802:. 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.
682:
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
629:
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
966:
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
477:
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
1003:
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
654:
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
407:
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
229:
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.
928:
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
55:
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
416:
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:
918:
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
778:
646:
621:
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.
115:
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 (=
655:"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
474:
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.
762:
This behavior speaks strongly for the general analysis reflected in the trees, namely that the "raised" constituent is a dependent of the higher predicate.
770:
An understanding of raising is significantly expanded by comparing and contrasting raising with control. Examine the following (dependency) trees:
938:
Concerning the ability of raising predicates to appear with full clausal arguments, see Bach (1974:149), Borsley (1996:127f.), Carnie (2007:291).
1038:
Emonds, J. 1976. A transformational approach to
English syntax: Root, structure-preserving, and local transformations, New York: Academic Press.
1044:
Grinder, J. and S. Elgin. 1973. Guide to transformational grammar: History, theory, and practice. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and
Winston, Inc.
867:
is free to appear. In contrast, object control predicates do place semantic restrictions on their object arguments, which means expletive
242:
Raising predicates/verbs can be identified in part by the fact that they alternatively take a full clause dependent and can take part in
1041:
Falk, Y. 2001. Lexical-Functional
Grammar: An introduction to parallel constraint-based syntax. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
1056:
Postal, P. 1974. On raising: One rule of
English grammar and its theoretical implications. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
1050:
Lasnik, H. and M. Saito. 1999. On the subject of infinitives. In H. Lasnik, Minimalist analysis, 7-24. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
816:
can appear as the object (or subject) of raising predicates, but it cannot appear as the object of control predicates, e.g.:
100:
1053:
Osborne, T., Michael P., and T. Groß 2012. Catenae: Introducing a novel unit of syntactic analysis. Syntax 15, 4, 354–396.
1059:
van
Riemsdijk, H. and E. Williams. 1986. Introduction to the theory of grammar. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
1081:
1064:
391:–extraposition and/or a full clausal dependent. They appear to be subcategorizing for a propositional argument.
1035:
Culicover, P. 1997. Principles and
Parameters: An introduction to syntactic theory. Oxford University Press.
949:
1086:
1047:
Haegeman, L. 1994. Introduction to government and binding theory, 2nd edition. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
92:
900:
895:
631:
116:
88:
1022:
Carnie, A. 2007. Syntax: A generative introduction, 2nd edition. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
1019:
Borsley, R. 1996. Modern phrase structure grammar. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers.
863:
Since the raising predicates place no semantic restrictions on their object dependents, expletive
226:
36:
17:
885:
104:
994:
Concerning these points, see Bach (1974:147f.), Postal (1974), Lasnik and Saito (1999:9ff.).
107:
predicates, although there are important differences between the two predicate/verb types.
777:
645:
8:
810:
805:
The distinction between raising-to-object and control predicates is identified using the
119:). These types of raising predicates/verbs are illustrated with the following sentences:
48:
890:
635:
40:
32:
880:
77:
985:
The dependency trees are like those found, for instance, in Osborne et al. (2012).
1026:
683:
sentences, and they can appear as reflexives coindexed with the matrix subjects:
103:
position in the matrix predicate/verb. Raising predicates/verbs are related to
96:
1075:
671:, respectively, although they are semantic arguments of the lower predicates
247:
1027:
A concise introduction to syntactic theory: The government-binding approach
1016:
Bach, E. 1974. Syntactic theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.
221:
The primary trait of raising predicates/verbs like these is that they are
44:
24:
742:
was proved to be competent. – Object pronoun becomes subject in passive.
65:
976:
For an early layered analysis, however, see Culicover (1982:251ff.).
1032:
Culicover, P. 1982. Syntax, 2nd edition. New York: Academic Press.
704:
is expected to help. – Object pronoun becomes subject in passive.
394:
857:
cannot appear as the object of an object control predicate.
837:
cannot appear as the object of an object control predicate.
99:
position, as the subject of the embedded predicate, to its
52:
850:
can appear as the object of a raising-to-object predicate.
