From a point of view of grammatical map, that strong adult male, the hapless cat, Tom, Lucy and it are called topics. However, they are called external statements harmonizing to Theta theory. In vitamin D and vitamin E, it is obvious that the two sentences express the same significance, but the significance is described by two different sentence constructions. Analyzing their deep constructions can do the difference clear. For vitamin D, Lucy, the topic of the infinitival clause, is moved to the capable place of the matrix clause and leaves a hint in the based-generated place ; and for vitamin E, Lucy, the topic of the subsidiary clause, is moved to the object place of the matrix clause and besides leaves a hint. A verb is called a elevation verb, if it is raised from the topic or object of infinitival and low-level clauses and go forthing a hint in the based-generated place.

It is non hard to see that raising verbs, unlike other verbs, have theirs ain features. The inquiry is how raising verbs come into being and what factors lead to their outgrowth. This inquiry is solved subsequently in the chapter. First of all, relevant theories need to be introduced because they illustrate the factors ensuing in raising.

3.1 Theoretical model

The thesis negotiations about raising verbs under the theoretical model of GB theory. GB theory, as the most mature theory of TG grammar up till the present minute, has achieved rather sub-theories. There is no uncertainty that these sub-theories are helpful to explain the lingual phenomenon. First of all, sub-theories are introduced one by one, and so, raising verbs are classified based on the combination of sub-theories.

3.1.1 X-bar theory

Before speaking about X-bar theory, it is necessary to clear up two constructs: one is the Projection Principle ; the other is the immediate component analysis.

The definition of the Projection Principle is that the belongingss of lexical points undertaking onto the sentence structure of the sentence, lexical construction must be represented flatly at every syntactic degree ( Chomsky, 1986a, p84 ) .

The Projection Principle shows the brotherhood of sentence structure and the vocabulary. There is no denying that sentence structure is based on vocabulary, and the features of lexical points undertaking onto the sentence structure. For illustration, the belongingss of the verb love [ love, – NP ] decide that it must be followed by a noun phrase in the sentence. If there is a sentence like “ I love. ” The sentence is ill-formed. If the projection is extended to the whole sentence, it is called the Extended Projection Principle. The Drawn-out Projection Principle requires each sentence must hold a topic even if one is non needed semantically ( Chomsky, 1982a, p10 ) . For case, it seems that today is a cheery twenty-four hours. Syntactically, the topic it has no semantic significance with the predicate seem, it is an expletive. Harmonizing to the Extended Projection Principle, it can non be omitted, otherwise, it is ill-formed.

Immediate constitutional analysis or IC analysis is a method of sentence analysis, which was foremost introduced by Bloomfield ( 1933 ) and developed by Wells ( 1947 ) . In Chomsky ‘s early plants, it is a helpful scheme for analysing sentence construction. The method produces most tree constructions which can do sentences easier to be analyzed. IC analysis divides a sentence into immediate components, and these immediate components are divided into farther immediate components. The procedure is non ended until each component consists of merely a word or a meaningful portion of a word. The consequence of the procedure is normally presented by diagrams which reveal the hierarchal relationships between components. These diagrams are frequently trees. For illustration,

Information science

NP Iaˆ?

Det Naˆ? I VP

( -s )

The male child Vaˆ? NP

V AP Naˆ?

love Aaˆ? N

A coats

blue

From the illustration, it is clear that IP instantly dominate the components: NP and I individual saloon. And the two components are divided further. At last, each of them is ended by a individual word or a meaningful portion of word. The tree diagram demonstrates relationships between lexical points or phrasal constructions. Their hierarchal or precedent dealingss are seeable.

Through elaborate account of the Projection Principle and the immediate component analysis, X-bar theory can be easier to understand.

The portion of the grammar modulating the construction of phrases is called X-bar theory, which brings about what is common in the construction of phrases: all phrases are headed by a lexical point. The four lexical phrases used in X-bar sentence structure are: Verb Phrase ( VP ) , Noun Phrase ( NP ) , Adjectival Phrase ( AP ) and Prepositional Phrase ( PP ) . Each of the four phrases has a caput. They are V, N, A, P. in return, these caputs reflects their phrasal belongingss. Specifically, X can be replaced by V, N, A, P. What ‘s more, lexical classs are related to phrasal classs, they belong to the same class because phrases are endocentric. In other words, if the caput is a noun, the phrase must be a noun phrase. The other caputs are used as good.

X-bar theory was foremost proposed by Noam Chomsky ( 1970 ) and further developed by Ray Jackendoff ( 1977 ) . An X-bar theoretic apprehension of sentence construction is possible in a constituency-based grammar or phrase construction grammar merely. X-bar theory claims that all types of phrase need two internal degrees of construction: one ( Xaˆ? , X double saloon ) consists of the caput and possible specifiers ; the other ( Xaˆ? , X individual saloon ) consists of the caput ( X, X zero saloon ) and possible complements, and a single-bar class can besides incorporate a farther single-bar class and an adjunct ( Vivian Cook, & A ; Mark Newson, 2000, p144-147 ) . It is presented by binary tree diagram as follows:

XP

spec X ‘

Ten ‘ accessory

X complement

caput

Take an NP as an illustration:

Neptunium

Det N ‘

N ‘ PP

N P ‘ NP

P Det N ‘

Nitrogen

the male child with an umbrella

Paralleling presented, it can be expressed as follows:

NPa†’ specifier ( the ) N ‘

N’a†’ N ‘ adjunct ( PP: with an umbrella )

N’a†’ N ( no complement )

The X-bar model was so extended to the functional classs I ( inflexion ) and C ( complementizer ) . The VP is taken to be the smallest representation of the clause, in that at deep construction ( D-structure ) it contains all the lexical elements which constitute a clause. The IP ( Inflection Phrase ) is built on top of this VP and contains the inflectional caput ( e.g. tense and understanding ) . CP ( complementizer phrase ) in bend is built on top of IP and contains a caput complementizer in embedded clauses and an empty caput place in matrix clauses. Both IP and CP conform to the usual X-bar form ( Vivian Cook, & A ; Mark Newson, 2000, p157 ) .

X-bar theory offers such a general expression that complex linguistic communication becomes easier. As mentioned above, the Projection Principle, the immediate component analysis and X-bar theory connect vocabulary with sentence structure, which means grammar non merely surveies syntactic phenomenon from a separate position. The manner merely refering flicker words is nonmeaningful. Wordss should be studied in the sentence.

3.1.2 Theta theory

Theta theory, as another sub-theory of GB theory, is besides of import for analysing raising verbs. The ground is that Theta theory is involved in covering with the semantic relationship between predicates and statements. Besides, the theory besides puts frontward lingual regulations to curtail linguistic communication points. Lexical entries talked about here are non about their pronunciation and significance, but about syntactical connexion with other words and phrases.

