On the Interaction Between Raising and Focus in Sentential Complementation

Raising‐to‐subject (SpectAGRSP) verbs such as seem and so‐called ECM or raising‐to‐object (SpecAGROP) verbs such as believe display a semantic alternation that can be captured in the same way as in Freeze's (1993) and Kayne's (1994) analysis of have and be. With respect to the syntax of th...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Studia linguistica 1997-04, Vol.51 (1), p.1-49
Main Author: Rooryck, Johan
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Descriptive studies and applied theories
Linguistics
Syntax
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4346-21455da0588161651f792d6e8040d76148c4ee296d8dc8d7494d9b73d1909163
cites
container_end_page 49
container_issue 1
container_start_page 1
container_title Studia linguistica
container_volume 51
creator Rooryck, Johan
description Raising‐to‐subject (SpectAGRSP) verbs such as seem and so‐called ECM or raising‐to‐object (SpecAGROP) verbs such as believe display a semantic alternation that can be captured in the same way as in Freeze's (1993) and Kayne's (1994) analysis of have and be. With respect to the syntax of the sentential complement of these verbs, it is shown that analyses of raising and ECM in terms of a ‘reduced’ sentential complement are theoretically and empirically untenable. An analysis of raising is developed which requires two steps: in the embedded CP complement of seem/believe, AGRSP first moves to SpecCP before the subject in the embedded SpecAGRSP moves to the matrix SpecAGRS/OP (seem/believe) position. The first step is motivated as Focus‐movement, and allows for an explanation of the relation of seem type verbs to verbs of comparison in many languages. The presence of [+Focus] C° in the sentential complement of seem/believe also accounts for Focus‐related restrictions on the subject of the embedded complement of believe type verbs, which were observed by Postal (1974) for a subset of English ECM verbs (his DOC‐verbs) and by Kayne (1981) and Pollock (1985) for French ECM verbs.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/1467-9582.00016
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_85653682</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1839892559</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4346-21455da0588161651f792d6e8040d76148c4ee296d8dc8d7494d9b73d1909163</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkM1PHCEYh4lpE7e2Z68kNr2NwvAxcGy3fu5WG92mR4LwrmJnmS3MRv3vZRyzh17KhUCe5_fCD6F9Sg5pWUeUy6bSQtWHhBAqd9Bke_MOTQhhumJUs130IeeHgjCp5ARdXEXc3wM-jz0k6_rQRfwN-keAiK9tyCHeYRs9PuncJuMQ8Q0UMvbBtnjardYtrMrJDt5H9H5p2wyf3vY9tDg5XkzPqvnV6fn067xynHFZ1ZQL4S0RSlFJpaDLRtdegiKc-EZSrhwHqLX0yjvlG66517cN81QTTSXbQ1_G2HXq_m4g92YVsoO2tRG6TTZKSFH-Vhfw4B_wodukWJ5mqGJa6VoIXaijkXKpyznB0qxTWNn0bCgxQ7FmqNEMNZrXYovx-S3XZmfbZbLRhbzVatVISYbxfMQeQwvP_0s1N4tf8zG9GrWQe3jaajb9MbJhjTC_L0_Nj4sZ_a5mM_OTvQCS6ZNn</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1839892559</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>On the Interaction Between Raising and Focus in Sentential Complementation</title><source>Wiley-Blackwell Read &amp; Publish Collection</source><source>Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA)</source><creator>Rooryck, Johan</creator><creatorcontrib>Rooryck, Johan</creatorcontrib><description>Raising‐to‐subject (SpectAGRSP) verbs such as seem and so‐called ECM or raising‐to‐object (SpecAGROP) verbs such as believe display a semantic alternation that can be captured in the same way as in Freeze's (1993) and Kayne's (1994) analysis of have and be. With respect to the syntax of the sentential complement of these verbs, it is shown that analyses of raising and ECM in terms of a ‘reduced’ sentential complement are theoretically and empirically untenable. An analysis of raising is developed which requires two steps: in the embedded CP complement of seem/believe, AGRSP first moves to SpecCP before the subject in the embedded SpecAGRSP moves to the matrix SpecAGRS/OP (seem/believe) position. The first step is motivated as Focus‐movement, and allows for an explanation of the relation of seem type verbs to verbs of comparison in many languages. The presence of [+Focus] C° in the sentential complement of seem/believe also accounts for Focus‐related restrictions on the subject of the embedded complement of believe type verbs, which were observed by Postal (1974) for a subset of English ECM verbs (his DOC‐verbs) and by Kayne (1981) and Pollock (1985) for French ECM verbs.