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.
4.2 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. 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.
4.2.1 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, p.411 ) .
4.2.2 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 Case given by the inflexion -ed, the brave soldier can non travel to the capable place of the chief clause, and it can non acquire Case 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 Case to it. If told can delegate Case to Jim, it need non travel out to acquire Case. As for such a state of affairs, it violates I?-Criterion because empty place has already been assigned Case by the inflexion, but it receives no I?-role. So, told, being inactive, fails to delegate Accusative Case, which is besides similar to raising verbs.
To sum up, inactive verbs have the undermentioned belongingss ( Hageman, 1994, p.185 ) :
( 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.
4.2.3 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.
4.2.3.1 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 “ [ IP vitamin E [ I ‘ [ VP VERB NP ] ] ] “ ( Hageman, 1994, p.322 ) .
In footings of Burzio ‘s generalisation, “ a verb which lacks an external statement fails to delegate Accusative Case ” ( 1986, pp.178-179 ) . 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 “ [ IP NP I [ I ‘ [ VP VERB T I ] ] ] ” ( Hageman, 1994, p.323 ) .
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 Case 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.
4.2.3.2 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, p.36 ) . 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 Case by the inflexion -s. Harmonizing to I?-Criterion, there is one-to-one relationship between statements and I?-roles. Therefore, the empty place with Case needs 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.
4.2.3.3 Both raising verbs and inactive verbs fail to delegate Accusative Case
Besides both raising verbs and inactive verbs fail to delegate external I?-role, they besides can non delegate Accusative Case. All overt NPs have Case, and they must be seeable to acquire Case. The rule that forces instance to be assigned is called the Case Filter: “ Every phonetically realized NP must be assigned ( abstract ) Case ” ( Chomsky, 1986a, p.74 ) .
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 Case. Meanwhile, the empty capable place of the chief clause is with Case 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 Accusative Case ; otherwise, Ben is endowed with two Cases so that the sentence is ill-formed. Therefore, raising verbs can non delegate Accusative Case.
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 Case, 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 Case.
There comes to the decision that both raising verbs and inactive verbs fail to delegate Accusative Case. 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 Accusative Case. Besides the similarities, there are differences between them every bit good.
4.2.4 Difference 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. The difference lies 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 Accusative Case. 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.
4.3 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.
4.3.1 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 Case. 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 ( Vivian Cook, & A ; Mark Newson, 2000, p.245 ) . 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 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 Tina wants to travel is seen as holding the construction Tina wants PRO to travel. The most good established attack to command was developed within the model of Government and Binding Theory ( Chomsky, 1982a ) . 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 ” ( Chomsky, 1981a ) . 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 ” ( Chomsky, 1982a ) . 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 ” .
To get down with, it is necessary to present the syntactic belongingss of control verbs.
4.3.2 The 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, 1994, pp.276-277 ) . 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.
The similarity between raising verbs and control verbs is the surface construction. It is obvious that they differ from each other really much.
4.3.3 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.
4.3.4 Differences between raising verbs and control verbs
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.
4.3.4.1 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.
4.3.4.2 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.
4.3.4.3 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.
4.3.4.4 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.
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.
4.3.5 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, p.292 & A ; Jacobson, 1990, p.162 )
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, p.305 & A ; Jacobson, 1990, p.162 )
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, pp.1-14 ) . 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, there are verbs “ that are equivocal between being raising and control verbs, like Begin, start, fail and continue ” ( 1970, pp.107-119 ) . 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, Begin in sentence a belongs to raising verbs while it in sentence B belongs to command verbs because Jim is the agent of making the event ; in other words, it is thematically related to get down. The two sentences are illustrated by tree diagram as follows:
Information science
NP I ‘
Iti
I VP
V IP
Begins ti to tremble
Information science
NP I ‘
Jimi
I VP
V IP
Begins PROi to make his prep
Besides Begin, verbs like start, fail and continue, promise, endanger, desire and prefer besides belong to both categories. See the undermentioned illustrations:
She promises to be a celebrated vocalist.
