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 87 (35) Governing Category a is the governing category for ß if and only if a is the minimal category containing ß and a governor of ß, where a = NP or S. (See Chomsky 1981:188) Now consider the following examples (cf. Köster and May 1982:137): (36) a. John said [it was difficult to shave himself ]. b. Mary said [that shaving herself was a pain in the neck]. c. Helping oneself would be difficult. All these grammatical examples constitute violations of Principle A of the Binding Theory if the italicized nonfinites are analyzed as VPs. Furthermore, (36c) poses the additional problem of a VP appearing in subject position, already noted (see section 2.7 above). If, however, the examples are assigned the structures indicated below, none of the violations will arise, nor will we have to swallow VP subjects any longer (cf. ibid.). (37) a. John, said [it was difficult [PRC)

2 to shave himselfj], b. Mary

2 said [that [PR0

2 shaving herselfj was a pain in the neck]

. c. [PR0

2 helping oneselfj would be difficult. In (37a—b), the reflexives no longer have their antecedents outside their governing categories, since himself as well as herself is now a clausemate with its antecedent (PRO) which binds it. In (37c), without the postulation of an empty subject (PRO) the reflexive oneself would not have an antecedent at all. To summarize, the consideration of anaphoric binding suggest that we must postulate intermediate (empty) subjects in "subjecdess" infinitives and gerunds, thereby providing further support for the hypothesis that these complements are sentences. 2.12 Floated Quantifiers It has been observed (cf. Köster and May 1982, quoting D. Pesetsky, personal communication) that a quantifier may be floated off its NP in a