813:. Despite the fact that structures assumed for these different predicate types are essentially the same, there is a major distinction to be drawn. This distinction is that the control predicates semantically select their objects, whereas the raising predicates do not. In other words, the object is a semantic argument of the control predicate in each case, whereas it is not an argument of the raising predicate. This situation obtains despite the fact that both predicate types take the object to be the "subject" of the lower predicate.
693:
A number of empirical considerations support the relatively flat structures shown here. That is, empirical considerations support the position of the "raised" constituent as a dependent of the matrix predicate/verb. These dependents can appear in object form, they can appear as the subject of passive
640:
The fact that the raised constituent behaves as though it is a dependent of the higher predicate is generally reflected in the syntax trees that are employed to represent raising structures. The following trees are illustrative of the type of structures assumed for raising-to-object predicates. Both
977:
The flat VP analysis of raising structures shown in the a-sentences was posited by some in the 1970s and later. For examples of the "flat" analysis, see for instance Bach (1974:146), Emonds (1976:77), and
Borsley (1996:128). Most modern dependency grammars (also) assume a flat structure for raising
488:
While raising-to-subject verbs are like auxiliary verbs insofar as they lack the content of predicates, they are unlike auxiliaries in syntactic respects. Auxiliary verbs undergo subject-aux inversion, raising-to-subject verbs do not. Auxiliary verbs license negation, raising-to-subject verbs do so
1014:
The expletive is widely employed to distinguish control from raising constructions. Concerning there-insertion as a diagnostic for distinguishing between control and raising, see for instance
Grinder and Elgin (1973:142-143), Bach (1973:151), Culicover (1982:256ff.), Borsley (1996:127), Culicover
665:
The constituency-based trees are the a-trees on the left, and the dependency-based trees are the b-trees on the right. While the structures assumed here can be disputed - especially the constituency structures - the trees all show the main stance toward raising structures. This stance is that the
418:
are similar to auxiliary verbs insofar as both verb types have little to no semantic content. The content that they do have is functional in nature. In this area, auxiliary verbs cannot be viewed as separate predicates; they are, rather, part of a predicate. The raising-to-subject verbs
240:
one of their dependents. The raising-to-subject verbs are not selecting their subject dependent, and the raising-to-object predicates are not selecting their object dependent. These dependents appear to have been raised from the lower predicate.
939:
That raising predicates, unlike control predicates, do not semantically select one of their arguments is emphasized in all accounts of raising and control. See for instance van
Riemsdijk and Williams (1986:130), Borsley (1996:133), Culicover
66:
appears with a syntactic argument that is not its semantic argument but rather the semantic argument of an embedded predicate. In other words, the sentence is expressing something about a phrase taken as a whole. For example, in
427:
are similar insofar it is difficult to view them as predicates. They serve, rather, to modify a predicate. That this is so can be seen in the fact that the following pairs of sentences are essentially synonymous:
929:
Early seminal accounts of raising were produced by
Rosenbaum (1967) and Postal (1974). See further Grinder and Elgin (1973:141ff.), Bach (1974:120ff., 146ff.), Emonds (1976:75ff.), Borsley (1996:126-144), Carnie
632:
Raising-to-object verbs are also clearly NOT auxiliary verbs. Unlike raising-to-subject verbs, however, raising-to-object verbs have clear semantic content, so they are hence indisputably predicates.
126:
There are at least two types of raising predicates/verbs: raising-to-subject verbs and raising-to-object predicates. Raising-to-object predicates overlap to a large extent with so-called ECM-verbs (=
666:"subject" of the lower predicate appears as a dependent of the higher predicate - the relevant constituents are in bold. Relatively flat structures are assumed to accommodate this behavior. Both
485:
The fact that position of the negation can change without influencing the meaning is telling. It means that the raising-to-subject verbs can hardly be viewed as predicates.
789:
657:
773:
This behavior speaks strongly for the general analysis reflected in the trees, namely that the "raised" constituent is a dependent of the higher predicate.
