Variation between Finite and Infinitival Clauses as Verb Complements in English.

2018 ◽  
Vol 130 ◽  
pp. 167-188
Author(s):  
Hyeree Kim
Keyword(s):  
Infinitival Clauses

Changes in verb position in French negative infinitival clauses

1994 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 149-178 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Hirschbühler ◽  
Marie Labelle
Keyword(s):  
Word Order ◽  
Slow Pace ◽  
15Th Century ◽  
Infinitival Clauses

ABSTRACTSince the 15th century, negative infinitives in French have undergone a change from ne V pas to ne pas V. This change takes place at different times, depending on the nature of the verb. Lexical verbs undergo the change between 1550 and 1750, modals (pouvoir, vouloir, devoir) essentially change between 1650 and 1900, and auxiliaries have been changing at a slow pace since 1650. We explore the idea that, for main verbs, the change in word order reflects a change in the position of pas, while the change in the position of modals and auxiliaries results from the fact that these verbs start assuming a position lower in the structure. Our analysis of the historically different evolution of each type of verb is based on their lexical properties and their distinct affinities with abstract Tense.

Anaphor binding

2019 ◽  
pp. 289-302
Author(s):  
Jan Terje Faarlund
Keyword(s):  
Noun Phrases ◽  
Long Distance ◽  
Subordinate Clauses ◽  
Binding Domains ◽  
Reflexive Pronoun ◽  
Infinitival Clauses ◽  
Verbal Content ◽  
Non Local ◽  
Small Clauses ◽  
Local Binding

Scandinavian has a reflexive pronoun and a reflexive possessive for the 3rd person, and a reciprocal pronoun for all persons. Regular binding domains are finite and non-finite clauses, small clauses, and noun phrases with a verbal content and a genitive ‘agent’. There are also less expected binding relations within NPs, possibly involving an invisible binder. Within VP an indirect object may bind a direct object. Even non-c-commanding binders within VP do exist. Non-local binding into small clauses and infinitival clauses is frequent. Some varieties, especially Norwegian, also allow long distance binding, i.e. binding into finite subordinate clauses. At this point, there is a great deal of variation in acceptability, and definite rules are hard to identify.

Subordinate clauses

2019 ◽  
pp. 237-288
Author(s):  
Jan Terje Faarlund
Keyword(s):  
Word Order ◽  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Main Clause ◽  
Matrix Clause ◽  
Subordinate Clauses ◽  
Different Types ◽  
The Matrix ◽  
Infinitival Clauses ◽  
Finite Verb ◽  
Nominal Clauses

In subordinate clauses, the C position is occupied by a complementizer word, which may be null. The finite verb stays in V. SpecCP is either empty or occupied by a wh-word, or by some other element indicating its semantic function. Nominal clauses are finite or non-finite. Finite nominal clauses are declarative or interrogative. Declarative nominal clauses may under specific circumstances have main clause word order (‘embedded V2’). Infinitival clauses are marked by an infinitive marker, which is either in C (Swedish), or immediately above V (Danish). Norwegian has both options. Relative clauses comprise several different types; clauses with a relativized nominal argument are mostly introduced by a complementizer; adverbial relative clauses relativize a locative or temporal phrase, with or without a complementizer; comparative clauses relativize a degree or identity. Under hard-to-define circumstances depending on language and region, subordinate clauses allow extraction of phrases up into the matrix clause.

scholarly journals P'urhepecha hyperraising to object: An argument for purely altruistic movement

2017 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 53 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erik Zyman
Keyword(s):  
Driving Force ◽  
Syntactic Theory ◽  
Self Interest ◽  
Infinitival Clauses ◽  
Mexican Isolate

Classical syntactic theory was designed to ensure that raising would be able to proceed out of infinitival clauses, but not out of finite clauses. However, it has since become clear that a number of languages in fact allow raising out of finite clauses (hyperraising). This paper argues that the Mexican isolate P'urhepecha—more specifically, the variety spoken on the island of Janitzio on Lake Pátzcuaro—allows hyperraising to object (cf. Bruening 2002, Tanaka 2002, Halpert & Zeller 2015, Deal 2016), and develops an analysis of this phenomenon on which it involves two steps of purely altruistic (target-driven) movement—i.e., movement driven exclusively by a featural requirement of an attracting head. Alternative analyses of the phenomenon based on Greed (Chomsky 1995, Bošković 2007, a.o.) or Labeling (Chomsky 2013, 2015, a.o.) are considered and shown to face serious problems. P'urhepecha hyperraising to object, then, sheds light on the driving force for movement: it provides an argument for Enlightened Self-Interest (Lasnik 1995, 2003, a.o.), the hypothesis that movement may be driven by a feature either of the moving element or (as here) of an attracting head. The phenomenon also narrows down the space of possibilities for understanding the A/Ā-distinction.

Infinitival Clauses in the Romance Languages

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guido Mensching
Keyword(s):  
Special Property ◽  
Prepositional Phrase ◽  
Romance Languages ◽  
Matrix Clause ◽  
Object Control ◽  
Different Types ◽  
The Matrix ◽  
Infinitival Clauses ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Subject Agreement

“Infinitival clauses” are constructions with a clausal status whose predicate is an infinitive. Romance infinitive clauses are mostly dependent clauses and can be divided into the following types: argumental infinitival clauses (such as subject and object clauses, the latter also including indirect interrogatives), predicative infinitival clauses, infinitival adjunct clauses, infinitival relative clauses, and nominalized infinitive clauses (with a determiner). More rarely, they appear as independent (main) clauses (root infinitival clauses) of different types, which usually have a marked character. Whereas infinitival adjunct clauses are generally preceded by prepositions, which can be argued to be outside the infinitival clause proper (i.e., the clause is part of a prepositional phrase), Romance argumental infinitive clauses are often introduced by complementizers that are diachronically derived from prepositions, mostly de/di and a/à. In most Romance languages, the infinitive itself is morphologically marked by an ending containing the morpheme {r} but lacks tense and agreement morphemes. However, some Romance languages have developed an infinitive that can be inflected for subject agreement (which is found in Portuguese, Galician, and Sardinian and also attested in Old Neapolitan). Romance languages share the property of English and other languages to leave the subject of infinitive clauses unexpressed (subject/object control, arbitrary control, and optional control) and also have raising and accusative-and-infinitive constructions. A special property of many Romance languages is the possibility of overtly expressing a nominative subject in infinitival clauses, mostly in postverbal position. The tense of the infinitive clause is usually interpreted as simultaneous or anterior to that of the matrix clause, but some matrix predicates and infinitive constructions trigger a posteriority/future reading. In addition, some Romance infinitive clauses are susceptible to constraints concerning aspect and modality.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document