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 105 Borgonovo's (1994) solution to the categorial problem posed by gerunds is to assume the existence of mixed or unspecified categories in grammar. Given a feature system for the characterization of syntactic categories, such as that proposed by Chomsky (1970), categories may be identified as feature complexes. What Borgonovo proposes is the possibility that mixed categories, such as the English gerund, be unspecified for certain categorial features. Mixed categories are categories that seem to behave like a major category up to a certain level of projection, and a different functional category beyond that level (cf. Borgonovo 1994:21). Borgonovo argues that the puzzling behavior of gerunds (that they sometimes behave as CPs and sometimes as NPs) may be resolved by assuming that there are projections in grammar that are underspecified for syntactic category status. Borgonovo assumes that -ing projects a syntactically underspecified functional category termed GerP. GerP, then, sometimes behaves as an NP, like in Poss-zwg structures, sometimes as a CP, like in Acc-ing gerunds. The structure assigned by Borgonovo to Poss-ing gerunds is this (cf. 1994:26): (85) DP Spec D' D ^GerP^ [ON, 0V] Spec Ger

1 Ger VP [+V, -N] (85) is essentially an Abney-style structure (and may, therefore, be considered a notational variant thereof), except that GerP replaces IP (in Abney's D—IP analysis), and Ger, a radically underspecified (non)catewould occupy die operator position in [Spec, CP], which would then correspond to the position of Dative/Genitive possessors (Jánosnak [John's] in Jánosnak a kalapja

, ['John's hat']) in Hungarian DPs (and not to the position of nominative possessors, as Abney assumes, cf. János [John] in János kalapja [John's hat]). Note in this respect that -NAK [V] on Genitive possessors is not regarded as a true Case-mflection in Hungarian, but a marker of an operator position, where the possessor may move (cf. Szabolcsi and Laczkó 1992). I must leave it at that, since to pursue this idea any farther would lead us too far afield.