Files H, I, J, & K Flashcards
(46 cards)
Raising/Ascension Operations
Operations that change the grammatical relation of an NP by “lifting” it out of a particular clause and placing it in the next higher clause, where it takes on a grammatical relation to the verb in that clause.
Subject-to-Subject Raising
An operation that takes the subject from an embedded clauses and raises it to the subject position in the next higher clause. Often illustrated by position and triggering agreement.
Additionally, the embedded clause typically collapses after the raising operation where the embedded verb returns to the infinitival form and the complementizer is deleted. (English does this A LOT)
Its seems that the workers have finished.»_space;> The workers seem to have finished.
Matrix Clause
The higher clause in a raising pattern.
Copy Raising
A raising operation in which a pronominal ‘copy’ of the raised subject appears in the embedded subject, which does not collapse.
It seems like Mary is tired.»_space;> Mary seems like she’s tired.
Hyper/Super Raising
Raising of the subject from a tense-bearing lower clause, but without a visible copy pronoun.
Subject-to-Object Raising
A type of raising operation that lifts the subject of an embedded clause up to the direct object position in the matrix clause. (Note: the embedded clause also collapses as it does with subject-to-subject raising.)
Evidence for this is newly assigned object can take accusative case, the use of reflexive pronouns are now permitted, and it’s ability to be assigned the subject role when passivization is applied.
Mary believes that Jerry is trustworthy.»_space;> Mary believes Jerry to be trustworthy.
Object-to-Subject Raising
Tough Raising
A raising operation that lifts a non-subject from an embedded clause to the subject position in the matrix clause.
Evidence for this occurrence is the change is position and triggering/change of agreement.
It is tough to give advice to Jerry.»_space;> Jerry is tough to give advice to.
Possessor Ascension/Raising
A raising operation that lifts the possessor out of an NP, giving it the grammatical relation that was initially associated with the larger NP.
Before »_space;»»» After
…………………………………………………
possessor »_space;»»» subject
subject »_space;»»» chômeur
Note: inalienable possession ascension is possible but alienable possession ascension is not.
Mary-no kao-ga kawaii.»_space;> Mary-ga koa-ga kawaii.
Chomeur
An oblique relation whose earlier grammatical relation has been taken over by another nominal.
Before >>>>>>>> After ......................................................... subject >>>>>>>>> subject possessor >>>>>>>> direct object direct object >>>>>> chômeur
Control Constructions
Similar to raising constructions but differ in key ways that can only be identified by applying special tests.
Subject Control Construction
Constructions that are characterized by the present of a subject in the higher clause that is identical to the unexpressed subject of the lower clause.
Differs from subject-to-subject raising clauses as the thematic role is assigned from the matrix clause verb (whereas its assigned from the embedded verb in the aforementioned clause type).
Test to Determine Subject Control Constructions
Three types of tests:
Test 1 Subject control constructions do not permit the use of an expletive subject in the high clause (when the lower clause is built around a copula verb).
There seems to be a problem.
*There hopes to be a problem.
Test 2 Idioms can occur in subject-to-subject raising patterns but can not in control patterns.
The chickens seem to have come home to roost.
*The chickens tried/hoped to come home to roost.
Test 3 Quirky case (Icelandic) patterns retain their case when in raising patterns but not in control patterns.
Object Control
The key difference between a subject-to-object raising pattern and an object control pattern has to do with how the direct object in the higher clause gets its thematic role. DOs are assigned their case from the embedded clause verb prior to raising where DOs get their case from the matrix verbs in control patterns.
Test to Determine Object Control Constructions
Two types of tests:
Test 1 Object control constructions do not permit the use of an expletive subject in the high clause (when the lower clause is built around a copula verb).
Sharon expects there to be 3 boys at the door.
*Sharon persuaded there to be a problem.
Test 2 Idioms can occur in subject-to-subject raising patterns but can not in control patterns.
We expect the chickens seem to come home to roost.
*We persuaded the chickens to come home to roost.
Lexical Causatives
Where causation is expressed lexical and not associated with a specific morpheme.
i.e. kill = cause to die
Grammatical Causatives
Where causation is expressed by a separate morpheme.
Grammatical causatives can be divided into two subgroups: morphological and syntactic (periphrastic).
Morphological Causative
Causation expressed as an affix. These types of causatives tend to be considered more direct.
Syntactic (Periphrastic) Causative
Verbs that are used to express causation but are not inherently causative like lexical causatives. This type of causation is typically viewed as being indirect, such as persuasion or simply granting permission.
Causativization of Intransitive Verbs
When an intransitive verb is causativized, the subject argument is usually converted into a direct object in order to make way for the causer argument, which now becomes the subject.
This is the motivation to why causation is often referred to as a transitivizing operation.
**Passivization can illustrate the demotion based on if the former subject can reobtain subject hood after passivization.
Causativization of Transitive Verbs
If morphological causativization is permitted on transitive verbs in a language (not all language permit this i.e. Berber) then one of two things must occur:
- the transitive verb must first under go detransitivization, often by antipassivization.
- The former subject of the transitive verb is either demoted to an indirect object (most common) resulting in a dative ditransitive construction and preserving the direct object in its original role -or- the former subject is converted into the primary direct object resulting in a double object pattern. These conversions allow for the causer to take the role of subject.
**Passivization can illustrate which option is taken (in method 2) based on if the former subject can reobtain subject hood after passivization.
Mirror Principle/Satellite Principle
The order of morphemes reflects the order in which syntactic processes apply.
Symmetrical Ditransitive
When both DO NPs are equally accessible to various syntactic processes. For example, both NP being able to trigger agreement in a verb when they are not overtly expressed.
3 types of syntactic causatives
- Biclausal pattern - one clause expressing the cause and the other clause expressing the result. A hallmark feature of this pattern they contain full embedded clauses with nominative marked subjects.
- Subject-to-object raising - Raising the subject out of the embedded clause to the object position of the causative matrix clause.
- Causative clause union
Causative Clause Union
The two verbs come together (fuse) to form a single verb complex and ALL the nominals in the embedded clause raise into the matrix clause and subsume the grammatical relations there.