She promised to work hard.
The universe threatened to be ended in 2012.
The universe has threatened to work out the air pollution.
As for a, she, the matrix topic in sentence B, has the purpose to transport out a undertaking. Therefore, promise assigns the Agent function to the matrix topic. In this instance, promise is a control verb. On the contrary, sentence a depicts that there is person who expects her to be a celebrated vocalist. Therefore, she is non involved in the action of promise. Promise does non delegate a theta function to the topic. In this instance, promise is a raising verb. As for B, likewise to a, threaten in sentence B is the actor of the action so that the matrix topic is assigned theta function while threaten in sentence a has no thematic relationship with the matrix topic in that non the universe itself wanted to be ended. In brief, verbs like promise and endanger with will are control verbs ; otherwise, they are raising verbs.
Comparing the two braces of sentences as follows:
I want him to go forth.
I want to go forth.
B. She preferred Lily to look after Jerry.
She preferred to look after Jerry.
As for a, the two sentences are illustrated by tree diagrams below:
Information science
NP I ‘
I VP
I
V IP
want NP I ‘
himi I VP
NP V ‘
Volt
to ti
go forth
Information science
NP I ‘
Two
I VP
V IP
want NP I ‘
PROi I VP
to V ‘
Volt
go forth
As for a, the first sentence portions some syntactic belongingss with subject-to-object raising construction. The topic of the infinitival clause is moved to the object place of the chief clause. And the 2nd sentence portions something with control building. There is a semantic relationship between the chief verb and the matrix topic. Likewise, the 2nd brace of sentences show that prefer in the first sentence is a raising verb while the 2nd is a control verb.
There comes to the decision. With the aid of sub-theories of GB Theory, the syntactic belongingss of raising verbs are clear ; what ‘s more, by comparing with inactive verbs every bit good as control verbs, the syntactic belongingss become clearer. The purpose of analyzing raising verbs in English is rather helpful for linguistic communication acquisition.
4.4 Inspiration of raising verbs
Chapter three has talked about the syntactic belongingss of raising verbs and classified the verbs into two chief groups: one is subject-to-subject raising verbs and the other is subject-to-object raising verbs. Chapter four, furthermore, has compared raising verbs with inactive verbs every bit good as control verbs. By agencies of the comparing, both similarities and differences help the specific features of raising verbs base out. Besides, the 3rd group of raising verbs is introduced. The equivocal raising verbs cause jobs in linguistic communication acquisition in that analyzing the implicit in syntactic belongingss of English raising verbs contributes to linguistic communication acquisition, but at the same clip, the ambiguity challenges the normal acquisition procedure. The state of affairs is deserving being paid attending to.
In English, there are raising verbs and the implicit in syntactic belongingss are illustrated. Harmonizing to Chomsky himself, “ Universal Grammar may be thought of as some system of rules, common to the species and available to each single prior to see ” ( 1981b, p7 ) . UG is a system of all the rules that are common to all human linguistic communications, which means linguistic communications every bit different as English and Italian and Nipponese. Therefore, analyzing syntactic belongingss of raising verbs in English contributes to linguistic communication acquisition.
About raising verbs, there are two jobs for scholars: one is that raising verbs, unlike other typical chief verbs, have no semantic relationship with the external statement ; the other is that control verbs portion distributive forms with raising verbs, but they differ from each other in of import syntactic belongingss. The equivocal verbs between them cause another job for scholars.
Harmonizing to Gleitman ‘s research on kids ‘s acquisition of verb significances, it has demonstrated that “ kids attend to the Noun Phrases ( NPs ) that are semantically related to a verb ( the verb ‘s NP statements ) in contracting down the possible significances of fresh verbs ” ( 1990, pp.3-55 ) . Children have ability to do usage of information of the NPs to deduce the verb ‘s significance because there is relationship between the verb and the statements it takes. In the 3rd chapter, it has mentioned I?-grid and subcategorization frame. More specifically, for case, the verb autumn merely selects one statement so that it merely assigns one agent function, while the verb like demands to be related to two statements so that it assigns an Agent function and a Patient function. As for transitive verbs or intransitive verbs, both of them stand in a semantic relationship with the external statement. By contrast, raising verbs have no semantic relationship with the external statement. In the raising building, the external statement is related to the predicate of the lower infinitival clause. Furthermore, there is another group of verbs called control verbs which portion something with raising verbs. For illustration,
Mary seems to be sad.
Mary attempts to analyze hard.
In the two sentences above, both of them are followed by an infinitival clause. However, the relationship between the matrix topic and the chief verb is non the same. The former has no ability to choose the matrix topic which is moved from the capable place of the infinitival clause while the latter does choose the matrix topic which controls the soundless topic of the infinitival clause. Therefore, the job is how scholars distinguish raising verbs from control verbs.
Some linguists have done some experiments on grownups every bit good as kids to happen out how they make a differentiation between raising verbs and control verbs. Gillette et Al. ( 1999 ) showed that “ when grownup English-speakers are given sentences of English with one “ enigma verb ” ( a verb changed to a nonsensical signifier ) , they are able to right think the verb at least 75 % of the clip ” , based merely on the other words in the sentence and the sentence construction. Other grounds comes from Kako ( 1998 ) , who showed that “ grownups can give rather specific and unvarying anticipations about what a fresh verb could intend ” , based merely on syntactic frame, i.e. in sentences in which all content words have been changed to nonsense signifiers. Though raising verbs do non choose NPs, there are other cues to assist scholars to separate raising verbs from control verbs. For case, non command verbs but raising verbs can coincide with curses such as there and it.
There seems to be a strong air current.
*There wants to travel place.
It appears to be cheery.
*It attempts to be cheery.
As mentioned above, the ambiguity causes another problem for scholars. Perlmutter ( 1979 ) claimed that “ what distinguishes raising get down from control Begin is the animacy of the topic ” : if the topic is inanimate, begin is a raising verb ; if the topic is animate, begin is a control verb. For illustration,
Alice began to compose her paper.
Fire began to set out.
Alice can be said to be a novice in sentence a while the fire can non be said to be a novice in sentence B.
There are cues in sentences that lead grownup English talkers to judge that there is a raising verb in a given sentence. The following inquiry is whether or non kids have the same ability with grownups in happening these cues. Naigles shows that “ kids use the figure of statements a verb takes to deduce a possible significance of the verb ” ( 1990, pp.357-374 ) . A huge literature exists on kids ‘s construct of animacy, and cautiousness is necessary in this sphere as it has been suggested that “ kids do non organize an adult-like construct of animacy ( e.g. what it means for something to be alive ) until after age 7 ” ( Piaget, 1929 ) . However, more recent work has shown that “ four-year-olds are able to separate populating things from inanimate things ” ( Carey, 1985 ) . “ Three- and four-year-olds are able to ground in an adult-like mode about the motion of unfamiliar animate vs. inanimate objects ” ( Massey and Gelman, 1988 ) . Misha Becker did a serious of experiments to happen at what age kids attend to these cues, the consequences of the experiments showed that “ kids do utilize animacy to separate raising from control sentences but non until about age 5 and kids every bit immature as 3 were significantly better than opportunity in parsing sentences with expletive it ” ( 2005, pp.173-194 ) .
There comes the decision: although the distributive form between raising construction and the control construction is similar, the of import syntactic belongingss can state them apart. These belongingss are rather helpful in the procedure of linguistic communication acquisition. Both grownups and kids need syntactic cues to get raising verbs and separate them from control verbs.
Chapter 5 Decision
The thesis has a elaborate treatment on English raising verbs. It tries its best to analyse the syntactic phenomenon within the Government and Binding Theory. Raising refers to a procedure in which an component located in the lower place is raised to a higher place. Based on the GB theory, factors doing the phenomenon are assorted. Most significantly, the procedure occurs because of the features of the verbs. Therefore, the verb triping the motion is called raising verb. At the beginning of the decision, it is necessary to hold a general overview of the whole thesis.