First of all, what predicate and statement are is a inquiry demanding to be answered. Predicate refers to a lexical point that says something about an entity or the relationships between entities. And statements are about the entities which are related by a predicate ( Vivian Cook, & A ; Mark Newson, 2000, p164 ) . Therefore, a predicate expresses a semantic relationship between related statements. For illustration, John plays football. For this sentence, the word drama describes a semantic relation between two entities John and football. So, the word drama is called a predicate, and the two entities are called statements. Second, the semantic relationship demands to be talked about specifically because it is non arbitrary. Taking advantage of the illustration illustrated above, it is non hard to happen that the verb drama requires one statement affecting the entity making the playing ( John ) and the other statement affecting what is played ( football ) . The actor is called Agent, and the accepter is called Patient. The relationship can be represented by I?-grid: drama & lt ; Agent, Patient & gt ; . These semantic functions that statements bear with regard to a predicate are called thematic functions or I?-role, such as Agent, Patient, Goal and Theme ( Vivian Cook, & A ; Mark Newson, 2000, p164, 172 ) . Merely certain statements bear certain I?-roles. For illustration, Television tickers Lily. Television can non bear the Agent function. A predicate, hence, semantically selects a certain figure of statements bearing certain I?-roles. Besides s-selection belongingss, it is frequently assumed that lexical points besides have c-selection ( category choice ) belongingss. C-selection is represented in the vocabulary in footings of a subcategorization frame ( Vivian Cook, & A ; Mark Newson, 2000, p162 ) . For illustration,

a. Mary found a book. happen [ __ NP ]

b. Mary found there was a book. happen [ __ CP ]

Combing I?-grid with subcategorization frame, a more elaborate lexical entry for the verb discovery in the sentence a is:

happen & lt ; Agent, Patient & gt ; [ __ NP ]

There is a major difference between c-selection and s-selection. C-selection trades merely with complements, while s-selection trades with all statements including complements and the topic ( Vivian Cook, & A ; Mark Newson, 2000, p163 ) .

The assignment of I?-roles to statements is non at random. There is a one-to-one relationship between statements and I?-roles, which is called I?-Criterion ( Chomsky, 1981a, p36 ) :

Each statement bears one and merely one I?-role, and each I?-role is assigned to one and merely one statement.

I?-theory is concerned with the assignment of thematic functions such as agent-of-action, etc ( Chomsky, 1981a, p5-6 ) . I?-roles are transferred from a predicate to its statements by a procedure known as I?-marking ( Vivian Cook, & A ; Mark Newson, 2000, p169 ) . Complements, as internal statements, are I?-marked by the caput under a sisterhood status ; topics, as external statements, are besides I?-marked under the sistership status, but it is the caput and its complement that I?-marked the topic ( Vivian Cook, & A ; Mark Newson, 2000, p171-172 ) .

The last inquiry is concerned with A-positions ( argument places ) , non-A-positions ( A-bar places ) and I?-positions. A-positions are the usual location for the statements of a predicate. A-bar places refer to places that can non take statements. A I?-position is one to which a I?-role is assigned ( Vivian Cook, & A ; Mark Newson, 2000, p178, 179 ) . The undermentioned illustration illustrates locations to which the places are severally distributed.

CP

Caˆ?

C IP

NP Iaˆ?

Anne I VP

( -s )

NP Vaˆ?

T Vaˆ? PP

V NP Paˆ?

drama tennis P NP

at school

All the NPs including the hint T of the moved topic from VP occupy A-positions. Anne is an NP in capable place. Its root place is located in the specifier of VP to which the I?-role Agent can be assigned ; tennis is an NP in object place. It is located in the complement of VP to which the I?-role Patient can be assigned ; place is besides located in the complement place, but it is in the object place of PP. For the illustration, two places are A-bar places: one is the specifier of CP ( C, empty in the illustration ) ; the other is the complement of I ( VP ) . Because it is impossible for any lexical entry can project statements onto these places. I?-positions are restricted by the sistership status placed on the procedure of I?-marking ( Vivian Cook, & A ; Mark Newson, 2000, p179 ) . Therefore, the hint T is sister of Vaˆ? , Television is sister of V, and NP is sister of P. All of them are in I?-positions.

As mentioned above, it is obvious that I?-positions are A-positions, but non all A-positions are I?-positions, such as curses it and at that place. For illustration, it seems that he wants to travel place. In this sentence, it has no semantic relationship with the verb seem, so it can non have I?-roles. It can non be omitted because of the EPP.

The I?-theory is concerned with the semantic relationship between predicates and their statements. The assignment of I?-roles happens at deep constructions. Once I?-positions are moved, they move with their I?-roles at the same clip, which meets the demand of the Projection Principle.

3.1.3 Case theory

Case theory is a most of import portion sub-theory of GB theory every bit good. Case is a traditional subject. Case theory, nevertheless, trades non merely with traditional morphological instance, but with abstract Case. For illustration,

He fell from the wall yesterday.

She gave me an apple.

He lent his books to them.

They love their parents.

Harmonizing to traditional grammar, he, she, they are the topics of the sentences in the nominative instance ; me is the object of the verb gave in the accusatory instance ; them is the object of preposition to in the Accusative instance ; and his, there are in a genitive relationship with books and parents severally in the possessive instance. These illustrations show that traditional instance signifiers are seeable in the surface construction while abstract Case handles instance even when it does non look in the surface. For illustration, a individual NP John can non be judged from the surface whether it has a nominative or accusatory instance, but it does non intend that it does non hold abstract Case. In some linguistic communications, like Chinese, instance is non morphologically realized ; in other linguistic communications, like French, instance can be clearly shown by morphological alteration. In position of these lingual facts, Chomsky ( 1986a, p74 ) assumes that it is assigned in a unvarying manner whether morphological realized or non.

Case theory trades with assignment of abstract Case and its morphological realisation ( Chomsky, 1981a, p6 )

Sing the illustrations given above, the structural place where NPs are located determined their Case: topics normally have Nominative Case and objects have Accusative Case. Similarly to Theta theory, Case is besides assigned by certain elements. It is known that verbs and prepositions are followed by objects, so verbs and prepositions should delegate Accusative Case ; and topics of finite clauses should be assigned Nominative Case. There is a difference between topics of finite clauses and those of infinitival clauses. For case,

a. She has an apple a twenty-four hours.

b. Jack seems to be a ace.

c. vitamin E seems Jack to be a ace.

