Cover not available
Article published In:
Evolutionary Linguistic Theory
Vol. 5:2 (2023) ► pp.128–161

Raising to object

A graph-theoretic analysis

| University of Oxford
In this paper we provide an introduction to a set of tools for syntactic analysis based on graph theory, and apply them to the study of some properties of English accusativus cum infinitivo constructions, more commonly known as raising to object or exceptional case marking structures. We focus on puzzling extraction asymmetries between base-generated objects and ‘raised’ objects and on the interaction between raising to object and Right Wrap. We argue that a lexicalised derivational grammar with grammatical functions as primitives delivers empirically adequate analyses.
Keywords: raising to object, Wrap, Merge, graph theory
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Definitions and formal preliminaries
    • 1.2Some properties of the lexicon
    • 1.3Argument structure and semantic interpretation
  • 2.A case study: Raising to object
    • 2.1RtO without raising
    • 2.2Wrapping around ‘raised objects’
  • 3.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 26 March 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/elt.00050.kri
References (66)
References
Akmajian, A. & F. Heny. (1975). An Introduction to the Principles of Transformational Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bach, E. (1974). Syntactic theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
(1979). Control in Montague Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 10(4). 515–531.Google Scholar
(1981). Discontinuous Constituents in Generalized Categorial Grammars. NELS 111, Article 2. [URL]
Berinstein, A. (1984). Absolutive extractions: evidence for clause-internal multiattachment in K’ekchi. In C. Rosen & L. Zaring (eds.) Cornell University working papers in linguistics 51. 1–65Google Scholar
Börjars, K., R. Nordlinger & L. Sadler. (2019). Lexical Functional Grammar. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Castillo, J. & J. Uriagereka. (2002). A note on successive cyclicity. In Derivations (pp. 136–146). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(1977 [1973]). Conditions on transformations. In Essays on Form and Interpretation (pp. 81–160). New York: North Holland.Google Scholar
(1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
(1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2000). Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework. In R. Martin, D. Michaels & J. Uriagereka (eds.) Step by Step – Essays in Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik (pp. 89–155). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2008). On Phases. In R. Freidin, C. Otero & M. L. Zubizarreta (eds.) Foundational issues in linguistic theory (pp. 133–166). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2021). Minimalism: where we are now, and where we can hope to go. Gengo Kenkyu 1601. 1–41.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. & H. Lasnik. (1995). The theory of principles and parameters. In N. Chomsky (ed.) The Minimalist Program (pp. 13–128). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N., T. D. Seely, R. Berwick, S. Fong, M. A. C. Huybregts, H. Kitahara, A. McInnerney & Y. Sugimoto. (2023). Merge and the Strong Minimalist Thesis. Cambridge: CUP.
Collins, C. (2023). Principles of argument structure. Ms. [URL]
Dalrymple, M., J. Lowe & L. Mycock. (2019). The Oxford reference guide to Lexical Functional Grammar. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Davies, W. & S. Dubinsky. (2004). The grammar of raising and control. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Dowty, D. (1982). Grammatical relations and Montague grammar. In P. Jacobson & G. Pullum (eds.) The nature of syntactic representation (pp. 79–130). Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
(2003). The dual analysis of adjuncts/complements in Categorial Grammar. In E. Lang, C. Maienborn & C. Fabricius-Hansen (eds.) Modifying adjuncts (pp. 33–66). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dowty, D., R. Wall & S. Peters. (1981). Introduction to Montague semantics. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Epstein, S., H. Kitahara & T. D. Seely. (2022). A Minimalist theory of Simplest Merge. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Frank, R. (2002). Phrase Structure Composition and Syntactic Dependencies. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gorn, S. (1967). Handling the growth by definition of mechanical languages. Proceedings of the April 18–20, 1967, spring joint computer conference. New York: Association for Computing Machinery. 213–224.Google Scholar
Gross, J. & J. Yellen. (2014). Fundamentals of graph theory. In J. Gross, J. Yellen & P. Zhang (eds.) Handbook of graph theory [2nd Edition] (pp. 2–20). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Heim, I. & A. Kratzer. (1998). Semantics in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Huck, G. (1984). Discontinuity and word order in Categorial Grammar. PhD dissertation, University of Chicago.
