To-부정사 보충어절 연구

Abstract

ABSTRACT

A Study of To-infinitive Clauses Functioning as Complement

Kim, Eun-jeong Advisor : Prof. Namgeun, Lee. Ph.D. Major in English Education Graduate School of Education, Chosun University

All languages have their own consistent patterns of the sentences and the basic unit consists of more than one or two clauses. The center of each clause is 'verb'. The syntactic category and structure of complements are decided according to the semantic properties of verbs. Infinitives have various functions and complex syntactic structures. Among them, English learners have difficulties in understanding to-infinitives as non-finite verb -forms(participle, gerund, to-infinitive). The purpose of this thesis is to analyze to-infinitive clauses functioning as complements that are differentiated in terms of verb-types. Chapter Ⅱ deals with infinitival complements that can be classified into 6 verb types(prefer type, try type, believe type, persuade type, promise type and seem type) together with tough constructions.

(1) a. John prefers to leave early. b. John tried to leave early. c. He believed himself to be intelligent. (2) a. John persuaded Bill to leave early. b. John promised Sally to feed himself.

(3) a. John seemed to ignore poor students. b. Bill is tough for John to tease.

(1a) and (1b) appear to have the same construction of 'V+to infinitive' but a principal analysis would reveal syntactic difference in their construction. For instance, prefer type verbs permit a for-to complementizer insertion and passive voice. However, try type verbs don't accept both and the subject of to-infinitive is not always overtly realized. Believe type verbs in the (1c) always have the construction of 'V+[NP+to infinitive]' and the postverbal NP is analyzed as exceptional case-marking by the verb of the superordinate clause, believe. Persuade type verbs in the (2a) have the construction of 'V+[NP]+[to infinitive]' and the NP(Bill) is the indirect object of the matrix verb and the subject of to-infinitive complement(Object Control). Promise type verbs in the (2b) look like the same construction of 'V+[NP]+[to infinitive]' but the NP(Sally) after 'promise verb' is only an indirect object of the main verb and the subject of to-infinitive complement is 'John', the subject of the matrix verb(Subject Control). Seem type verbs in the (3a) are explained by raising the subject(John) of to-infinitive complement and applying trace theory. However, the tough construction in the (3b) raises the object(Bill) of to-infinitive complement to the subject position of the matrix sentence. Each type verb and tough construction turn out to have different syntactic structures and semantic interpretations through these analysis. In chapter Ⅲ, data from the English textbooks of the high school are surveyed in order to find the frequency of to-infinitives complements among all functions of to-infinitives. Several problems are found in explaining to- infinitives complements in the school grammar. The school textbooks treat different constructions as same constructions because of same surface structures and don't describe how those constructions are generated. They even provide wrong grammatical explanations related to tough construction. The analysis of to-infinitive clauses as complements treated in this study can be the alternatives to solve the problems that the school grammar currently has and develop better approach methods of teaching English grammar. Chapter Ⅳ summarizes the syntactic and semantic attributes of 6 verb types and tough construction with to-infinitive complements. These study can be helpful in understanding and teaching the complicated infinitival structures.