Harmonizing to the Projection Principle, the finite clause is an IP and the infinitival clause “ to make ” is besides an IP. The caput I of the finite clause is inflexion with [ + tense, + understanding ] , so it has ability to delegate Nominative Case to its topic ; nevertheless, the caput I of infinitival clause to with [ – tense, -agreement ] , so it has no ability to delegate Nominative Case to its topic. The sentence a is a finite clause, the topic she has an understanding with its inflexion [ -s ] ; sentence degree Celsius is the deep construction of sentence b. Jack, the topic of infinitival clause, can non be assigned Nominative Case at deep construction. It is moved to the capable place of finite clause which has Nominative Case assigned by the inflexion [ -s ] . The motion is the consequence of joint action formed by Theta theory and Case theory. The ground why Jack must be moved to the empty place is explained in the followers.

Cases are classified into structural Case and built-in Case. Nominative Case and Accusative Case are structural Case, while Possessive Case is built-in Case. The rule that forces instance to be assigned is called Case Filter ( Chomsky, 1986a, p74 ) : Every phonetically realized NP must be assigned ( abstract ) Case. In other words, all overt NPs have Case. Case is a belongings of NPs in general. In English, Case is overtly reflected in phonetically NPs merely. Therefore, the motion about the illustration discussed above is forced by Case Filter from a caseless place to a case-marked place.

Chomsky ( 1981a ) proposes that Case is assigned under authorities. It accounts for the fact that certain instances assigned to certain places. But there are still exclusions. For illustration:

Information science

NP Iaˆ?

Lily I VP

( -s ) Vaˆ?

V IP

believe NP Iaˆ?

him I VP

to Vaˆ?

V NP

be a good instructor

For the caput of infinitival clause does non hold ability to delegate Case to its specifier of IP, and infinitival IP is non a barrier for outside authorities, the verb believe needs to be assigned Accusative Case to an NP place. Therefore, the verb believe can regulate into the IP and assign Case to its topic. The Case is frequently referred to as exceeding Case-marking, abbreviated as ECM.

There is a connexion between Case theory and Theta theory, Case assigned to NPs makes them seeable so that they can be I?-marked. They can cover with some lingual phenomena together, like NP motion. Case theory is concerned with open NPs, which is utile in explaining NP motion.

3.1.4 NP motion

In the old illustrations, some of them are involved in motion from deep construction to come up construction. It is non hard to see that the relationship between deep construction and surface construction is motion. Deep construction attempts to demo the original location of elements in the sentence moved in surface construction. The rule of motion is Move I± where I± stands for any class. It proposes that any portion of the sentence could travel anyplace. The motion operation ( henceforth Move I± ) is an invariant rule of calculation, saying that a class can be moved to a mark place ( Chomsky and Lasnik, 1993, p522 ) . There is another manner showing the relationship between deep construction and surface construction: a concatenation. A concatenation is the surface construction contemplation of a history of motion, dwelling of the places through which an component has moved from the A-position it occupied at deep construction ( Chomsky, 1986a, p 95 ) . For illustration,

Teachers ‘ Day is when?

When is Teachers ‘ Day?

c. When1 is2 Teachers ‘ Day t2 t1?

Sentence a is the deep construction, sentence B is the surface construction, and sentence degree Celsius is the surface construction continuing their original locations through hints t2 t1. The illustration has two ironss to associate their relationship: 1 is ( when, t1 ) , the other is ( is, t2 ) . Movement of an component I± ever leaves a hint and, in the simplest instance, forms a concatenation ( I± , T ) where I± , the caput of the concatenation, is moved element and T is its hint ( Chomsky and Lasnik, 1993, p522 ) .

In the rule of motion, I± stands for any class. Therefore, the motion is called NP motion when I± stands for NPs. In English, the inactive building is a typical illustration of NP motion. For case,

The angry Canis familiaris bit the blue male child. ( active sentence )

The blue male child was bitten by the angry Canis familiaris. ( inactive sentence )

The blue male child was bitten T by the angry Canis familiaris. ( surface construction )

vitamin E was bitten the blue male child by the angry Canis familiaris. ( deep construction )

From the point of position of the traditional grammar, inactive building is that the object of the active sentence is moved to the capable location of the inactive sentence by interchanging the angry Canis familiaris and the blue male child and adding was, -ten, and by. Within the GB theory, nevertheless, it explains inactive building through deep analysis. The inactive sentence is considered as holding a deep construction. In old treatment, it is known that the verb bite has following lexical entry harmonizing to the Projection Principle: bite V, [ __ NP ] & lt ; Agent, Patient & gt ; . It c-selects an NP and s-selects two I?-roles ; the angry Canis familiaris is assigned Agent function, the blue male child Patient function. The verb bite has to be followed by an NP ; otherwise, it violates the Projection Principle. Sentence B seems incorrect because it is non followed by an NP. To run into the demand of the rule, T, the hint, appears after the inactive verb. So, at the surface construction, sentence B is written like: The blue male child was bitten T by the angry Canis familiaris ( sentence degree Celsius ) . As for its deep construction, sentence B is: was seize with teeth the blue male child by the angry Canis familiaris. The topic seems to be losing. Harmonizing to the EPP, it violates the rule. Under this state of affairs, the deep construction of sentence B is written like: vitamin E was bitten the blue male child by the angry Canis familiaris ( sentence vitamin D ) .

Motion is besides limited by I?-theory. The angry Canis familiaris and the blue male child are capable and object severally, so they are A-positions and receive I?-roles. I?-roles are assigned at deep construction ; motion does non act upon its original I?-roles. As for the object the blue male child in the sentence vitamin D, it has already been assigned a I?-role by the verb ; the original I?-role is still with it when NP motion happens. However, once it is moved to the capable place, it receives another I?-role. One statement has two I?-roles, which goes against I?-criterion. With the GB theory, in English, the inactive morphology is said to non merely trigger motion, but besides absorb the topic ‘s I?-role go forthing the capable place free to be moved into by the object ( Vivian Cook, & A ; Mark Newson, 2000, p194, 196 ) .

Beside inactive building, raising building is besides a typical illustration of NP motion. For illustration,

a. Dan seems to be hard-working.

b. vitamin E seems Dan to be hard-working. ( deep construction )

c. Dan seems T to be hard-working. ( surface construction )

Like the passive, raising verb seem besides triggers NP motion and absorbs agent I?-role ; but at the same clip, there exists differences between them, which is discussed in inside informations in chapter four. No affair inactive verbs or raising verbs which cause the motion, it is non hard to happen that motion is ne’er determined by a specific regulation, but instead consequences from the interaction of other factors ( Chomsky, 1986b, p5 ) .