(1988). Phrasal verbs and postponement. In R. Oehrle, E. Bach & D. Wheeler (eds.) Categorial Grammars and natural language structures (pp. 249–264). Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. & P. Postal. (1980). Arc Pair Grammar. Princeton: Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1937). Analytic Syntax. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Kallmeyer, L. & A. Joshi. (2003). Factoring Predicate Argument and Scope Semantics: Underspecified Semantics with LTAG. Research on Language and Computation 1(1). 3–58.Google Scholar
Karttunen, L. & M. Kay. (1985). Structure sharing with binary trees. Proceedings of the 23rd annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago. 133–136.Google Scholar
Koizumi, M. (1993). Object agreement phrases and the split VP hypothesis. MIT working papers in linguistics 181. 99–148.Google Scholar
Krivochen, D. (2023a). The search for minimal search. Biolinguistics 171. e9793. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2023b). Towards a theory of syntactic workspaces. The Linguistic Review 40(2). 311–360. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2023c). Syntax on the Edge. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Kroch, A. (2001). Asymmetries in long-distance extraction in a Tree-Adjoining Grammar. Ms. Available online at [URL]
Kroch, A. & A. Joshi. (1985). The linguistic relevance of Tree Adjoining Grammar. Ms. [URL]
Larson, R. (1988). On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19(3). 335–391.Google Scholar
(2014). On shell structure. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lasnik, H. (2019). A reconsideration of ECM. Ms. [URL]
Lasnik, H. & M. Saito. (1991). On the subject of infinitives. CLS 271. 324–343.Google Scholar
Manzini, R. & L. Savoia. (2011). Grammatical categories. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
McCawley, J. (1982). Parentheticals and Discontinuous Constituent Structure. Linguistic Inquiry 13(1). 91–106.Google Scholar
McKinney-Bock, K. & J-R Vergnaud. (2014). Grafts and beyond. In K. McKinney-Bock & M. L. Zubizarreta (eds.) Primitive elements of grammatical theory (pp. 207–236). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Neeleman, A., J. Philip, M. Tanaka & H. van de Koot. (2023). Subordination and binary branching. Syntax 26(1).41–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nunes, J. (2004). Linearization of chains and sidewards movement. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. (1978). Impersonal passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis. Proceedings of the annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 38 1. 157–189.Google Scholar
(1980). Relational grammar. In E. Moravcsik & J. Wirth (eds.) Syntax and semantics 13 1 (pp. 195–229). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. (1995). Zero Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2013). Russian Case morphology and the syntactic categories. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pollard, C. & I. Sag. (1994). Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Postal, P. (1974). On Raising. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2010). Edge-based clausal syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, P. (1967). The grammar of English predicate complement constructions. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rouveret, A. (2018). Aspects of grammatical architecture. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Runner, J. (2006). Lingering challenges to the raising-to-object and object control constructions. Syntax 9(2). 193–213.Google Scholar
Sarkar, A. & A. Joshi. (1997). Coordination in Tree Adjoining Grammars: Formalization and Implementation. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmerling, S. F. (1983). A new theory of English auxiliaries. In F. Heny & B. Richards (eds.) Linguistic categories: auxiliaries and related puzzles Vol. 2 (pp. 1–53). Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
(2018). Sound and Grammar. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Stabler, E. (2011). Computational perspectives on minimalism. In C. Boeckx (ed.) Oxford handbook of minimalism (pp. 617–641). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Stepanov, A. (2007). The end of the CED? Minimalism and extraction domains. Syntax 10(1). 80–126.Google Scholar
Williams, E. (2011). Introduction. In Regimes of derivation in syntax and morphology (pp. 1–9). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A. & Izard, S. (1963). Some aspects of tree theory. Working Paper W-6674, The Mitre Corporation, Bedford, Mass. [URL]
Zyman, E. (2023). On the definition of Merge. Syntax. Forthcoming. Available online at [URL]