English Raising Predicates and (Non-)Finite Clauses

IF 0.1 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS
Fluminensia Pub Date : 2019-07-23 DOI:10.31820/F.31.1.11
Jakob Lenardic, Gašper Ilc
{"title":"English Raising Predicates and (Non-)Finite Clauses","authors":"Jakob Lenardic, Gašper Ilc","doi":"10.31820/F.31.1.11","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In\nthis paper, we present a diachronic and synchronic analysis of raising and\nextraposition constructions in the historical Brown Corpus and the more contemporary English Web Corpus 2015.\nWe begin by establishing two diachronic facts: first, raising constructions are\nused much more frequently than their semantically equivalent extraposition\nvariants, and second, the distribution of raising and extraposition remains –\nrather exceptionally in comparison to other structures allowing for\nfinite/non-finite variation – diachronically consistent from the beginning of\nthe 20th century to 2015. We then supplement this unique diachronic\ndistribution with an analysis of the most recent corpus data, which shows that\nthe choice between the two semantically equivalent constructions is governed by\ndistinct structural factors unique to each construction. Concretely, we show\nthat the raising construction is frequently used as a relative clause, whereas\nthe extraposition variant generally resists such a syntactic role. By contrast,\nwe show that a prominent factor in favour of extraposition relates to the\nnegative marker, which is placed with similar frequency both in the matrix and\nin the embedded clause of the extraposition construction in contrast to the\nraising variant, which uses the negative marker almost exclusively in the\nmatrix clause. Lastly, we show that extraposition constructions contain modal\nverbs in the matrix clause more frequently than the raising variants and we tie\nthis observation to the idea that the clausal composition of the extraposition\nconstruction is structurally more suited for expressing tentativeness.","PeriodicalId":41722,"journal":{"name":"Fluminensia","volume":"52 3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Fluminensia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31820/F.31.1.11","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this paper, we present a diachronic and synchronic analysis of raising and extraposition constructions in the historical Brown Corpus and the more contemporary English Web Corpus 2015. We begin by establishing two diachronic facts: first, raising constructions are used much more frequently than their semantically equivalent extraposition variants, and second, the distribution of raising and extraposition remains – rather exceptionally in comparison to other structures allowing for finite/non-finite variation – diachronically consistent from the beginning of the 20th century to 2015. We then supplement this unique diachronic distribution with an analysis of the most recent corpus data, which shows that the choice between the two semantically equivalent constructions is governed by distinct structural factors unique to each construction. Concretely, we show that the raising construction is frequently used as a relative clause, whereas the extraposition variant generally resists such a syntactic role. By contrast, we show that a prominent factor in favour of extraposition relates to the negative marker, which is placed with similar frequency both in the matrix and in the embedded clause of the extraposition construction in contrast to the raising variant, which uses the negative marker almost exclusively in the matrix clause. Lastly, we show that extraposition constructions contain modal verbs in the matrix clause more frequently than the raising variants and we tie this observation to the idea that the clausal composition of the extraposition construction is structurally more suited for expressing tentativeness.
英语提升谓语和(非)有限从句
在本文中,我们对历史上的布朗语料库和更现代的英语网络语料库2015中的抬高和移位结构进行了历时和共时分析。首先,我们建立了两个历时事实:首先,提升结构比语义上等价的外置变体使用频率要高得多;其次,从20世纪初到2015年,提升和外置的分布仍然是历时一致的——与其他允许有限/非有限变化的结构相比,这是相当例外的。然后,我们用对最新语料库数据的分析来补充这种独特的历时分布,这表明在两种语义等效结构之间的选择是由每种结构特有的不同结构因素决定的。具体来说,我们发现提升结构经常被用作关系从句,而附加变体通常抵制这种句法作用。相比之下,我们表明,有利于外置的一个重要因素与否定标记有关,否定标记在外置结构的矩阵和嵌入子句中都以相似的频率放置,与提升变体相反,后者几乎只在矩阵子句中使用否定标记。最后,我们发现附加结构在矩阵子句中包含情态动词的频率高于提升变体,并且我们将这一观察结果与附加结构的子句组成在结构上更适合表达试探性的观点联系起来。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Fluminensia
Fluminensia LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS-
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信