In the analysis of English Complement construction, many researches have teen made syntactically and semantically. In this paper, the bare infinitive complement construction was scrutinized both in the classical theory and in the analysis within the f...
In the analysis of English Complement construction, many researches have teen made syntactically and semantically. In this paper, the bare infinitive complement construction was scrutinized both in the classical theory and in the analysis within the framework of extended standard theory and the controller problems of the infinitive complement were treated. According to Bowers and other linguists, Rosenbaum's theory could not solve the essential problems of the construction because of its inappropriate rules involved and the syntactic levels assumed. In the extended standard theory, the infinitive complement construction has been explained either in S-analysis or in VP analysis. In the sections 2 through 4, the classical theory, S analysis and VP analysis were summarized and studied comparatively.
The crucial differences between S analysis and VP analysis lie in their phrase structure rule mechanism. In S analysis, their P.S. rules have COMP and PRO categories, whereas in VP analysis they need not have such categories. Using their own rule mechanism, S analysists are dependent on the control theory in order to explain the understood subject of the infinitive and assume some inappropriate rules such as CCMP deletion and S deletion.
VP analysists need not introduce such rules, but instead they postulate a general principle suggested by us as a proximity principle or coindexing principle suggested by Culicover and Wilkins(1984). In the comparative study of the two analyses and arguments presented, we can conclude that VP analysis is more appropriate for the explanation of the understood subject(the control problem) of to-infinitive complement construction and, with the revised proximity principle applied in D-structure, we can predict the correct controller or understood subject syntactically for the infinitive complement apart from subcategorizational features for complementation of the predicates or verbs.