Az Eszterházy Károly Tanárképző Főiskola Tudományos Közleményei. 1994. [Vol. 2.] Eger Journal of American Studies. (Acta Academiae Paedagogicae Agriensis : Nova series ; Tom. 22)

STUDIES - Csaba Czeglédi: On the Distribution of Infinitival and Gerundive Complements in English

Interestingly enough, it seems that the reverse is the case with respect to pseudo-clefting: gerunds cannot, but some infinitives can appear in the focus of a pseudo-cleft: (37) *What Mary likes is writing papers. (38) What Mary wants is to write papers. I do not have an explanation for this fact but I suspect that the answer lies in some still not clearly understood differences between the semantic effects of clefting and pseudo-clefting. Below I present a few examples highlighting (by capitalization) the elements that trigger the respective implicit contrasts as described above, suggesting that the meaning expressed by the expressions printed unchanged in the examples is kept constant in the contrasts implied. They are arranged in three groups: Group A contains sentences with matrix verbs that take either infinitival or gerundive complements; Group B is a list of sentences whose matrix verbs allow only infinitives; and Group C contains examples with matrix verbs that take only gerundive nonfinite complements. Group A Examples with matrix verbs for which the choice between infinitival and gerundive complementation is available. (2a-b) repeated here as (39) a. Did you THINK to ask Brown? b. Did you think OF ASKING BROWN? (3a-b) repeated here as (40) a. I DECIDED to go. b. I decided ON GOING. (8a-b) repeated here as (41) a. Sheila TRIED to bribe the jailor. b. Sheila tried BRIBING THE JAILOR (12a-b) repeated here as (42) a. He TRIED to fry the mushrooms. b. He tried FRYING the mushrooms. 26