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0039-3193</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1467-9582</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/1467-9582.00016</identifier><identifier>CODEN: SLNGAK</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK and Boston, USA: Blackwell Publishers Ltd</publisher><subject>Descriptive studies and applied theories ; Linguistics ; Syntax</subject><ispartof>Studia linguistica, 1997-04, Vol.51 (1), p.1-49</ispartof><rights>1997 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4346-21455da0588161651f792d6e8040d76148c4ee296d8dc8d7494d9b73d1909163</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,31270</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=2876602$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Rooryck, Johan</creatorcontrib><title>On the Interaction Between Raising and Focus in Sentential Complementation</title><title>Studia linguistica</title><description>Raising‐to‐subject (SpectAGRSP) verbs such as seem and so‐called ECM or raising‐to‐object (SpecAGROP) verbs such as believe display a semantic alternation that can be captured in the same way as in Freeze's (1993) and Kayne's (1994) analysis of have and be. With respect to the syntax of the sentential complement of these verbs, it is shown that analyses of raising and ECM in terms of a ‘reduced’ sentential complement are theoretically and empirically untenable. An analysis of raising is developed which requires two steps: in the embedded CP complement of seem/believe, AGRSP first moves to SpecCP before the subject in the embedded SpecAGRSP moves to the matrix SpecAGRS/OP (seem/believe) position. The first step is motivated as Focus‐movement, and allows for an explanation of the relation of seem type verbs to verbs of comparison in many languages. The presence of [+Focus] C° in the sentential complement of seem/believe also accounts for Focus‐related restrictions on the subject of the embedded complement of believe type verbs, which were observed by Postal (1974) for a subset of English ECM verbs (his DOC‐verbs) and by Kayne (1981) and Pollock (1985) for French ECM verbs.</description><subject>Descriptive studies and applied theories</subject><subject>Linguistics</subject><subject>Syntax</subject><issn>0039-3193</issn><issn>1467-9582</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1997</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7T9</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkM1PHCEYh4lpE7e2Z68kNr2NwvAxcGy3fu5WG92mR4LwrmJnmS3MRv3vZRyzh17KhUCe5_fCD6F9Sg5pWUeUy6bSQtWHhBAqd9Bke_MOTQhhumJUs130IeeHgjCp5ARdXEXc3wM-jz0k6_rQRfwN-keAiK9tyCHeYRs9PuncJuMQ8Q0UMvbBtnjardYtrMrJDt5H9H5p2wyf3vY9tDg5XkzPqvnV6fn067xynHFZ1ZQL4S0RSlFJpaDLRtdegiKc-EZSrhwHqLX0yjvlG66517cN81QTTSXbQ1_G2HXq_m4g92YVsoO2tRG6TTZKSFH-Vhfw4B_wodukWJ5mqGJa6VoIXaijkXKpyznB0qxTWNn0bCgxQ7FmqNEMNZrXYovx-S3XZmfbZbLRhbzVatVISYbxfMQeQwvP_0s1N4tf8zG9GrWQe3jaajb9MbJhjTC_L0_Nj4sZ_a5mM_OTvQCS6ZNn</recordid><startdate>199704</startdate><enddate>199704</enddate><creator>Rooryck, Johan</creator><general>Blackwell Publishers Ltd</general><general>Blackwell</general><general>C. W. K. Gleerup</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>HNUUZ</scope><scope>IOIBA</scope><scope>K30</scope><scope>PAAUG</scope><scope>PAWHS</scope><scope>PAWZZ</scope><scope>PAXOH</scope><scope>PBHAV</scope><scope>PBQSW</scope><scope>PBYQZ</scope><scope>PCIWU</scope><scope>PCMID</scope><scope>PCZJX</scope><scope>PDGRG</scope><scope>PDWWI</scope><scope>PETMR</scope><scope>PFVGT</scope><scope>PGXDX</scope><scope>PIHIL</scope><scope>PISVA</scope><scope>PJCTQ</scope><scope>PJTMS</scope><scope>PLCHJ</scope><scope>PMHAD</scope><scope>PNQDJ</scope><scope>POUND</scope><scope>PPLAD</scope><scope>PQAPC</scope><scope>PQCAN</scope><scope>PQCMW</scope><scope>PQEME</scope><scope>PQHKH</scope><scope>PQMID</scope><scope>PQNCT</scope><scope>PQNET</scope><scope>PQSCT</scope><scope>PQSET</scope><scope>PSVJG</scope><scope>PVMQY</scope><scope>PZGFC</scope><scope>7T9</scope></search><sort><creationdate>199704</creationdate><title>On