To sum up, one linguistic phenomenon appears, the solution to explicate it is non one and merely ; under most fortunes, it is frequently involved in several factors which should be explicated by relevant theories. In return, the features of this lingual phenomenon are more elaborate and clearer with the aid of those theories. The survey of raising verbs is non exceeding. The features of raising verbs are raised by doing good usage of the theories mentioned above.

3.2 The categorization of raising verbs

In the former portion of the chapter, relevant sub-theories of GB theory are introduced. Based on them, the 2nd portion is traveling to discourse the features of raising verbs and sort them into two groups.

The definition of raising verbs is introduced in chapter two. It is certain that raising verbs are non indistinguishable to one another. They should be divided into groups depending on their specific features. Postal ( 1974 ) has made a great part to raising verbs. In 1974, he explains raising verbs in inside informations, and he classifies raising verbs into three parts ; they are A-verbs ( the subject-to-subject raising verbs ) , B-verbs ( the subject-to-object raising verbs ) every bit good as W-verbs. Generally talking, there are two chief groups of raising verbs, one is subject-to-subject raising verbs ; the other is subject-to-object raising verbs.

3.2.1 Subject-to-subject raising verbs

Subject-to-subject raising verb is besides called subject-raising verb or raising to capable verb. Subject-to-subject raising verb is merely what the name implies: the topic of infinitival clause is raised up to the capable place of the matrix clause. Verb triggers the motion is called subject-to-subject elevation verb. The verb seem is a typical subject-to-subject raising verb.

Jack seemed to populate in a warm topographic point.

The queen seems to be in charge of the whole state.

The hapless seemed to revolt against development.

Peter seems to work hard.

In many instances, different sentence forms showing the same significance can assist to work out some jobs. Therefore, it makes sense to transform these sentences into the sentence form of the verb seem followed by a subsidiary clause.

a1. It seemed that Jack lived in a warm topographic point.

b1. It seems that the queen is in charge of the whole state.

c1. It seemed that the hapless revolted against development.

d1. It seems that Peter works difficult.

These changed sentence forms portion the same significance with the old sentences. By doing good usage of them, it is easier to happen the syntactic belongingss of seem. As for that-clause, it is a finite clause, each NP has been assigned one I?-role, and all overt NPs have Case. For illustration, Jack receives a I?-role from the predicate unrecorded, and topographic point is assigned a I?-role by the preposition in. At the same clip, Jack is assigned a Nominative Case by the inflexion -ed ; and put an Accusative Case by the preposition in. So, they do non necessitate any I?-role or any Case from outside that-clause. As for the chief clause, it is known to us that the expletive it receives no I?-role and it is nonmeaningful. Seem, hence, fails to delegate an external I?-role, which is one of outstanding features of raising verbs.

Next, it is clip to speak about the other of import characteristics of raising verbs. As for old sentences a, B, degree Celsius and vitamin D, all the topics of the matrix clauses are empty at D-structure. In reply to Case Filter and I?-Criterion, the topics of infinitival clauses have to be raised from the lower clause to the higher clause. Take sentence a as an illustration, the D-structure is:

[ IP vitamin E seems [ IP Jack to populate in a warm topographic point ] ] .

Jack is the topic of unrecorded, and the capable place of seem, which receives no I?-role, is empty. The infinitival clause, IP, can non delegate Case to Jack, and the inflexion -s of the matrix clause assigned a Nominative Case to the empty topic. If seem besides assigns an Accusative Case to Jack, it violates I?-Criterion. Although the capable place of the chief clause is empty, it has Case. There must be a I?-role with it. So does Jack. Jack has a I?-role. There must be a Case with it. NP motion offers a solution to this state of affairs, which meets the demand of I?-Criterion every bit good as Case Filter. Sing this state of affairs from a different angle, seem can non delegate Accusative Case to the topic of infinitival clause, which is the other feature of raising verbs.

Appear, tend to, go on and used to are all subject-to-subject raising verbs because they portion the same syntactic features with seem. It is explained as follows:

Coco appears to go forth.

Heavy drinkers tend to do traffic accidents.

We happen to run into our old friends at his birthday party.

The instructor used to have on bluish blouse.

Their D-structures are parallel to the D-structure of seem. All of them are triggers of the raising procedure. Then, it is necessary to hold a better apprehension of subject-to-subject raising verbs. Like seem, the D-structure of appear is:

[ IP vitamin E appears [ IP Coco to go forth ] ] .

The other elevation words are similar to them.

There are two features for raising verbs: one is that raising verbs can non delegate external I?-role ; the other is that raising verbs can non delegate Accusative Case. Burzio ( 1986 ) relates these two belongingss by the descriptive generalisation.

Burzio ‘s generalisation:

( I ) A verb which lacks an external statement fails to delegate ACCUSATIVE instance. ( Burzio, 1986, p178-179 )

( two ) A verb which fails to delegate ACCUSATIVE instance fails to theta-mark an external statement. ( Burzio, 1986, p184 )

It is obvious that subject-to-subject raising verbs take an infinitival clause. There are two different topics: one is empty, the other which needs to be raised locates in the lower infinitival clause at D-structure. As for raising verbs, the other group is subject-to-object raising verbs.

3.2.2 Subject-to-object raising verbs

Besides subject-to-subject raising verbs, English has subject-to-object raising verbs, besides called object raising verbs or raising to object verbs. As the name implies, verbs triggers the procedure that the topic of infinitival clause is raised up to the object place of the matrix clause are called subject-to-object elevation verbs, such as expect and believe. As for subject-to-subject raising verbs, there are two features for raising verbs. It is necessary to happen out features among subject-to-object raising verbs.

See the following brace of sentences:

The whole household expects that Johnson will win the hoops game.

The whole household expects Johnson to win the hoops game.

Apparently, the two different sentence forms express the same significance. For the first sentence, expect is followed by a that-clause. Similarly to look clausal form, every Neptunium in the clause has its I?-role every bit good as Case. They besides do non necessitate any I?-role or Case from outside the clause. Expect assigns two I?-roles: one is to the topic of the chief clause ; the other is to that-clause.

It is clear that Johnson is the topic of the embedded clause in sentence a ; but it can besides look as the object of the matrix verb. In both instances, nevertheless, its thematic reading comes from the predicate of the embedded, non matrix clause. Its D-structure can demo its semantic significance with the predicate of the embedded clause. The D-structures are:

[ IP The whole household expects [ CP that [ IP Johnson will win the hoops game ] ] ] .

[ IP The whole household expects e [ IP Johnson to win the hoops game ] ] .

Johnson has to travel out of the infinitival clause IP because it can non delegate Case to its topic. Furthermore, expect need delegate Case to its empty object. So, Johnson moves out from the capable place of infinitival clause to the object place of the chief clause to have Case.

