Raising (linguistics)

src: i.ytimg.com

In linguistics, the construction of increase involves moving the argument from an attached clause or subordinate to a matrix or main clause; in other words, the raising predicate/verb appears with a syntactic argument that is not the semantic argument but rather the semantic argument of the embedded predicate. Although English has an increasing construction, not all languages ​​can be done.

The term raise has its origins in the transformational analysis of such constructs; the constituent in question is seen as "raised" from the initial position of its deep structure as the predicate subject attached to the position of its surface structure in the matrix verb. Bring up a predicate/verb associated with a predicate control, although there is an important distinction between two types of predicate/verb.

Video Raising (linguistics)

Example

There are at least two types of predicate/verb increases: increase-to-subject verbs and up-to-object predicates. The Raising-to-object predation overlaps for the most part with the so-called ECM verb (= exceptional case-marking). The types of predicate/verb increase are illustrated with the following sentences:

a. They seem to be trying. - seems is a subject-raising verb.

b. Price looks up. - appear is a subject-raising verb.

c. you seem impatient. - seems is a subject-raising verb.

a. Fred wants us to help. - wants can be a predicate of zoom-to-object.

b. It proves he to hide something. - prove can be a predicate aimed at improving the object.

c. He predicts there to be a problem. - predict can be a predominating-to-object predicate.

The main character of raising such a verb is that they do not arbitrarily choose one of their dependents. Raise-to-subject verbs do not choose their dependent subject, and the raise-to-object predicate does not select their dependent objects. This dependency seems to have been raised from a lower predicate.

Maps Raising (linguistics)

Alternately with it -extraposition

Raising predicate/verbs can be identified in part by the fact that they are alternatively dependent on full chapters and can take part in it -compositions, eg

a. Tom seems to win the race.

b. It seems that Tom won the race. - The Raising-to-subject verb appears with it -extraposition

a. Larry seems to do the job.

b. It seems Larry is doing the job. - The Raising-to-subject predicate appears occurs with it -extraposition.

a. Sam believes someone to know the answer.

b. Sam believes that someone knows the answer. - The Raising-to-object believe query occurs with it -extraposition.

c. Sam believes that someone knows the answer. - The Raising-to-object believe predicate occurs with the argument of the clause object.

a. It proves Susan to be a bastard.

b. It proves that Susan is a fool. - The Raising-to-object predicate occurs with it -extraposition.

c. It proves that Susan is a fool. - The predicate Raising-to-object proves occurs with the argument of the clause object.

Bring up a predicate/verb can appear with it -related and/or dependent full clause. They appear to be subcategories for propositional arguments.

src: i.ytimg.com

Generating verbs into verbs vs. auxiliary verbs

Raise-to-subject verbs look and look are similar to auxiliary verbs as long as both types of verbs have little or no semantic content. The content they have is functional. In this area, auxiliary verbs can not be viewed as separate predicates; they are more a part of the predicate. Raise-to-subject verbs and look are similar so far it is hard to see them as predicates. They serve, no, to change the predicate. That this can be seen in the fact that the following pair of sentences is basically the same:

a. Fred did not seem to do it.

b. Fred does not seem to do . - Position negation flexible.

a. Mary no looks like a pudding.

b. Mary seems to not like pudding. - Position negation flexible.

The fact that the position of negation can change without affecting the meaning being told. This means that an increase-to-subject verb can hardly be seen as a predicate.

While increasing-to-subject verbs are like auxiliary verbs to the extent that they do not have predicate content, they are unlike auxiliaries in syntactic matters. Auxiliary verbs are performed with the subject-aux inversion, not using a raise-to-subject verb. Additional verb negotiations, up-to-subject verbs only do so reluctantly:

a. Fred happy .

b. Is it Fred happy? - The help verb becomes takes part in additional-subject inversion.

c. Fred is not not happy. - Assisted verbs to negation license.

a. Fred seems happy.

b. * Apparently Fred is happy? - Raising-to-subject verbs seem can not take part in additional-subject inversion.

c. ^?? Fred seems not happy. - Raising-to-subject verbs seem can hardly provide a negation license.

a. Susan should remain.

b. Should Susan stay? - Capital auxiliary should take part in a lesson-auxiliary inversion.

c. Susan should not stay. - Capital help should be able to license the negation.

a. Susan appears to stay.

b. * Appears Susan to stay? - The Raising-to-subject verb appears can not take part in additional-subject inversion.

c. ^? Susan seems not to stay. - Raising-to-subject verbs are reluctant to license the negation.