781:
An understanding of raising is significantly expanded by comparing and contrasting raising with control. Examine the following (dependency) trees:
949:
Concerning the ability of raising predicates to appear with full clausal arguments, see Bach (1974:149), Borsley (1996:127f.), Carnie (2007:291).
1049:
Emonds, J. 1976. A transformational approach to
English syntax: Root, structure-preserving, and local transformations, New York: Academic Press.
1055:
Grinder, J. and S. Elgin. 1973. Guide to transformational grammar: History, theory, and practice. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and
Winston, Inc.
111:
878:
is free to appear. In contrast, object control predicates do place semantic restrictions on their object arguments, which means expletive
253:
Raising predicates/verbs can be identified in part by the fact that they alternatively take a full clause dependent and can take part in
1092:
1052:
Falk, Y. 2001. Lexical-Functional
Grammar: An introduction to parallel constraint-based syntax. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
1067:
Postal, P. 1974. On raising: One rule of
English grammar and its theoretical implications. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
1061:
Lasnik, H. and M. Saito. 1999. On the subject of infinitives. In H. Lasnik, Minimalist analysis, 7-24. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
827:
can appear as the object (or subject) of raising predicates, but it cannot appear as the object of control predicates, e.g.:
1064:
Osborne, T., Michael P., and T. Groß 2012. Catenae: Introducing a novel unit of syntactic analysis. Syntax 15, 4, 354–396.
1070:
van
Riemsdijk, H. and E. Williams. 1986. Introduction to the theory of grammar. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
1097:
1075:
103:
402:–extraposition and/or a full clausal dependent. They appear to be subcategorizing for a propositional argument.
911:
906:
642:
127:
99:
1046:
Culicover, P. 1997. Principles and
Parameters: An introduction to syntactic theory. Oxford University Press.
237:
47:
28:
960:
896:
115:
788:
656:
1058:
Haegeman, L. 1994. Introduction to government and binding theory, 2nd edition. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
821:
59:
1033:
Carnie, A. 2007. Syntax: A generative introduction, 2nd edition. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
1030:
Borsley, R. 1996. Modern phrase structure grammar. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers.
874:
Since the raising predicates place no semantic restrictions on their object dependents, expletive
901:
646:
51:
43:
1005:
Concerning these points, see Bach (1974:147f.), Postal (1974), Lasnik and Saito (1999:9ff.).
891:
88:
118:
predicates, although there are important differences between the two predicate/verb types.
816:
The distinction between raising-to-object and control predicates is identified using the
130:). These types of raising predicates/verbs are illustrated with the following sentences:
107:
1086:
258:
996:
The dependency trees are like those found, for instance, in Osborne et al. (2012).
1037:
694:
sentences, and they can appear as reflexives coindexed with the matrix subjects:
55:
35:
114:
position in the matrix predicate/verb. Raising predicates/verbs are related to
682:, respectively, although they are semantic arguments of the lower predicates
76:
17:
1038:
A concise introduction to syntactic theory: The government-binding approach
1027:
Bach, E. 1974. Syntactic theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.
232:
The primary trait of raising predicates/verbs like these is that they are
753:
was proved to be competent. – Object pronoun becomes subject in passive.
987:
For an early layered analysis, however, see Culicover (1982:251ff.).
1043:
Culicover, P. 1982. Syntax, 2nd edition. New York: Academic Press.
715:
is expected to help. – Object pronoun becomes subject in passive.
63:
868:
cannot appear as the object of an object control predicate.
848:
cannot appear as the object of an object control predicate.
110:
position, as the subject of the embedded predicate, to its
861:
can appear as the object of a raising-to-object predicate.
837:
can appear as the object of a raising-to-object predicate.
1076:
The grammar of English predicate complement constructions
1015:(1997:102), Lasnik and Saito (1999:8-9), Falk (2001:131).
472:
to like pudding. – Position of the negation is flexible.
445:
to have done it. – Position of the negation is flexible.
91:
has raising constructions, unlike some other languages.
965:
Boston University instructor's note from CAS LX 522 F09
767:
to be competent. – Reflexive is coindexed with subject.
306:
is doing the work. – Raising-to-subject predicate verb
106:
in question is seen as being "raised" from its initial
805:, whereas the b-trees contain the control predicates
864:b. We helped there (to) be a revision. - Expletive
833:a. Sam judges there to be a problem. – Expletive
615:cannot take part in subject-auxiliary inversion.
545:cannot take part in subject-auxiliary inversion.
857:a. We want there to be a revision. - Expletive
729:to help. – Reflexive is coindexed with subject.
611:Susan to be staying? – Raising-to-subject verb
349:knew the answer. – Raising-to-object predicate
334:knew the answer. – Raising-to-object predicate
844:Sam asked there to be a problem. – Expletive
479:like pudding. – Infinitival splitting occurs.
452:have done it. – Infinitival splitting occurs.
8:
406:Raising-to-subject verbs vs. auxiliary verbs
388:is a jackass. – Raising-to-object predicate
373:is a jackass. – Raising-to-object predicate
1040:. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
797:The a-trees contain the raising predicates
580:takes part in subject-auxiliary inversion.
510:takes part in subject-auxiliary inversion.
622:to be staying. – Raising-to-subject verb
398:Raising predicates/verbs can appear with
278:won the race. – Raising-to-subject verb
922:
541:Fred happy? – Raising-to-subject verb
1079:. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press
961:"What are these */?/*?/??/# symbols?"
226:can be a raising-to-object predicate.
211:can be a raising-to-object predicate.
196:can be a raising-to-object predicate.
7:
392:occurs with clausal object argument.
353:occurs with clausal object argument.
102:analysis of such constructions; the
27:For the concept in phonetics, see
25:
552:happy. – Raising-to-subject verb
787:
655:
645:and dependency-based trees of
626:reluctantly licenses negation.
576:Susan stay? – Modal auxiliary
1:
506:Fred happy? – Auxiliary verb
410:The raising-to-subject verbs
299:appears to be doing the work.
175:is a raising-to-subject verb.
161:is a raising-to-subject verb.
147:is a raising-to-subject verb.
641:constituency-based trees of
556:can hardly license negation.
742:to be competent. – Pronoun
674:are shown as dependents of
271:seems to have won the race.
1114:
42:constructions involve the
26:
912:Phrase structure grammar
907:Exceptional case marking
643:phrase structure grammar
587:stay. – Modal auxiliary
517:happy. – Auxiliary verb
330:b. Sam believed it that
128:exceptional case-marking
1093:Syntactic relationships
882:usually cannot appear.
820:-insertion diagnostic.
746:appears in object form.
708:appears in object form.
465:appear to like pudding.
369:b. That proves it that
155:appear to be increasing
98:has its origins in the
205:to be hiding something
69:they seem to be trying
29:Raising (sound change)
591:can license negation.
438:seem to have done it.
345:c. Sam believed that
1073:Rosenbaum, P. 1967.
636:Representing raising
384:c. That proves that
169:seem to be impatient
83:) is the subject of
50:from an embedded or
777:Raising vs. control
704:to help. – Pronoun
649:are employed here:
475:c. Mary appears to
327:to know the answer.
302:b. It appears that
902:Dependency grammar
647:dependency grammar
521:licenses negation.
489:only reluctantly:
52:subordinate clause
1098:Generative syntax
1036:Cowper, E. 2009.
618:c. Susan appears
448:c. Fred seems to
274:b. It seems that
245:Alternation with
141:seem to be trying
112:surface structure
16:(Redirected from
1105:
1016:
1012:
1006:
1003:
997:
994:
988:
985:
979:
975:
969:
968:
959:Hagstrom, Paul.
956:
950:
947:
941:
937:
931:
927:
892:Negative raising
791:
690:, respectively.
659:
583:c. Susan should
468:b. Mary appears
366:to be a jackass.
323:a. Sam believed
100:transformational
21:
1113:
1112:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1083:
1082:
1024:
1019:
1013:
1009:
1004:
1000:
995:
991:
986:
982:
976:
972:
958:
957:
953:
948:
944:
938:
934:
928:
924:
920:
888:
779:
766:
759:
728:
721:
638:
408:
381:-extraposition.
362:a. That proves
342:-extraposition.
314:-extraposition.
286:-extraposition.
251:
220:to be a problem
124:
54:to a matrix or
32:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
1111:
1109:
1101:
1100:
1095:
1085:
1084:
1081:
1080:
1071:
1068:
1065:
1062:
1059:
1056:
1053:
1050:
1047:
1044:
1041:
1034:
1031:
1028:
1023:
1020:
1018:
1017:
1007:
998:
989:
980:
970:
951:
942:
932:
930:(2007:285ff.).
921:
919:
916:
915:
914:
909:
904:
899:
894:
887:
884:
872:
871:
870:
869:
862:
852:
851:
850:
849:
838:
795:
794:
793:
792:
778:
775:
771:
770:
769:
768:
764:
757:
754:
747:
738:a. You proved
733:
732:
731:
730:
726:
719:
716:
709:
663:
662:
661:
660:
637:
634:
630:
629:
628:
627:
616:
605:
604:to be staying.
595:
594:
593:
592:
581:
570:
560:
559:
558:
557:
548:c. Fred seems
546:
535:
525:
524:
523:
522:
511:
500:
483:
482:
481:
480:
473:
466:
456:
455:
454:
453:
446:
441:b. Fred seems
439:
407:
404:
396:
395:
394:
393:
382:
367:
357:
356:
355:
354:
343:
328:
318:
317:
316:
315:
300:
290:
289:
288:
287:
272:
250:
249:-extraposition
243:
230:
229:
228:
227:
212:
197:
179:
178:
177:
176:
162:
148:
123:
120:
108:deep structure
73:"to be trying"
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1110:
1099:
1096:
1094:
1091:
1090:
1088:
1078:
1077:
1072:
1069:
1066:
1063:
1060:
1057:
1054:
1051:
1048:
1045:
1042:
1039:
1035:
1032:
1029:
1026:
1025:
1021:
1011:
1008:
1002:
999:
993:
990:
984:
981:
974:
971:
966:
962:
955:
952:
946:
943:
936:
933:
926:
923:
917:
913:
910:
908:
905:
903:
900:
898:
895:
893:
890:
889:
885:
883:
881:
877:
867:
863:
860:
856:
855:
854:
853:
847:
843:
839:
836:
832:
831:
830:
829:
828:
826:
823:
819:
814:
812:
808:
804:
800:
790:
786:
785:
784:
783:
782:
776:
774:
763:
755:
752:
748:
745:
741:
737:
736:
735:
734:
725:
717:
714:
710:
707:
703:
700:a. We expect
699:
698:
697:
696:
695:
691:
689:
685:
681:
677:
673:
669:
658:
654:
653:
652:
651:
650:
648:
644:
635:
633:
625:
621:
617:
614:
610:
606:
603:
599:
598:
597:
596:
590:
586:
582:
579:
575:
571:
568:
564:
563:
562:
561:
555:
551:
547:
544:
540:
536:
533:
529:
528:
527:
526:
520:
516:
512:
509:
505:
501:
498:
494:
493:
492:
491:
490:
486:
478:
474:
471:
467:
464:
461:a. Mary does
460:
459:
458:
457:
451:
447:
444:
440:
437:
434:a. Fred does
433:
432:
431:
430:
429:
426:
422:
417:
413:
405:
403:
401:
391:
387:
383:
380:
376:
372:
368:
365:
361:
360:
359:
358:
352:
348:
344:
341:
337:
333:
329:
326:
322:
321:
320:
319:
313:
309:
305:
301:
298:
294:
293:
292:
291:
285:
281:
277:
273:
270:
266:
265:
264:
263:
262:
260:
259:extraposition
256:
248:
244:
242:
239:
236:semantically
235:
225:
221:
219:
216:She predicts
213:
210:
206:
204:
198:
195:
191:
189:
183:
182:
181:
180:
174:
170:
168:
163:
160:
156:
154:
149:
146:
142:
140:
135:
134:
133:
132:
131:
129:
121:
119:
117:
113:
109:
105:
101:
97:
92:
90:
86:
82:
78:
74:
70:
65:
61:
57:
53:
49:
45:
41:
37:
30:
19:
1074:
1010:
1001:
992:
983:
973:
964:
954:
945:
935:
925:
879:
875:
873:
865:
858:
845:
841:
834:
824:
817:
815:
810:
806:
802:
798:
796:
780:
772:
761:
750:
743:
739:
723:
712:
705:
701:
692:
687:
683:
679:
675:
671:
667:
664:
639:
631:
623:
619:
612:
608:
601:
588:
584:
577:
573:
566:
553:
549:
542:
538:
531:
518:
514:
507:
503:
496:
487:
484:
476:
469:
462:
449:
442:
435:
424:
420:
415:
411:
409:
399:
397:
389:
385:
378:
377:occurs with
374:
370:
363:
350:
346:
339:
338:occurs with
335:
331:
324:
311:
310:occurs with
307:
303:
296:
283:
282:occurs with
279:
275:
268:
254:
252:
246:
233:
231:
223:
217:
215:
208:
202:
201:That proves
200:
193:
187:
185:
172:
166:
165:
158:
152:
151:
144:
138:
137:
125:
95:
93:
84:
80:
72:
68:
58:. A raising
39:
33:
18:Raising verb
978:structures.
940:(1997:102).
688:to be false
513:c. Fred is
186:Fred wants
104:constituent
56:main clause
36:linguistics
1087:Categories
1022:References
822:Expletive
684:to happen
672:the claim
600:a. Susan
565:a. Susan
238:selecting
94:The term
77:predicand
60:predicate
886:See also
722:expects
530:a. Fred
495:a. Fred
122:Examples
48:argument
44:movement
897:Control
762:herself
760:proved
724:himself
676:expects
609:Appears
602:appears
351:believe
347:someone
336:believe
332:someone
325:someone
261:, e.g.
224:Predict
190:to help
116:control
96:raising
89:English
40:raising
803:judges
756:c. She
680:proves
624:appear
613:appear
589:should
578:should
574:Should
567:should
534:happy.
499:happy.
425:appear
416:appear
308:appear
159:Appear
153:Prices
81:trying
46:of an
918:Notes
880:there
876:there
866:there
859:there
846:there
835:there
825:there
818:there
811:asked
799:wants
718:c. He
569:stay.
539:Seems
532:seems
390:prove
386:Susan
375:prove
371:Susan
364:Susan
304:Larry
297:Larry
218:there
209:Prove
75:(the
809:and
807:told
801:and
686:and
678:and
670:and
607:b. *
554:seem
543:seem
537:b. *
423:and
421:seem
414:and
412:seem
280:seem
222:. –
207:. –
194:Want
192:. –
173:Seem
171:. –
157:. –
145:Seem
143:. –
139:They
85:seem
64:verb
840:b.
751:She
749:b.
744:her
740:her
711:b.
706:him
702:him
620:not
585:not
572:b.
550:not
515:not
502:b.
477:not
470:not
463:not
450:not
443:not
436:not
295:a.
276:Tom
269:Tom
267:a.
234:not
214:c.
203:him
199:b.
184:a.
167:You
164:c.
150:b.
136:a.
79:of
34:In
1089::
963:.
713:He
668:it
519:be
508:be
504:Is
497:is
400:it
379:it
340:it
312:it
284:it
255:it
247:it
188:us
87:.
71:,
38:,
967:.
842:*
765:1
758:1
727:1
720:1
257:-
62:/
31:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