In the two instances as mentioned so far, the procedure raising the topic of the lower infinitival clause to the topic or object place of the matrix clause is treated as raising. Verbs triping the procedure are called raising verbs.

Believe, want, like, prefer, and detest belong to subject-to-object raising verbs. They occur with the nominal plus the infinitival clause.

I believe Lily to be a good pupil.

Peoples want the whole state to stand up together.

They would wish Kitty to sing this vocal.

She prefers Coco to remain at place.

We hate John to populate with us.

The immediate noun phrases can non be passivized like this:

The whole state is wanted to stand up together.

Kitty would be liked to sing this vocal.

Coco is preferred to remain at place.

John is hated to populate with us.

As for believe, it can be passivized as follows:

Lily is believed to be a good pupil.

So, there are subsets for subject-to-object raising verbs.

Subject-to-subject raising verbs and subject-to-object raising verbs represent two chief groups of raising verbs. It is certain that raising verbs still include other verbs which are non perfectly raising verbs. There are some equivocal raising verbs. The undermentioned treatment further displays the specific features of raising verbs. Through comparing with inactive verbs every bit good as control verbs, the specific features of raising verbs can be clearly illustrated.

Chapter Four Comparison with Passive verbs and Control verbs

In last chapter, raising verbs are by and large divided into two chief groups. There are some jobs left to be solved in this chapter, particularly equivocal raising verbs.

4.1 Significance of doing the comparing

First of all, comparing raising verbs with inactive verbs or command verbs aids to sort equivocal verbs. In other words, it helps work out the job remained in last chapter. By the procedure of comparison, both similarities and differences distinguish the features of raising verbs. As mentioned before, raising verbs are used to analyze some sub-theories. Chapter three, conversely, applies the sub-theories to analyse the features of raising verbs. Chapter four purposes to do the features clearer through a systematic comparing based on chapter three. This portion is necessary because it non merely classifies equivocal verbs but besides shows the more elaborate comparing which contributes to linguistic communication acquisition. To get down with, comparing between raising verbs and inactive verbs is illustrated.

Comparison between raising verbs and inactive verbs

Haegeman ( 1994 ) and Ouhalla ( 2001 ) history for raising constructions to be paralleled with inactive constructions. They illustrate the features of inactive constructions foremost ; so, those of raising constructions are paralleled. There is no uncertainty that the former can do the latter clearer. No affair how similar their features are, there are still some differences between them. First of all, similarities between them are introduced.

Similarities between raising verbs and inactive verbs

The ground why some linguists parallel raising verbs with inactive verbs is that they truly have some syntactic belongingss in common. In English, inactive construction is non an uncommon lingual phenomenon. First, the definition of inactive verbs should be cleared.

The definition of inactive verbs

Think about the undermentioned inactive constructions:

A visitant was hurt by the tiger.

The auto accident was caused by a awful traffic jam.

The Sun is covered by some clouds.

The conflict was won by the Red Army.

Examples as mentioned above are easy to be found the building of inactive constructions. In general, the inactive construction is made up of an subsidiary verb plus the past participial of the transitive verb. A sentence having the inactive voice is called a inactive sentence, and a verb phrase in inactive voice is called a inactive verb ( Peters, 2004, p411 ) .

The syntactic belongingss of inactive verbs

Take the undermentioned illustrations into history:

The enemy killed the brave soldier.

The brave soldier was killed by the enemy.

The former is an active voice, and the latter is a inactive voice. As for the former, the verb kill assigns two I?-roles: one is an agent function to the topic the enemy ; the other is a patient function to the object the soldier. But as for the latter, there is a job. First of wholly, it is necessary to offer its D-structure, as follows:

[ IP vitamin E [ I ‘ was [ VP killed [ NP the brave soldier ] by the enemy ] ] ] ] .

Kill assigns I?-role to the brave soldier. If in this instance, kill still assigns I?-role to the topic of the chief clause. The sentence is ill-formed in that the empty place is with I?-role every bit good as instance given by the inflexion -ed, the brave soldier can non travel to the capable place of the chief clause, and it can non acquire instance from the infinitival clause IP. Otherwise, it violates Case Filter. Therefore, there comes to a decision, the past participial of putting to death can non delegate an external I?-role to the topic of the matrix clause, which is similar to raising verbs.

Here is another illustration:

Jim is told to complete his prep every bit shortly as possible.

Its matching D-structure is:

[ IP vitamin E [ I ‘ is [ VP told [ IP Jim to complete his prep every bit shortly as possible ] ] ] ] .

Told straight theta-marks the lower IP. Jim, the topic of the lower IP, receives I?-role from the predicate of the infinitival clause. However, the lower IP has no ability to delegate instance to it. If told can delegate instance to Jim, it need non travel out to acquire instance. As for such a state of affairs, it violates I?-Criterion because empty place has already been assigned instance by the inflexion, but it receives no I?-role. So, told, being inactive, fails to delegate accusatory instance, which is besides similar to raising verbs.

To sum up, inactive verbs have the undermentioned belongingss ( Hageman, p185 ) :

( I ) The verb morphology is affected ;

( two ) The external theta function of the verb is absorbed ;

( three ) The structural instance of the verb is absorbed ;

( four ) The NP which is assigned the internal theta function of the inactive verb moves to a place where it can be assigned instance.

( V ) The motion of the NP is obligatory in position of the instance filter ;

( six ) The motion of the NP is allowed because the capable place is empty.

After being familiar with the belongingss of inactive verbs, it is clip to speak about similarities and differences between raising verbs and inactive verbs. First of all, similarities are introduced.

Similarities between raising verbs and inactive verbs

Take the two following braces of sentences into history:

1. a. It seems that the conditions is all right.

B. The conditions seems to be all right.

2. a. Miss Hu teaches English.

b. English is taught by Miss Hu.

At first sight, it is non easy to judge that there are similarities between them. As a affair of fact, they do portion some syntactic belongingss.

I. Both raising verbs and inactive verbs trigger NP motion.

Not merely inactive verbs but besides raising verbs trigger NP motion. The similarity is displayed as follows:

His female parent seemed to be hurt severely a few old ages ago.

Katherine was knocked off her motorcycle by a cab on her manner place from school.

To justice from the surface construction is non a solution to explicate the similarity. At this minute, D-structure shows its advantage to analyse some syntactic belongingss because there are underlying regulations easier to be found at D-structure. Harmonizing to their lexical belongingss, seem and the past participial of knock merely have an internal statement. Verbs like each of them can be generated in a D-structure like ( Hageman, p322 ) :

[ IP vitamin E [ I ‘ [ VP VERB NP ] ] ] .

