Difference between revisions of "Raising to object"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Wohlgemuth (talk | contribs) m (utrecht) |
(Edited the format, removed the block {{cats}}) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | {{stub | + | {{stub}} |
| − | + | ==Definition== | |
[[NP-movement]] from an embedded [[subject]] position to a [[c-command]]ing object position. This operation has been proposed in order to explain the fact that ''him'' in (i), although the subject of ''to have won'', has the case-marking of a [[direct object]]. | [[NP-movement]] from an embedded [[subject]] position to a [[c-command]]ing object position. This operation has been proposed in order to explain the fact that ''him'' in (i), although the subject of ''to have won'', has the case-marking of a [[direct object]]. | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
The problem with this analysis is that an empty object position will have to be generated in order to provide a landing site for NP-movement. This is at odds with the [[Projection Principle]] and in conflict with [[Theta-theory]]. As a solution to this problem it has been proposed (e.g. in Chomsky 1991) that Raising-to-object is in fact movement to the specifier position in a functional AGRP. See [[Exceptional Case Marking]]. Soames & Perlmutter suggest that 'Raising to object' is merely a metaphor, and that in fact, the embedded clause in (iii) contains a pro-drop ( [[pro]]) subject. | The problem with this analysis is that an empty object position will have to be generated in order to provide a landing site for NP-movement. This is at odds with the [[Projection Principle]] and in conflict with [[Theta-theory]]. As a solution to this problem it has been proposed (e.g. in Chomsky 1991) that Raising-to-object is in fact movement to the specifier position in a functional AGRP. See [[Exceptional Case Marking]]. Soames & Perlmutter suggest that 'Raising to object' is merely a metaphor, and that in fact, the embedded clause in (iii) contains a pro-drop ( [[pro]]) subject. | ||
| − | + | == Links == | |
| − | + | *[http://www2.let.uu.nl/UiL-OTS/Lexicon/zoek.pl?lemma=Raising+to+object&lemmacode=311 Utrecht Lexicon of Linguistics] | |
| − | [http://www2.let.uu.nl/UiL-OTS/Lexicon/zoek.pl?lemma=Raising+to+object&lemmacode=311 Utrecht Lexicon of Linguistics] | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| + | == References == | ||
* Chomsky, N. 1991. ''Some Notes on Economy of Derivations and Derivations,'' in:R. Freidin (ed) Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar, 417-454, The MITT Press: Cambridge, Mass. Reprinted in: Chomsky (1995). | * Chomsky, N. 1991. ''Some Notes on Economy of Derivations and Derivations,'' in:R. Freidin (ed) Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar, 417-454, The MITT Press: Cambridge, Mass. Reprinted in: Chomsky (1995). | ||
* Chomsky, N. 1981. ''Lectures on Government and Binding,'' Foris, Dordrecht. | * Chomsky, N. 1981. ''Lectures on Government and Binding,'' Foris, Dordrecht. | ||
Latest revision as of 08:15, 28 September 2014
| STUB |
Definition
NP-movement from an embedded subject position to a c-commanding object position. This operation has been proposed in order to explain the fact that him in (i), although the subject of to have won, has the case-marking of a direct object.
(i) John believes himi [ti to have won]
The problem with this analysis is that an empty object position will have to be generated in order to provide a landing site for NP-movement. This is at odds with the Projection Principle and in conflict with Theta-theory. As a solution to this problem it has been proposed (e.g. in Chomsky 1991) that Raising-to-object is in fact movement to the specifier position in a functional AGRP. See Exceptional Case Marking. Soames & Perlmutter suggest that 'Raising to object' is merely a metaphor, and that in fact, the embedded clause in (iii) contains a pro-drop ( pro) subject.
Links
References
- Chomsky, N. 1991. Some Notes on Economy of Derivations and Derivations, in:R. Freidin (ed) Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar, 417-454, The MITT Press: Cambridge, Mass. Reprinted in: Chomsky (1995).
- Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht.
- Koster, J. 1987. Domains and dynasties: The radical autonomy of syntax, Foris, Dordrecht.
- Postal, P.M. 1974. On Raising. One Rule of English Grammar and its Theoretical Implications, The MIT Press: Cambridge, Mass.
- Soames, S. & D.M. Perlmutter 1979. Syntactic Argumentation and the Structure of English, University of California Press:Berkely, Los Angeles, London
