Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T21:24:45.275Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Constituency of Infinitives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

Jan Koster and
Robert May
Jan Koster
Affiliation:
Tilburg University
Robert May
Affiliation:
Barnard College, Columbia University
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Two sorts of analyses have been proposed for the constituent structure of the infinitival complements found in sentences like John tried to leave and John appeared to leave. One analysis maintains that such ‘bare’ infinitives are sentential, the superficially absent complementizer and subject being represented by lexically empty categories. The alternative holds that they are a type of verb phrase complement, represented as they appear superficially, lacking both complementizer and subject. The present paper argues in support of the former view, and more generally that all infinitives are clausal. A specific analysis is presented, with a range of arguments bearing on the alternatives considered.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 58 , Issue 1 , March 1982, pp. 116 - 143
Copyright
Copyright © 1982 by the Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Andrews, Avery. 1976. The VP complement analysis in modern Icelandic. Montreal Working Papers in Linguistics (NELS 6). 1–21.Google Scholar
Bach, Emmon. 1979. Control in Montague Grammar. LI 10. 513–32.Google Scholar
Baetin, Mark. 1980. The structure of infinitival complements. New York University (MS).Google Scholar
Berwick, Robert, and Weinberg, Amy. 1981. The role of grammars as components of models of language use. MIT (MS).Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 1981. On the definition of variables. Journal of Linguistic Research 1. 17–40. (Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.)Google Scholar
Brame, Michael. 1976. Conjectures and refutations in syntax and semantics. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1971. Sentence stress and syntactic transformations. Lg. 47.257–97.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1976. On the form and functioning of transformations. LI 7. 3–40.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1978. A realistic transformational grammar. Linguistic theory and psychological reality, ed. by Halle, Morris et al., 1–60. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1980. Polyadicity in lexical grammar. Lexical grammar, ed. by Hoekstra, Teun et al., 97–122. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, Teun, and Grimshaw, Jane. 1978. The syntax of free relatives in English. LI 9. 331–91.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. Readings in English transformational grammar, ed. by Jacobs, Roderick & Rosenbaum, Peter, 184–221. Waltham, MA: Ginn.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1973. Conditions on transformations. A Festschrift for Morris Halle, ed. by Anderson, Stephen R. & Kiparsky, Paul, 232–86. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1977. On WH-movement. Formal syntax, ed. by Culicover, Peter et al., 71–132. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1980. On binding. LI 11. 1–46.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding: The Pisa lectures. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, and Lasnik, Howard. 1977. Filters and control. LI 8. 425–504.Google Scholar
Elliott, Neil. 1980. Invisible empty categories and the Mismatch Prohibition. The Graduate Center, CUNY (MS).Google Scholar
Emonds, Joseph. 1976. A transformational approach to English syntax. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Evers, Arnold. 1975. The transformational cycle in Dutch and German. University of Utrecht dissertation.Google Scholar
Fiengo, Robert, and Battistella, Edward. 1980. Inflection and subcategorization. The Graduate Center, CUNY (MS).Google Scholar
Fodor, Jerry. 1975. The language of thought. New York: Crowell.Google Scholar
Freidin, Robert. 1978. Cyclicity and the theory of grammar. LI 9. 519–49.Google Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald. 1981. Unbounded dependencies and coördinate structure. LI 12. 155–84.Google Scholar
Hellan, Lars. 1980. On the logical form of infinitives and gerunds. NELS X, Cahiers Linguistiques d'Ottawa, ed. by Jensen, John, 191–212.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, James. 1980. Pronouns and bound variables. LI 11. 679–708.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, James, and May, Robert. 1981. Questions, quantifiers and crossing. The Linguistic Review 1. 41–80. (Dordrecht: Foris.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1977. X̄-syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jaeggli, Osvaldo. 1980a. On some phonologically null elements in syntax. MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Jaeggli, Osvaldo. 1980b. Remarks on to contraction. LI. 11. 239–45.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Ronald, and Bresnan, Joan. 1981. Lexical functional grammar: A formal system for grammatical representation. (Center for Cognitive Science, Occasional paper 13.) Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1981a. ECP extensions. LI 12. 93–133.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1981b. On certain differences between French and English. LI 12. 349–71.Google Scholar
Koster, Jan. 1975. Dutch as an SOV Language. Linguistic Analysis 1. 111–36.Google Scholar
Koster, Jan. 1978a. Locality principles in syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koster, Jan. 1978b. Why subject sentences don't exist. Recent transformational studies in European languages (LI monograph 3), ed. by Keyser, Samuel Jay, 53–64. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Koster, Jan. 1979. Anaphora: An introduction without footnotes. (Filosofisch Instituut, Report no. 01–79.) University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Koster, Jan. 1981. Configurational grammar. Levels of syntactic representation, ed. by May, Robert & Koster, Jan, 185–205. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lasnik, Howard, and Fiengo, Robert. 1974. Complement object deletion. LI 5. 535–71.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard, and Freidin, Robert. 1981. Core grammar, case theory and markedness. To appear in Theory of markedness in generative grammar: Proceedings of the Third GLOW Colloquium, ed. by A. Belletti et al. Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, David. 1977. On traces and conditions on rules. Formal syntax, ed. by Culicover, Peter et al., 207–37. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, David. 1979. Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
McCloskey, James. 1979. Transformational syntax and model-theoretic semantics. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCloskey, James. 1980. A note on modern Irish verbal nouns and the VP-complement analysis. Linguistic Analysis 6. 345–57.Google Scholar
May, Robert. 1977. The grammar of quantification. MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
May, Robert. 1981. Logical Form: Its structure and derivation. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, to appear.Google Scholar
Milsark, Gary. 1981. On markedness, vacuous rules and the English auxiliary. Temple University, Philadelphia (MS).Google Scholar
Morin, Jean-Yves, and Wehrli, Eric. 1978. WH-movement in : Infinitival interrogatives. CUNYForum 7/8 (NELS 9), 103–11. Queens, NY: Queens College Press.Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey, and Wilson, Deirdre. 1977. Autonomous syntax and the analysis of auxiliaries. Lg. 53.741–88.Google Scholar
Riemsdijk, Henk van. 1978. A case study in syntactic markedness. Lisse: de Ridder Press.Google Scholar
Riemsdijk, Henk van. 1981. The case of German adjectives. To appear, Occasional papers in linguistics, Amherst: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1980. Negation, WH-movement and the Null Subject Parameter. Università della Calabria, Cosenza, Italy (MS).Google Scholar
Ross, John Robert. 1969. On the cyclic nature of English pronominalization. Modern studies in English, ed. by Reibel, David & Schane, Sanford, 187–200. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Rouveret, Alain. 1979. Sur la notion de proposition finie: Gouvernement et inversion. Recherches Linguistiques 9. 76–140.Google Scholar
Rouveret, Alain, and Vergnaud, Jean-Roger. 1980. Specifying reference to subject: French causatives and conditions on representations. LI 11. 97–202.Google Scholar
Stowell, Timothy. 1981. Subjects across categories. To appear in The Linguistic Review 1.Google Scholar
Vinet, Marie-Thérèse. 1981. La représentation des infinitives dans la grammaire. McGill University, Montreal (MS).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wehrli, Eric. 1980. Constructions infinitives: Compléments VP et leurs implications théoriques. Montreal Working Papers in Linguistics 14. 1–192.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1980. Predication. LI 11. 203–38.Google Scholar
Zubizaretta, Maria-Luisa. 1980. Remarks on inflected infinitives in Portuguese. MIT (MS).Google Scholar