In footings of Burzio ‘s generalisation ( 1986, p178-179 ) , a verb which lacks an external statement fails to delegate ACCUSATIVE instance. Therefore, at S-structure the NP to which the internal theta function is assigned has to travel to the capable place to be case-marked ( Hageman, p323 ) :

[ IP NP I [ I ‘ [ VP VERB T I ] ] ] .

The D-structures of sentence a and sentence B are:

[ IP vitamin E [ I ‘ [ VP seemed his female parent to be hurt severely a few old ages ago ] ] ] .

[ IP vitamin E [ I ‘ was [ VP knocked Katherine off her motorcycle by a cab on her manner place from school ] ] ] .

As for their S-structures, his female parent and Katherine have to travel to the empty capable place because they are non case-marked by seem and the past participial of knock. Besides, it happens to the empty place with instance assigned by the inflexion. In order to obey the I?-Criterion every bit good as Case Filter, both of them should be moved to the empty place. It is obvious that the component of motion is a noun phrase, so it is called NP motion. It is concluded that raising verbs and inactive verbs can trip NP motion.

There is no denying that NP motion is caused by combined elements. From different angles, it can be explained otherwise.

II. Both raising verbs and inactive verbs fail to delegate external I?-role

I?-Criterion is one of the elements to trip NP motion. Each statement bears one and merely one I?-role, and each I?-role is assigned to one and merely one statement ( Chomsky, 1981a, p36 ) . For illustration,

a. Paul seems to go to the meeting.

b. Anna is sent to the infirmary.

Merely like NP motion, it is necessary to do usage of D-structure so as to delve out the underlying syntactic belongingss. Their D-structures are:

[ IP vitamin E [ I ‘ [ VP seems Paul to go to the meeting ] ] ] .

[ IP vitamin E [ I ‘ is [ VP sent Anna to the infirmary ] ] ] .

The D-structure of sentence a shows that Paul is the topic of the infinitival clause, it is the actor of the verb attend. So, the assigner, attend, gives an agent function to Paul. Because seem merely has an internal statement, it can non delegate external I?-role to the topic of the chief clause. As for the empty place, the topic of the matrix clause, it is assigned nominative instance by the inflexion -s. harmonizing to I?-Criterion, there is one-to-one relationship between statements and I?-roles. Therefore, the empty place with instance demands to pull I?-role, which causes Paul with I?-role traveling to the empty place. The decision is that raising verbs can non delegate external I?-role.

About the D-structure of sentence B, Anna is the object of the verb send, so it is assigned patient function. Since inactive verb sent merely has an internal statement, it can non delegate external I?-role. The empty capable place besides needs to be assigned I?-role to run into the demand of I?-Criterion. So, inactive verbs besides have no ability to delegate external I?-role, which is parallel to raising verbs. Both of them fail to delegate external I?-role.

III. Both raising verbs and inactive verbs fail to delegate accusatory instance

Besides both raising verbs and inactive verbs fail to delegate external I?-role, they besides can non delegate accusatory instance. All open NPs have instance, and they must be seeable to acquire instance. The rule that forces instance to be assigned is called the Case Filter ( Chomsky, 1986a, p74 ) :

Every phonetically realized NP must be assigned ( abstract ) Case.

See the undermentioned sentences:

Ben appears to be excited about his accomplishments.

Flowers were watered by the old nurseryman.

Again, their D-structures need to be displayed foremost in order to be analyzed easier. Their D-structures are:

[ IP vitamin E [ I ‘ [ VP appears Ben to be excited about his accomplishments ] ] ] .

[ IP vitamin E [ I ‘ were [ VP watered flowers by the old nurseryman ] ] ] .

As for the D-structure of sentence a, Ben is the topic of the infinitival clause. However, the caput of the infinitival clause to is unable to delegate instance. Meanwhile, the empty capable place of the chief clause is with instance assigned by the inflexion -s. to avoid go againsting Case Filter, the caseless Ben should be moved to a place with instance. In other words, appear has no ability to delegate accusatory instance ; otherwise, Ben is endowed with two instances so that the sentence is ill-formed. Therefore, raising verbs can non delegate accusatory instance.

About the D-structure of sentence B, the sentence is ill-formed if flowers get instance from watered. Under such a state of affairs, flowers don non necessitate to be moved. The capable place with instance, nevertheless, is empty. At the same clip, it besides violates the Extended Projection Principle. Every sentence has a topic. Therefore, inactive verbs can non accusative instance.

There comes to the decision that both raising verbs and inactive verbs fail to delegate accusatory instance.

The similarities between raising verbs and inactive verbs are: both of them trigger NP motion ; they both have no ability to delegate external I?-role ; and they besides can non delegate accusatory instance. Besides the similarities, there are differences between them every bit good.

Differences between raising verbs and inactive verbs

Although raising verbs and inactive verbs have some syntactic belongingss in common, it is certain that there are differences between them.

Difference in the affected elements

As discussed above, they both trigger NP motion. However, the affected elements are different. A differentiation is made between illustrations such as:

We seemed to hold a clip travel.

Farmers are told to halt agriculture.

The former is an case of raising while the latter is an illustration of passivization. First of wholly, holding a expression at their D-structure is necessary because it is referred to motion. Their D-structures are:

[ IP vitamin E [ I ‘ [ VP seemed we to hold a clip travel ] ] ] .

[ IP vitamin E [ I ‘ are [ VP told husbandmans flowers to halt farming ] ] ] .

Comparing their S-structures with D-structures, the decision is that the topic of sentence a is raised from the infinitival clause while that of sentence B is moved from the object place. The difference is that the infinitival clause is a lower clause, but the object place locates in the same sentence. Therefore, raising agencies that the topic of the matrix clause is raised from the lower infinitival clause to the higher matrix clause ; and passivization agencies that NP motion happens in the same sentence and the surface topic is moved from the object place. So, the affected elements are different.

In brief, raising verbs and inactive verbs portion some syntactic belongingss while they are different as good. Not merely inactive verbs but besides raising verbs trigger NP motion. Furthermore, they both fail to delegate external I?-role every bit good as accusatory instance. The difference between them is that the affected elements are different. No affair how similar or different they are ; analyzing them undoubtedly helps to place the features of raising verbs. After all, inactive verbs have been more common. Besides inactive verbs, there is another group of words which besides needs to be compared with raising verbs. They are control verbs.

Comparison between raising verbs and control verbs

In the former portion, the differentiation between raising verbs and inactive verbs has been discussed. They have some syntactic belongingss in common ; meanwhile, there are differences between them. Besides the differentiation, it is deserving speaking about another comparing between raising verbs and control verbs. Although raising verbs and control verbs are distributed in similar sentence forms, they do differ in of import syntactic belongingss. First of wholly, the definition is introduced.

