{"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.