5.1 The sum-up of the thesis
The paper tries to do the syntactic belongingss of raising verbs more systematic through a mature model of theory, GB theory. The order of each sub-theory is rational, and they are related to each other. Each of them can non be missed in the procedure of analysing the belongingss of raising verbs. Raising itself is a procedure. The procedure is near related to NP motion on the land that the affected phrase is NP phrase. Furthermore, there are two elements to do NP motion: one is Theta Criteria ; the other is Case Filter. And, it is necessary to present the Projection Principle and the Immediate Constituent Analysis so as to analyse the syntactic belongingss intuitively. Therefore, the thesis negotiations about X-bar Theory, Theta Theory, and Case Theory and NP motion in order to do the belongingss of raising verbs specifically.
Then, it classifies raising verbs into two chief categories: the subject-to-subject elevation verbs and the subject-to-object elevation verbs. Appear, tend to, go on, used to, seem are all subject-to-subject raising verbs. The subject-to-subject elevation means that the topic of the lower infinitival clause is raised to the topic of the higher chief clause. Besides, believe, want, like, prefer, hatred and so on belong to subject-to-object raising verbs. The topic of infinitival clause is raised up to the object place of the matrix clause are called subject-to-object elevation verbs. However, there are some equivocal raising verbs. By comparing raising verbs with inactive verbs and control verbs, those equivocal verbs, like Begin, start, fail and continue, are illustrated clearly and the specific features of raising verbs are clearer as good.
Plus, it does non merely name the differences and similarities between raising verbs and inactive verbs or between raising verbs and control verbs. The belongingss of inactive and control verbs are discussed at length severally. In order to do the comparing persuasive, illustrations are illustrated. Distinguishing raising verbs from inactive verbs every bit good as control verbs, it is non hard to happen that they have something in common and they have different syntactic belongingss. In other words, both raising verbs and inactive verbs trigger NP motion ; moreover, both raising verbs and inactive verbs fail to delegate external I?-role every bit good as accusatory instance. But, the affected elements for them are different. Additionally, though raising verbs and control verbs are distributed in similar sentence forms, they do differ in of import syntactic belongingss. Specifically, similar distribution can non cover their deep syntactic differences. There are four facets are different between them: the thematic relationships with the matrix topic, the limitations on statements, passivizations of the embedded clauses, and the representations of the topics of the infinitival clauses. The syntactic belongingss of the raising verbs are more obvious by agencies of comparing. 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 accusatory instance.
Owing to these elaborate analysis, it is possible to tie in how scholars get such complicated verbs which portion something with other verbs.
5.2 The accomplishments of the thesis and suggestions for the hereafter
Raising verbs have drawn linguists ‘ attending. All of them have made great part on the linguistic communication phenomenon. It is deserving delving one specific linguistic communication point in that it, to great grade, has made great influence on other surveies, merely as the deduction of raising verbs talked about in chapter four. The implicit in syntactic belongingss inspire linguists to hold researches in linguistic communication acquisition. The inquiry is how scholars distinguish raising verbs from other verbs like control verbs. The syntactic cues help scholars get raising verbs.
The thesis shows a rather systematic account of the raising verbs. Compared with former related surveies, it is non hard to happen that the raising verbs are put into a superior place instead than an inferior place.
The thesis surveies English raising verbs under the Government and Binding Theory. First of all, sub-theories are introduced so that it is easy to happen the relationship between raising verbs and each sub-theory, which persuades the account of the features of raising verbs. Then, comparing between raising verbs and command verbs or inactive verbs makes the syntactic belongingss more specific. At last, based on above treatment, it has a last long influence on linguistic communication acquisition.
To sum up, the thesis tries its best to explicate English raising verbs through exhaustively related theories ‘ debut and sensible comparings. Besides, the inspiration is worth paying attending to. As for the hereafter survey, there is one truly of import point demand to be dealt with. That ‘s to state, if there are some experiments in linguistic communication acquisition, the thesis will be better. In one word, raising verbs is deserving analyzing every bit good as holding a farther survey.