The lift-to-object verb is also definitely NOT an auxiliary verb. Unlike an increase-to-subject verb, however, the rise-to-object verbs have clear semantic content, so they are therefore undeniable predicates.

src: timeshighereducationonline.com

Represents the increase

The fact that the constituents are raised behaves as if it depends of a higher predicate generally reflected in the syntax trees used to represent the structure of the increase. The following trees are illustrations of the type of structure that is assumed to raise-to-object predicates. Both tree-based constituents of grammatical phrase structure and dependency tree of grammatical dependencies are used here:

The constituent-based trees are the a-tree on the left, and the dependent trees are the b-trees on the right. While the structure assumed here can be debated - especially the constituent structure - the trees all show a major attitude towards the improvement of the structure. This attitude is that the "subject" of the lower predicate emerges as the dependence of the higher predicate - the relevant constituents are in bold. A relatively flat structure is assumed to accommodate this behavior. Both it and claims are displayed as dependents expect and prove , respectively, even though they are semantic arguments of the predicate the lower happens and becomes wrong , respectively.

A number of empirical considerations support the relatively flat structure shown here. That is, empirical considerations support the position of the constituent "lifting" as depending of the matrix verb/verb. These dependents can appear in the form of objects, they can appear as the subject of passive sentences, and they can appear as reflexive adjacent to the subject of the matrix:

a. We expect him to help. - Pronoun he appears in object form.

b. He is expected to help. - The object pronoun becomes a passive subject.

c. He ₁ expects himself ₁ to help. - Reflexive is connected to the subject.

a. You proved him to be competent. - Pronoun he appears in object form.

b. He proved competent. - The object pronoun becomes a passive subject.

c. He ₁ proves himself ₁ to be competent. - Reflexive is connected to the subject.

This behavior speaks strongly to the general analysis reflected in the trees, namely that the constituents "raised" are dependent of higher predicates.

src: s1.dmcdn.net

Cultivation vs. control

Understanding of the increase is significantly expanded by comparing and contrasting with improved control. Check the following trees (dependency):

A-tree contains a predicate that raises want and judge , whereas b-tree contains the is told and is questioned . Despite the fact that the structure assumed for different types of predicates is essentially the same, there is a big difference to be drawn. The difference is that predictive semantic controls 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 that is not the argument of the raising predicate. This situation gains despite the fact that both types of predicates take the object into a "subject" of a lower predicate.

The difference between the rising-to-object and control predicate is identified using there -the diagnostic insertion. Ekspletif exist can appear as an object (or subject) increase the predicate, but can not appear as a predicate control object, for example:

a. Sam judged there was a problem. - Expletive there can appear as a object of up-to-object predicate.

b. * Sam asks there is a problem. - Expletive exists can not appear as an object of the object control predicate.

a. We want a revision. - Expletive there can appear as a object of up-to-object predicate.

b. ^?? We help there (to) be revised. - Expletive exists can not appear as an object of the object control predicate.

Since the predicate raises no semantic restrictions on their dependent objects, expletive is free to appear. In contrast, the predictors of object controls do semantic restrictions on the arguments of their objects, which means the absorbing oath there usually can not arise.

src: timeshighereducationonline.com

Note

src: linguistics.berkeley.edu

References

• Bach, E. 1974. Syntactic theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc.
• Borsley, R. 1996. Modern phrase structure grammar. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers.
• Carnie, A. 2007. Syntax: Introduction to generative, 2nd ed. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
• Cowper, E. 2009. Brief introduction to syntactical theory: The binding approach of government. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
• Culicover, P. 1982. Syntax, 2nd ed. New York: Academic Press.
• Culicover, P. 1997. Principles and Parameters: Introduction to syntactic theory. Oxford University Press.
• Emonds, J. 1976. Transformational approach to English syntax: Roots, organizing-structure, and local transformation, New York: Academic Press.
• Falk, Y. 2001. Lexical-Functional Grammar: Introduction to syntax based on parallel constraints. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
• Grinder, J. and S. Elgin. 1973. Guidelines for transformational grammar: History, theory, and practice. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc.
• Haegeman, L. 1994. Introduction to government and binding theory, 2nd ed. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
• Lasnik, H. and M. Saito. 1999. On infinitive issues. In H. Lasnik, Minimalist analysis, 7-24. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
• Osborne, T., Michael P., and T. GroÃÆ'Ÿ 2012. Catenae: Introducing a new unit of syntactic analysis. Syntax 15, 4, 354-396.
• Postal, P. 1974. About Raising: One English grammar rule and its theoretical implications. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
• van Riemsdijk, H. and E. Williams. 1986. Introduction to grammar theory. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
• Rosenbaum, P. 1967. Grammar of English predicate construction . Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

src: i.ytimg.com

See also

• Control
• Grammar dependency
• Exceptional case tagging
• Grammar phrase structure

Source of the article : Wikipedia