the Interaction Between Raising and Focus in Sentential Complementation</title><author>Rooryck, Johan</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4346-21455da0588161651f792d6e8040d76148c4ee296d8dc8d7494d9b73d1909163</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1997</creationdate><topic>Descriptive studies and applied theories</topic><topic>Linguistics</topic><topic>Syntax</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Rooryck, Johan</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 21</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 29</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - West</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segments 1-50</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - MEA</collection><collection>Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA)</collection><jtitle>Studia linguistica</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Rooryck, Johan</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>On the Interaction Between Raising and Focus in Sentential Complementation</atitle><jtitle>Studia linguistica</jtitle><date>1997-04</date><risdate>1997</risdate><volume>51</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>1</spage><epage>49</epage><pages>1-49</pages><issn>0039-3193</issn><eissn>1467-9582</eissn><coden>SLNGAK</coden><abstract>Raising‐to‐subject (SpectAGRSP) verbs such as seem and so‐called ECM or raising‐to‐object (SpecAGROP) verbs such as believe display a semantic alternation that can be captured in the same way as in Freeze's (1993) and Kayne's (1994) analysis of have and be. With respect to the syntax of the sentential complement of these verbs, it is shown that analyses of raising and ECM in terms of a ‘reduced’ sentential complement are theoretically and empirically untenable. An analysis of raising is developed which requires two steps: in the embedded CP complement of seem/believe, AGRSP first moves to SpecCP before the subject in the embedded SpecAGRSP moves to the matrix SpecAGRS/OP (seem/believe) position. The first step is motivated as Focus‐movement, and allows for an explanation of the relation of seem type verbs to verbs of comparison in many languages. The presence of [+Focus] C° in the sentential complement of seem/believe also accounts for Focus‐related restrictions on the subject of the embedded complement of believe type verbs, which were observed by Postal (1974) for a subset of English ECM verbs (his DOC‐verbs) and by Kayne (1981) and Pollock (1985) for French ECM verbs.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK and Boston, USA</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishers Ltd</pub><doi>10.1111/1467-9582.00016</doi><tpages>49</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0039-3193
ispartof Studia linguistica, 1997-04, Vol.51 (1), p.1-49
issn 0039-3193
1467-9582
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_85653682
source Wiley-Blackwell Read & Publish Collection; Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA)
subjects Descriptive studies and applied theories
Linguistics
Syntax
title On the Interaction Between Raising and Focus in Sentential Complementation
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-26T09%3A52%3A27IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=On%20the%20Interaction%20Between%20Raising%20and%20Focus%20in%20Sentential%20Complementation&rft.jtitle=Studia%20linguistica&rft.au=Rooryck,%20Johan&rft.date=1997-04&rft.volume=51&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=1&rft.epage=49&rft.pages=1-49&rft.issn=0039-3193&rft.eissn=1467-9582&rft.coden=SLNGAK&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/1467-9582.00016&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1839892559%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4346-21455da0588161651f792d6e8040d76148c4ee296d8dc8d7494d9b73d1909163%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1839892559&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true