exclusively the preposition to and no other prepositions), let alone the other part of the claim that this PP is an (obligatory) adverbial.