{"title":"On Matrix‐Clause Intervention in Accusative‐and‐Infinitive Constructions","authors":"A. Neeleman, A. Payne","doi":"10.1111/SYNT.12174","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"One of the strongest arguments for a raising‐to‐object analysis of English accusative‐and‐infinitive constructions comes from the fact that adverbials and particles belonging to the matrix clause can intervene between the embedded subject and the embedded predicate. We reevaluate this argument in the light of a neglected alternative analysis, namely that matrix‐clause intervention is the result of extraposition of the embedded predicate. We show that this analysis gives a better account of matrix‐clause intervention than raising to object. Our arguments are based on the scopal properties of the embedded subject and on the order among multiple intervening elements. We also consider various mixed analyses that feature both raising to object and extraposition. These turn out to be conceptually awkward and empirically flawed.","PeriodicalId":45823,"journal":{"name":"Syntax-A Journal of Theoretical Experimental and Interdisciplinary Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/SYNT.12174","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Syntax-A Journal of Theoretical Experimental and Interdisciplinary Research","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/SYNT.12174","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3
Abstract
One of the strongest arguments for a raising‐to‐object analysis of English accusative‐and‐infinitive constructions comes from the fact that adverbials and particles belonging to the matrix clause can intervene between the embedded subject and the embedded predicate. We reevaluate this argument in the light of a neglected alternative analysis, namely that matrix‐clause intervention is the result of extraposition of the embedded predicate. We show that this analysis gives a better account of matrix‐clause intervention than raising to object. Our arguments are based on the scopal properties of the embedded subject and on the order among multiple intervening elements. We also consider various mixed analyses that feature both raising to object and extraposition. These turn out to be conceptually awkward and empirically flawed.
期刊介绍:
Syntax publishes a wide range of articles on the syntax of natural languages and closely related fields. The journal promotes work on formal syntactic theory and theoretically-oriented descriptive work on particular languages and comparative grammar. Syntax also publishes research on the interfaces between syntax and related fields such as semantics, morphology, and phonology, as well as theoretical and experimental studies in sentence processing, language acquisition, and other areas of psycholinguistics that bear on syntactic theories. In addition to full length research articles, Syntax features short articles which facilitate a fast review process. ''In the few years of its existence, Syntax quickly became one of the most prominent journals in the field, and unique as a source for high-quality studies at the forefront of research, combining theoretical inquiry and often significant innovation with outstanding descriptive and experimental work. It is indispensable for researchers in the areas it covers.'' Noam Chomsky, Massachusets Institute of Technology, USA