This paper shows that the infinitive to both in control and ECM/raising constructions can license VP-ellipsis (VPE) in English infinitival clauses, and argues that the apparent difference in VPE between them follows from different phonological properties of the infinitive to involved--control to is phonologically rephrased to the preceding element under VPE, following Zwicky (1982), while ECM/raising to is not. This analysis thus produces different consequences than the previous analyses with regard to VPE, EPP, Spec-head agreement analysis, etc., in finitival clauses. Among others, it leads to a simple analysis of VPE in infinitival clauses with implication for VPE in finite clauses as well--VPE is licensed by Infl (i.e., to in infinitival clauses and T in finite clauses).
1. Introduction: the spurious contrast between control to and ECM/raising to
2. VPE licensing in infinitival clauses
3. More on VPE licensing: phonological phrase boundary
4. Some consequences
5. Conclusion
(0)
(0)