The definition of control verbs

Control verb like raising verb besides has its ain features. See the undermentioned sentences:

She seems to move as a H2O faery.

He tries to bury everything sad.

The sentence forms are similar to each other ; the difference between them is the pick of the verb of the chief clause. As for sentence a, seem is a raising verb, and the sentence is raising building. She is merely semantically related to the verb of the infinitival clause. Harmonizing to the lexical belongingss, attempt is semantically related to both the topic of the matrix clause and the embedded clause. Under this circumstance, seek assigns a theta function to the topic of the matrix clause every bit good as to the topic of infinitival clause. In order to obey the regulation of Case Filter, NP should be seeable to acquire instance. However, the topic of the infinitival clause is non seeable. To work out the job, PRO is introduced, which is restricted to the capable place in infinite clauses ( p245 ) . Therefore, sentence B is rewritten as follows:

He tries PRO to bury everything sad.

The topic he is said to command the mention of the topic of the embedded verb. Try is a control verb. Here is another illustration:

They appear to travel Hainan this summer.

She hopes to hold contact with him.

The corresponding constructions are given as follows:

a. IP

NP I ‘

Theyi

I VP

V IP

seems Ti to be happy

b. IP

NP I ‘

Shei

I VP

V IP

hopes PROi to hold contact with him

Unlike in the raising building of sentence a, they is the topic of the lower clause, she is the topic of the matrix clause. Therefore, it has a semantic relationship with the verb hope.

Control constructions are those in which the ’empty ‘ capable PRO appears, for illustration I wanted to travel is seen as holding the construction I wanted PRO to travel ( p249 ) . The most good established attack to command was developed within the model of Government and Binding Theory ( Chomsky, 1982 ) . The presence of PRO is forced in the complement capable place by Theta Theory. Theta Criterion requires that there is one-to-one relationship between statements and theta-roles ( 1981 ) . The two agent theta-roles of privation and travel must be assigned to distinct statements, the matrix topic I and PRO severally. As a consequence, every statement place must be filled at D-structure before any transmutations. The presence of PRO in the capable place of the infinitival clause is to follow the demand of the Extended Projection Principle which requires all clauses must hold topics ( 1982 ) . Case Theory besides has restrictions on the presence of PRO. In the attack developed by Chomsky and Lasnik ( 1983 ) , infinitival assigns a particular Null Case, and merely PRO is capable of holding Null Case. The capable place of the infinitival clause is caseless, hence, open NPs can non be present at that place.

The similarity between raising verbs and control verbs is the surface construction. It is obvious that they differ from each other really much.

Similarities between raising verbs and control verbs

As mentioned above, raising verbs and control verbs portion some syntactic surface construction. Look at the illustrations below:

The instructor intends to quiet down.

The instructor entreaties to the pupils to quiet down.

In sentence a, the topic of the verb intend and the inexplicit topic of the infinitival clause to quiet down have the same indication. Harmonizing to the belongingss of control, the instructor is a capable control. In sentence B, the object of the matrix clause the pupils identifies the inexplicit topic of the infinitival clause to quiet down, it is an object control.

The similarities between raising verbs and control verbs are: they both apply to topics of embedded clause, and, the relationship between infinitival clause and matrix topic or matrix object is dependent.

Besides the similarities, there are some differences between raising verbs and control verbs.

Differences between raising verbs and control verbs

To get down with, it is necessary to present the syntactic belongingss of control verbs before discoursing the differences.

4.3.3.1 Syntactic belongingss of control verbs

As mentioned above, control building is near related to PRO. Sometimes PRO is controlled by an NP, sometimes it is controlled by an inexplicit statement, and sometimes it is non controlled at all and its reading is arbitrary ( Hageman, p276-277 ) . Control is classified into two types: one is obligatory control ; the other is optional control. See the undermentioned illustrations:

Paul decided [ [ PRO to travel place by himself ] ] .

Paul considered [ how [ PRO to behavior himself/oneself in public topographic point ] ] .

In sentence a, control is obligatory. PRO must be controlled by Paul. It is ill-formed if PRO is arbitrary. Sentence a can non be changed like: Paul decided [ [ PRO to travel place by oneself ] ] . As for sentence B, PRO can be controlled every bit good as arbitrary. There are some other illustrations to demo the flightiness as follows:

[ [ PRO To acquire up early ] ] is good for your wellness.

[ [ PRO Swimming in summer ] ] is really common.

PRO can stand for one specific figure or even everybody.

Accountants are different in specific state of affairss. As illustrated:

He tries [ [ PRO to do himself understood ] ] .

He told Lily [ [ PRO to learn herself English ] ] .

Controller in sentence a is the matrix topic, and accountant in sentence B is the object. The former type is called capable control, and the latter is object control. Verbs like attempt are capable control while verbs like Tell are object control. Whether the accountant is the topic or object, it is non hard to happen that PRO is related to statements.

There are some differences between raising verbs and control verbs. As mentioned above, raising verb and control verb demo different relationships with the topic of the chief clause severally.

Difference in the thematic relationships with the matrix topic

Based on the lexical points, raising verbs merely have an internal statement, hence, they can non delegate external theta function ; in other words, they have no semantic relationship with their matrix topic. However, control verbs have to stand in a thematic relationship with the matrix topic. Take this brace of sentences into consider:

Mary tends to travel abroad.

Bob decides to eat apples.

As for the raising building in sentence a, it is known that the matrix capable Mary is based generated from the capable place of the lower clause. Mary is non the matrix topic at D-structure but the topic of the infinitival clause. Raising verbs merely have an internal statement. Therefore, the raising verb tend merely has a semantic relationship with the topic of the infinitival clause. In footings of the lexical belongingss of decide, it assigns two theta functions: one is to the topic ; the other is to the object. Furthermore, Bob is semantically related to both the matrix verb and the embedded verb. In other words, the difference lies in the theta function assignment. Raising verbs fail to delegate external theta function to the matrix topic so that they have no semantic relationship with the matrix topic. On the contrary, control verbs should delegate external theta function to the actor. Therefore, raising verbs and control verbs have different thematic relationship with the matrix topic.

Difference in the limitations on statements

Control verbs lay two limitations on the pick of the matrix topic. Based on Theta Theory, the matrix topic is assigned theta-role. As a consequence, expletives like it and at that place can non look in the matrix capable place, otherwise, it is ill-formed.

* There tries to work hard this term.

* It is likely to go to the category this afternoon.

It is known that curses can non have any theta functions so that they can look with control verbs at the same clip. On the contrary, curses are widely used among raising constructions as follows:

It seems that she is traveling to complete her paper in two months.

It appeared that he told a short narrative to every kid.

