@article{oai:nagoya.repo.nii.ac.jp:00027982,
 author = {Hirai, Daisuke},
 journal = {IVY},
 month = {Oct},
 note = {Since Chomsky (1981), what the category of control infinitives is has been discussed. Two major proposals have been presented with respect to this question. While Chomsky (1981, 1986) claims that the category of control infinitives is uniformly CP, Boškovic (1997) argues that it is uniformly TP. However, as Matsuyama (1998) points out, the difference of transparency in control infinitives exists. (1) a. *The editor has claimed [to hate] for many years [a harshly critical review of Chomsky's exciting book.] b. The editor has wanted/tried [to publish] for many years [a harshly critical review of Chomsky's exciting book.] (Matsuyama 1998: 102) In this paper, I argue that this effect of transparency follows from the categorial difference of control infinitives. I point out that since the matrix verb takes CP in (1a), the embedded verb cannot be incorporated into the matrix verb. When it moves to the matrix verb, it moves through the C-head which is an A'-position to the matrix V-head which is an A-position. This movement violates the Improper Movement Constraint and is ruled out. Then, if the embedded verb does not rise, extraposing the embedded elements violates Relativised Minimality, for the movement crosses the embedded subject PRO in Spec-TP. On the other hand, the matrix verb in (1b) takes TP. If so, the embedded verb can be incorporated into the matrix verb without violating the Improper Movement Constrait. Since the embedded verb can be incorporated into the matrix verb, the minimal domain will be extended to the matrix VP, and the heavy DP in the embedded clause can be shifted and adjoined to the matrix clause across PRO. Therefore, Relativized Minimality is never violated. Furthermore, I provide evidence for this TP/CP analysis. CP-taking verbs as in (1a) in fact select a finite complement with a complementizer that, which is CP as shown in (2a-b). However, TP-taking verbs as in (1b) cannot select a finite complement as given in (2c-d). (2) a. He claimed that he had been working late b. I agreed that I should go early. c. *I want (that) I would drink beer. d. *I tried (that) I would drink beer. Given this, I argue that the category of control infinitives differs, depending on the matrix verb and can be either CP or TP., This paper is based on the paper presented at the 40th Annual meeting of The Society of English Literature and Linguistics Nagoya University held at Nagoya University on April 21, 2001.},
 pages = {59--81},
 title = {Categorial Status of Control Infinitival Complements},
 volume = {34},
 year = {2001}
}