1.1. AIMS AND ASSUMPTIONS This book presents an analysis of infinitival complement constructions in Old French (OF) from the perspective of the Government-Binding (GB) framework. It aims, therefore, to establish within the terms of the GB framework just how the OF constructions are to be characterized and in just what sense they can or cannot be compared with the corresponding constructions in other Romance languages. The GB framework is an articulated theory about the structure of language which is based on the view that the aim of research into language is to construct a description of language which accurately reflects its essential nature. Whilst we know that individual languages may appear to be superficially very different, we also know that all languages are capable of expressing complex concepts and that all children acquire mastery of the language or languages to which they are exposed. The task, therefore, is to determine both the properties which languages have in common and the bounds within which they may differ. In the pursuit of these aims, the study of various languages of the Romance family has provided a rich source of material for the develop ment of the descriptive apparatus. Evidence of the contribution supplied by such work is apparent in references to Romance material in Chomsky (1981, 1982), in volumes such as Jaeggli (1982), Rizzi (1982a), Kayne (1984b), Burzio (1986), and in numerous papers devoted to particular constructions in a variety of Romance languages.

Inhalt
1: Introduction.- 1.1. Aims and Assumptions.- 1.2. Infinitival Complements in Old French.- 1.3. Government-Binding Theory.- 1.4. Old French.- 1.5. Outline.- Notes.- 2: Romance Infinitival Complements.- 2.0. Introduction.- 2.1. Comparable Characteristics of Infinitivals in Old French, Modern Italian and Modern Spanish.- 2.2. Reduced Clause Analyses.- Notes.- 3: The Romance Causative.- 3.0. Introduction.- 3.1. Fare S versus Fare VP.- 3.2. The Extension of Fare VP.- 3.3. Against an Objection to Fare [+V].- 3.4. Summary and Implications.- Notes.- 4: Non-Causative Pro-MV-Inf Constructions.- 4.0 Introduction.- 4.1. [+V] Complements in Pro-MV-Inf Constructions.- 4.2. Case Assignment and ?-roles.- 4.3. Burzio's S Complement Account.- 4.4. ?-roles and Pro-MV-Inf Constructions.- 4.5. The Assignment of Essere.- 4.6. Constructions with Ne.- 4.7. Some Diachronic Implications.- 4.8. Summary.- Notes.- 5: Causatives in Old French.- 5.0. Introduction.- 5.1. Romance Causatives.- 5.2. The Causative Construction in Old French.- 5.3. Analysis of Old French Data.- 5.4. Syntactic Properties of Causative Type Complements in Old French.- 5.5. Case Assignment and Impersonal Verbs.- 5.6. The Causative Faire.- 5.7. Summary.- Notes.- 6: Non-Causative Infinitival Complements in Old French.- 6.0. Introduction.- 6.1. Infinitival Complements in Old French.- 6.2. Pronouns as Indicators of Structure.- 6.3. Ordering of Weak Pronouns.- 6.4. INFL, Verb Raising and Clitic Movement.- 6.5. Summary.- Notes.- Appendix A.- Appendix B.- References.- (a) Texts.- (b) Studies.- Index of Names.- Index of Subjects.