There seems to be a strong air current.

There appeared to be a really blue male child in my category.

Curses can coexist with raising verbs, which is attributed to the assignment of the theta function of raising verbs. Raising verbs have no ability to delegate the external theta function so that the matrix topic can be filled with curses.

The other limitation on the matrix topic is that control verbs have a important consequence of animacy on the pick of the matrix topic. See the ill-formed sentences:

* The paper persuades the author to complete it every bit shortly as possible.

* The pencil tries to be sharpened by the small male child.

* The cat decides to telephone his female parent.

The sentences are ill-formed because those topics are inanimate. In other words, control verbs ask the matrix topic to be animate. Control verbs by and large include will, purpose, attempt, determination, and other things that require a sentient or at least animate agent or experiencer. Inanimate topics make hapless agents or experiencers of predicates like persuade, attempt, and decide and so on. In contrast with control verbs, raising verbs do non hold such restriction on the pick of capable animacy. For illustration:

The Canis familiaris seems to run after its host.

The book appears to be written in 1840.

Jack tends to play games on weekends.

We happened to hold the same lesson on Monday.

Whether or non the topic is animate, it has no influence on the raising constructions. Basically, raising verbs have no semantic relationship with the matrix topic.

Besides the limitations on the matrix topics are different, control and raising differ with regard to passivization.

Difference in passivization of the embedded clauses

The infinitival clauses of both raising building and control building can be inactive. The passive embedded clauses are different severally by comparing their active clauses. The two braces of sentences show the difference.

a. The victim expected the police officers to catch the stealer.

B. The victim expected the stealer to be caught by the police officers.

2 ) a. John persuaded Jack to day of the month Lily.

b. John ‘s female parent persuaded Lily to be dated by Jack.

As for the first brace of sentences, sentence B shows the infinitival clause of sentence a is inactive. But the significance of the two sentences is the same in that expect, an object raising verb, does non theta grade the police officers and the stealer. As for the 2nd brace of sentences, though sentence B, likewise to raising constructions, is the passivization of sentence a, the two sentences have two different significances. The indication is different. Carry in sentence a theta Markss Jack while in sentence B, it theta Markss Lily. Therefore, it is non surprising that the two sentences have different significances. The equality between active elevation construction and inactive elevation construction, every bit good as the non-equivalence between active control construction and inactive control construction, imposes the fact that control verbs but non raising verbs lay limitations on their statements.

Difference in the representations of the topics of the infinitival clauses

Subjects of the infinitival clauses in raising constructions have been identified within the construction. However, there is an arbitrary significance in control constructions. See the undermentioned illustrations:

He seems to travel on his survey.

She expects her female parent to be recovered shortly.

Jerry decided to watch the football game.

I want to go forth.

Sentence a is a capable elevation, the infinitival topic of which must be he ; and sentence B is an object elevation, the infinitival topic of which must be her female parent. Therefore, there is no arbitrary significance in raising constructions. Sentence degree Celsius is a control construction. Similarly to raising building, the infinitival topic is identified. It is indistinguishable with the matrix capable Jerry. As for the last sentence, it is a small complicated. The topic of the infinitival clause can be indistinguishable with the matrix topic I, and it can be denoted as person else or everybody. The sentences are illustrated as follows:

I want Jack/Lily/Mary to go forth.

I want everybody to go forth.

I want PRO to go forth.

In sentence degree Celsius, PRO represents the arbitrary elements. Control building is, to some grade, more complex than raising building.

To come to the decision, there are some differences between raising constructions and control constructions. They have different thematic relationship with their matrix topics. Raising verb has no thematic relationship with the matrix capable while control verb theta Markss the matrix topic. Furthermore, the demands for statements are different. The matrix topic of raising building can be animate every bit good as inanimate while that of control building must be animate. Besides, one time the infinitival clause is inactive, the significance is non genuinely tantamount to the active for control building while the significance is the same in raising building. The last point is that there is arbitrary significance of the infinitival topic in control building but non in raising building.

Through comparing with control verbs, it makes two groups of verbs which portion the similar surface sentence form easier to be separated from each other. It is truly helpful in contracting the syntactic belongingss of raising verbs.

A brief drumhead

Chapter four distinguishes raising verbs from inactive verbs every bit good as control verbs. The differentiation between them shows their specific syntactic belongingss so that exemplifying the differentiation contributes to holding a better apprehension of raising verbs. As mentioned in chapter three, there are by and large two groups of raising verbs: one is subject-to-subject raising verbs and the other is subject-to-object raising verbs. By comparing with inactive verbs and control verbs, there are some equivocal raising verbs which besides need to be analyzed. First of wholly, it is necessary to hold a expression at which verbs belong to the chief two groups.

a. intransitive raising verbs ( Postal, 1974, p292 & A ; Jacobson, 1990, p162 )

appear, fail, promise, halt, become, acquire, turn out, work stoppage, cease, go on, restart, endanger, opportunity, impress, seem, turn, come, maintain ( on ) , stand, turn out, commence, demand, get down, were, get down, go on, persist, get down out, weave up, stop up, proceed, stay, tend

b. transitive raising verbs ( Postal, 1974, p305 & A ; Jacobson, 1990, p162 )

acknowledge, determine, intuit, regulation, admit, discern, justice, like, stipulate, affirm, unwrap, cognize, province, allege, discover, note, stipulate, assume, feel, prefer, postulate, suppose, believe, figure, hatred, presume, guess, certify, gather, proclaim, take, profess, expansive, reckon, think, declare, warrant, acknowledge, understand, want, deduce, hold, study, verify, show, conceive of, uncover, anticipate, see, perceive, callback, observe, sense

Besides the chief two groups of raising verbs, average buildings are represented by a elevation construction instead than a control construction ( Susi Wurmbrand, p1-14 ) . First of all, average buildings are compatible with expletive topics, which imply the thematic and instance belongingss of the topic in average buildings are determined merely by the lower verb and non the modal. For illustration, There must be a book on the desk. Furthermore, modals, like raising verbs, accept the passivization of the embedded object. Here is another illustration which shows the matrix topic ‘s original place by the tree diagram:

The biscuits may be finished by Paul ( Warner, 1993 ) .

Information science

SUBJi I ‘

The biscuits

I vP

may VP

V ‘ OBJ

be finished Ti

In the interim, there are some equivocal raising verbs. As noted by Perlmutter ( 1970, p107-119 ) , there are verbs that are equivocal between being raising and control verbs, like Begin, start, fail and continue. These verbs can be raising verbs every bit good as control verbs. See the illustrations below:

It begins to tremble.

Jim begins to make his prep.

In term of thematic relationship between predicates and the matrix topic, Begi