Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-vgfm9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-24T01:16:55.643Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Raising and Transparency

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Ronald W. Langacker
Ronald W. Langacker*
Affiliation:
University of California, San Diego
*
Department of Linguistics, 0108, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093-0108
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The phenomena that classic transformational syntax handled by means of ‘raising’ rules pose an interesting challenge to theories that do not posit movement or derivation from underlying structures. An account of these phenomena is formulated in the context of cognitive grammar. Raising is analyzed as a special case of the metonymy that virtually all relational expressions exhibit in regard to their choice of overtly coded arguments. The transparency of these constructions—the fact that the main clause imposes no restrictions on the ‘raised’ NP—is explained with reference to the semantics of the governing predicates.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 71 , Issue 1 , March 1995 , pp. 1 - 62
Copyright
Copyright © 1995 by the Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Achard, Michel. 1993. Complementation in French: A cognitive perspective. San Diego: University of California dissertation.Google Scholar
Akatsuka, Noriko. 1979. Why tough-movement is impossible with possible. Chicago Linguistic Society 15.1–8.Google Scholar
Akmajian, Adrian. 1972. Getting tough. Linguistic Inquiry 3.373–7.Google Scholar
Authier, J.-Marc. 1991. V-governed expletives, case theory, and the projection principle. Linguistic Inquiry 22.721–40.Google Scholar
Berman, Arlene. 1973. A constraint on tough-movement. Chicago Linguistic Society 9.34–43.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1961. Syntactic blends and other matters. Lg. 37.366–81.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1967. Apparent constituents in surface structure. Word 23.47–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1973. Ambient it is meaningful too. Journal of Linguistics 9.261–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1977. Meaning and form. London & New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Borkin, Ann. 1973. To be and not to be. Chicago Linguistic Society 9.44–56.Google Scholar
Borkin, Ann. 1974. Raising to object position: A study in the syntax and semantics of clause merging. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan dissertation.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, and Grimshaw, Jane. 1978. The syntax of free relatives in English. Linguistic Inquiry 9.331–91.Google Scholar
Brody, Michael. 1993. θ-theory and arguments. Linguistic Inquiry 24.1–23.Google Scholar
Brugman, Claudia. 1988. The syntax and semantics of HAVE and its complements. Berkeley: University of California dissertation.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. 1968. Idiomaticity as an anomaly in the Chomskyan paradigm. Foundations of Language 4.109–27.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1973. Conditions on transformations. A Festschrift for Morris Halle, ed. by Anderson, Stephen R. and Kiparsky, Paul, 232–86. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1977. On WH-movement. Formal syntax, ed. by Culicover, Peter W., Wasow, Thomas, and Akmajian, Adrian, 71–132. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Croft, William A. 1991. Syntactic categories and grammatical relations: The cognitive organization of information. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Deane, Paul. 1991. Limits to attention: A cognitive theory of island phenomena. Cognitive Linguistics 2.1–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deane, Paul. 1992. Grammar in mind and brain: Explorations in cognitive syntax. (Cognitive linguistics research, 2.) Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 1981. An interpretation of split ergativity and related phenomena. Lg. 57.626–57.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1977. Where have all the adjectives gone? Studies in Language 1.19–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foley, William A., and Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1977. On the viability of the notion ‘subject’ in universal grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society 3.293–320.Google Scholar
Frantz, Donald G. 1980. Ascensions to subject in Blackfoot. Berkeley Linguistics Society 6.293–9.Google Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 1970. Idioms within a transformational grammar. Foundations of Language 6.22–42.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1979. On understanding grammar. (Perspectives in neurolinguistics and psycholinguistics.) New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1992. Argument structure constructions. Berkeley: University of California dissertation.Google Scholar
Gorbet, Larry. 1973. The isthmus of anaphor (and idiomaticity). Stanford Occasional Papers in Linguistics 3.25–34.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1975. Tough and the trace theory of movement rules. Linguistic Inquiry 6.437–47.Google Scholar
Johnson, Mark. 1987. The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, Michael A. 1983. Getting ‘tough’ with Wh-movement. Journal of Linguistics 19.129–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keenan, Edward L., and Comrie, Bernard. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8.63–99.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul, and Kiparsky, Carol. 1970. Fact. Progress in linguistics, ed. by Bierwisch, Manfred and Heidolph, Karl Erich, 143–73. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Kirsner, Robert S. 1979. The problem of presentative sentences in modern Dutch. (North-Holland linguistic series, 43.) Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Krzeszowski, Tomasz P. 1993. The axiological parameter in preconceptual image schemata. Conceptualizations and mental processing in language, ed. by Geiger, Richard A. and Rudzka-Ostyn, Brygida, 307–29. (Cognitive linguistics research, 3.) Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George, and Johnson, Mark. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lamiroy, Béatrice. 