826:
can appear as the object of a raising-to-object predicate.
1065:
The grammar of English predicate complement constructions
1004:(1997:102), Lasnik and Saito (1999:8-9), Falk (2001:131).
461:
to like pudding. – Position of the negation is flexible.
434:
to have done it. – Position of the negation is flexible.
80:
has raising constructions, unlike some other languages.
954:
Boston University instructor's note from CAS LX 522 F09
756:
to be competent. – Reflexive is coindexed with subject.
295:
is doing the work. – Raising-to-subject predicate verb
95:
in question is seen as being "raised" from its initial
794:, whereas the b-trees contain the control predicates
233:
853:b. We helped there (to) be a revision. - Expletive
822:a. Sam judges there to be a problem. – Expletive
1073:
604:cannot take part in subject-auxiliary inversion.
534:cannot take part in subject-auxiliary inversion.
846:a. We want there to be a revision. - Expletive
718:to help. – Reflexive is coindexed with subject.
600:Susan to be staying? – Raising-to-subject verb
338:knew the answer. – Raising-to-object predicate
323:knew the answer. – Raising-to-object predicate
833:Sam asked there to be a problem. – Expletive
468:like pudding. – Infinitival splitting occurs.
441:have done it. – Infinitival splitting occurs.
395:Raising-to-subject verbs vs. auxiliary verbs
377:is a jackass. – Raising-to-object predicate
362:is a jackass. – Raising-to-object predicate
1029:. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
786:The a-trees contain the raising predicates
569:takes part in subject-auxiliary inversion.
499:takes part in subject-auxiliary inversion.
611:to be staying. – Raising-to-subject verb
387:Raising predicates/verbs can appear with
267:won the race. – Raising-to-subject verb
624:
1074:
765:
530:Fred happy? – Raising-to-subject verb
1068:. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press
950:"What are these */?/*?/??/# symbols?"
215:can be a raising-to-object predicate.
200:can be a raising-to-object predicate.
185:can be a raising-to-object predicate.
947:
381:occurs with clausal object argument.
342:occurs with clausal object argument.
91:analysis of such constructions; the
13:
16:For the concept in phonetics, see
14:
1098:
541:happy. – Raising-to-subject verb
776:
644:
997:
988:
979:
970:
960:
941:
932:
922:
912:
634:and dependency-based trees of
615:reluctantly licenses negation.
565:Susan stay? – Modal auxiliary
1:
1010:
495:Fred happy? – Auxiliary verb
399:The raising-to-subject verbs
288:appears to be doing the work.
164:is a raising-to-subject verb.
150:is a raising-to-subject verb.
136:is a raising-to-subject verb.
630:constituency-based trees of
545:can hardly license negation.
7:
874:
731:to be competent. – Pronoun
663:are shown as dependents of
260:seems to have won the race.
110:
10:
1103:
31:constructions involve the
15:
906:
901:Phrase structure grammar
896:Exceptional case marking
632:phrase structure grammar
576:stay. – Modal auxiliary
506:happy. – Auxiliary verb
319:b. Sam believed it that
117:exceptional case-marking
1082:Syntactic relationships
871:usually cannot appear.
809:-insertion diagnostic.
735:appears in object form.
697:appears in object form.
454:appear to like pudding.
358:b. That proves it that
144:appear to be increasing
87:has its origins in the
194:to be hiding something
58:they seem to be trying
18:Raising (sound change)
580:can license negation.
427:seem to have done it.
334:c. Sam believed that
1062:Rosenbaum, P. 1967.
625:Representing raising
373:c. That proves that
158:seem to be impatient
72:) is the subject of
39:from an embedded or
766:Raising vs. control
693:to help. – Pronoun
638:are employed here:
464:c. Mary appears to
316:to know the answer.
291:b. It appears that
891:Dependency grammar
636:dependency grammar
510:licenses negation.
478:only reluctantly:
41:subordinate clause
1087:Generative syntax
1025:Cowper, E. 2009.
607:c. Susan appears
437:c. Fred seems to
263:b. It seems that
234:Alternation with
130:seem to be trying
101:surface structure
1094:
1005:
1001:
995:
992:
986:
983:
977:
974:
968:
964:
958:
957:
948:Hagstrom, Paul.
945:
939:
936:
930:
926:
920:
916:
881:Negative raising
780:
679:, respectively.
648:
572:c. Susan should
457:b. Mary appears
355:to be a jackass.
312:a. Sam believed
89:transformational
1102:
1101:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1072:
1071:
1013:
1008:
1002:
998:
993:
989:
984:
980:
975:
971:
965:
961:
946:
942:
937:
933:
927:
923:
917:
913:
909:
877:
768:
755:
748:
717:
710:
627:
397:
370:-extraposition.
351:a. That proves
331:-extraposition.
303:-extraposition.
275:-extraposition.
240:
209:to be a problem
113:
43:to a matrix or
21:
12:
11:
5:
1100:
1090:
1089:
1084:
1070:
1069:
1060:
1057:
1054:
1051:
1048:
1045:
1042:
1039:
1036:
1033:
1030:
1023:
1020:
1017:
1012:
1009:
1007:
1006:
996:
987:
978:
969:
959:
940:
931:
921:
919:(2007:285ff.).
910:
908:
905:
904:
903:
898:
893:
888:
883:
876:
873:
861:
860:
859:
858:
851:
841:
840:
839:
838:
827:
784:
783:
782:
781:
767:
764:
760:
759:
758:
757:
753:
746:
743:
736:
727:a. You proved
722:
721:
720:
719:
715:
708:
705:
698:
652:
651:
650:
649:
626:
623:
619:
618:
617:
616:
605:
594:
593:to be staying.
584:
583:
582:
581:
570:
559:
549:
548:
547:
546:
537:c. Fred seems
535:
524:
514:
513:
512:
511:
500:
489:
472:
471:
470:
469:
462:
455:
445:
444:
443:
442:
435:
430:b. Fred seems
428:
396:
393:
385:
384:
383:
382:
371:
356:
346:
345:
344:
343:
332:
317:
307:
306:
305:
304:
289:
279:
278:
277:
276:
261:
239:
238:-extraposition
232:
219:
218:
217:
216:
201:
186:
168:
167:
166:
165:
151:
137:
112:
109:
97:deep structure
62:"to be trying"
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1099:
1088:
1085:
1083:
1080:
1079:
1077:
1067:
1066:
1061:
1058:
1055:
1052:
1049:
1046:
1043:
1040:
1037:
1034:
1031:
1028:
1024:
1021:
1018:
1015:
1014:
1000:
991:
982:
973:
963:
955:
951:
944:
935:
925:
915:
911:
902:
899:
897:
894:
892:
889:
887:
884:
882:
879:
878:
872:
870:
866:
856:
852:
849:
845:
844:
843:
842:
836:
832:
828:
825:
821:
820:
819:
818:
817:
815:
812:
808:
803:
801:
797:
793:
789:
779:
775:
774:
773:
772:
771:
763:
752:
744:
741:
737:
734:
730:
726:
725:
724:
723:
714:
706:
703:
699:
696:
692:
689:a. We expect
688:
687:
686:
685:
684:
680:
678:
674:
670:
666:
662:
658:
647:
643:
642:
641:
640:
639:
637:
633:
622:
614:
610:
606:
603:
599:
595:
592:
588:
587:
586:
585:
579:
575:
571:
568:
564:
560:
557:
553:
552:
551:
550:
544:
540:
536:
533:
529:
525:
522:
518:
517:
516:
515:
509:
505:
501:
498:
494:
490:
487:
483:
482:
481:
480:
479:
475:
467:
463:
460:
456:
453:
450:a. Mary does
449:
448:
447:
446:
440:
436:
433:
429:
426:
423:a. Fred does
422:
421:
420:
419:
418:
415:
411:
406:
402:
392:
390:
380:
376:
372:
369:
365:
361:
357:
354:
350:
349:
348:
347:
341:
337:
333:
330:
326:
322:
318:
315:
311:
310:
309:
308:
302:
298:
294:
290:
287:
283:
282:
281:
280:
274:
270:
266:
262:
259:
255:
254:
253:
252:
251:
249:
248:extraposition
245:
237:
231:
228:
225:semantically
224:
214:
210:
208:
205:She predicts
202:
199:
195:
193:
187:
184:
180:
178:
172:
171:
170:
169:
163:
159:
157:
152:
149:
145:
143:
138:
135:
131:
129:
124:
123:
122:
121:
120:
118:
108:
106:
102:
98:
94:
90:
86:
81:
79:
75:
71:
67:
63:
59:
54:
50:
46:
42:
38:
34:
30:
26:
19:
1063:
999:
990:
981:
972:
962:
953:
943:
934:
924:
914:
868:
864:
862:
854:
847:
834:
830:
823:
813:
806:
804:
799:
795:
791:
787:
785:
769:
761:
750:
739:
732:
728:
712:
701:
694:
690:
681:
676:
672:
668:
664:
660:
656:
653:
628:
620:
612:
608:
601:
597:
590:
577:
573:
566:
562:
555:
542:
538:
531:
527:
520:
507:
503:
496:
492:
485:
476:
473:
465:
458:
451:
438:
431:
424:
413:
409:
404:
400:
398:
388:
386:
378:
374:
367:
366:occurs with
363:
359:
352:
339:
335:
328:
327:occurs with
324:
320:
313:
300:
299:occurs with
296:
292:
285:
272:
271:occurs with
268:
264:
257:
243:
241:
235:
222:
220:
212:
206:
204:
197:
191:
190:That proves
189:
182:
176:
174:
161:
155:
154:
147:
141:
140:
133:
127:
126:
114:
84:
82:
73:
69:
61:
57:
47:. A raising
28:
22:
967:structures.
929:(1997:102).
677:to be false
502:c. Fred is
175:Fred wants
93:constituent
45:main clause
25:linguistics
1076:Categories
1011:References
811:Expletive
673:to happen
661:the claim
589:a. Susan
554:a. Susan
227:selecting
83:The term
66:predicand
49:predicate
875:See also
711:expects
519:a. Fred
484:a. Fred
111:Examples
37:argument
33:movement
886:Control
751:herself
749:proved
713:himself
665:expects
598:Appears
591:appears
340:believe
336:someone
325:believe
321:someone
314:someone
250:, e.g.
213:Predict
179:to help
105:control
85:raising
78:English
29:raising
792:judges
745:c. She
669:proves
613:appear
602:appear
578:should
567:should
563:Should
556:should
523:happy.
488:happy.
414:appear
405:appear
297:appear
148:Appear
142:Prices
70:trying
35:of an
907:Notes
869:there
865:there
855:there
848:there
835:there
824:there
814:there
807:there
800:asked
788:wants
707:c. He
558:stay.
528:Seems
521:seems
379:prove
375:Susan
364:prove
360:Susan
353:Susan
293:Larry
286:Larry
207:there
198:Prove
64:(the
798:and
796:told
790:and
675:and
667:and
659:and
596:b. *
543:seem
532:seem
526:b. *
412:and
410:seem
403:and
401:seem
269:seem
211:. –
196:. –
183:Want
181:. –
162:Seem
160:. –
146:. –
134:Seem
132:. –
128:They
74:seem
53:verb
829:b.
740:She
738:b.
733:her
729:her
700:b.
695:him
691:him
609:not
574:not
561:b.
539:not
504:not
491:b.
466:not
459:not
452:not
439:not
432:not
425:not
284:a.
265:Tom
258:Tom
256:a.
223:not
203:c.
192:him
188:b.
173:a.
156:You
153:c.
139:b.
125:a.
68:of
23:In
1078::
952:.
702:He
657:it
508:be
497:be
493:Is
486:is
389:it
368:it
329:it
301:it
273:it
244:it
236:it
177:us
76:.
60:,
27:,
956:.
831:*
754:1
747:1
716:1
709:1
246:-
51:/
20:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
