Raising (linguistics) - Representing Raising

Representing Raising

The fact that the raised constituent behaves as though it is a dependent of the higher predicate is generally reflected in the syntax trees that are employed to represent raising structures. The following trees are illustrative of the type of structures assumed for raising-to-object predicates. In contrast, others assume Both constituency-based trees of phrase structure grammar and dependency-based trees of dependency grammar are employed here:

The constituency-based trees are the a-trees on the left, and the dependency-based trees are the b-trees on the right. While the structures assumed here can be disputed - especially the constituency structures - the trees all show the main stance toward raising structures. This stance is that the "subject" of the lower predicate appears as a dependent of the higher predicate - the relevant constituents are in bold. Relatively flat structures are assumed to accommodate this behavior. Both it and the claim are shown as dependents of expects and proves, respectively, although they are semantic arguments of the lower predicates to happen and to be false, respectively.

A number of empirical considerations support the relatively flat structures shown here. That is, empirical considerations support the position of the "raised" constituent as a dependent of the matrix predicate/verb. These dependents can appear in object form, they can appear as the subject of passive sentences, and they can appear as reflexives coindexed with the matrix subjects:

a. We expect him to help.

b. He is expected to help.

c. He₁ expects himself₁ to help.

a. You proved her to be competent.

b. He was proved to be competent.

c. She₁ proved herself₁ to be competent.

This behavior speaks strongly for the general analysis reflected in the trees, namely that the "raised" constituent is a dependent of the higher predicate.