1987. The complementation of aspectual verbs in French. Lg. 63.278–98.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1974. Movement rules in functional perspective. Lg. 50.630–64.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1984. Active zones. Berkeley Linguistics Society 10.172–88.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1985. Observations and speculations on subjectivity. Iconicity in syntax, ed. by Haiman, John, 109–50. (Typological studies in language, 6.) Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987a. Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 1, Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987b. Nouns and verbs. Lg. 63.53–94.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987c. Grammatical ramifications of the setting/participant distinction. Berkeley Linguistics Society 13.383–94.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1988. A usage-based model. Topics in cognitive linguistics, ed. by Rudzka-Ostyn, Brygida, 127–61. (Current issues in linguistic theory, 50.) Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1990a. Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. (Cognitive linguistics research, 1.) Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1990b. Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics 1.5–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 2, Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1993a. Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 4.1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1993b. Universais of construal. Berkeley Linguistics Society 19.447–63.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1993c. Grammatical traces of some ‘invisible’ semantic constructs. Language Sciences 15.323–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lasnik, Howard, and Fiengo, Robert. 1974. Complement object deletion. Linguistic Inquiry 5.535–71.Google Scholar
Legendre, Géraldine. 1986. Object raising in French: A unified account. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4.137–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian. 1977. Starting points. Lg. 53.152–68.Google Scholar
Massam, Diane. 1984. Raising an exceptional case. Chicago Linguistic Society 20.281–300.Google Scholar
Nänni, Deborah L. 1980. On the surface syntax of constructions with cccsy-type adjectives. Lg. 56.568–81.Google Scholar
Newman, John. 1981. The semantics of raising constructions. San Diego: University of California dissertation.Google Scholar
Newman, John. 1982. Predicate adjuncts. Australian Journal of Linguistics 2.153–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 1970. On the alleged boundary between syntax and semantics. Foundations of Language 6.178–86.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 1990. Some issues in language origins and evolution. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 20.2.51–68.Google Scholar
Oehrle, R. T. 1979. A theoretical consequence of constituent structure in tough movement. Linguistic Inquiry 4.583–93.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David M. 1970. The two verbs begin. Readings in English transformational grammar, ed. by Jacobs, Roderick A. and Rosenbaum, Peter S., 107–19. Waltham, MA: Ginn.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, Peter S., and Postal, Paul M. 1983. The relational succession law. Studies in relational grammar 1, ed. by Perlmutter, David M., 30–80. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1987. Binding problems with experiencer verbs. Linguistic Inquiry 18.126–40.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 1989. Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 1974. On raising: One rule of English grammar and its theoretical implications. (Current studies in linguistics, 5.) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M., and Ross, John R. 1971. \Tough movement si, tough deletion no! Linguistic Inquiry 2.544–6.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, Peter S. 1967. The grammar of English predicate complement constructions. (Research monograph 47.) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ross, John R. 1967. Auxiliaries as main verbs. Studies in philosophical linguistics, vol. 1, ed. by Todd, William, 77–102. Evanston, IL: Great Expectations.Google Scholar
Ruwet, Nicolas. 1991. Syntax and human experience. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [Ed. and trans, by John Goldsmith.]Google Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold M. 1992. Cyclic rules without derivations. The cycle in linguistic theory, ed. by Denton, Jeannette Marshall, Chan, Grace P., and Canakis, Costas P., 237–62. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. [Chicago Linguistic Society 28, vol. 2, The parasession.]Google Scholar
Schachter, Paul. 1976. The subject in Philippine languages: Topic, actor, actor-topic, or none of the above? Subject and topic, ed. by Li, Charles N., 491–518. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Seiter, William J. 1983. Subject-direct object raising in Niuean. Studies in relational grammar 1, ed. by Perlmutter, David M., 317–59. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Soames, Scott, and Perlmutter, David M. 1979. Syntactic argumentation and the structure of English. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve E. 1990. From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1988. Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science 12.49–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, John R. 1989. Possessive genitives in English. Linguistics 27.663–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuggy, David. 1986. Noun incorporations in Nahuatl. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Pacific Linguistics Conference 2.455–70.Google Scholar
van Hoek, Karen. 1992. Paths through conceptual structure: Constraints on pronominal anaphora. San Diego: University of California dissertation.Google Scholar
Vandeloise, Claude. 1986. L'espace en français. Paris: Éditions du Seuil. [Translated as Spatial prepositions: A case study from French, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991.]Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1988. The semantics of grammar. (Studies in language companion series, 18.) Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar