Abstract

In this paper, we present a diachronic and synchronic analysis of raising and extraposition constructions in the historical Brown Corpus and the more contemporary English Web Corpus 2015. We begin by establishing two diachronic facts: first, raising constructions are used much more frequently than their semantically equivalent extraposition variants, and second, the distribution of raising and extraposition remains – rather exceptionally in comparison to other structures allowing for finite/non-finite variation – diachronically consistent from the beginning of the 20th century to 2015. We then supplement this unique diachronic distribution with an analysis of the most recent corpus data, which shows that the choice between the two semantically equivalent constructions is governed by distinct structural factors unique to each construction. Concretely, we show that the raising construction is frequently used as a relative clause, whereas the extraposition variant generally resists such a syntactic role. By contrast, we show that a prominent factor in favour of extraposition relates to the negative marker, which is placed with similar frequency both in the matrix and in the embedded clause of the extraposition construction in contrast to the raising variant, which uses the negative marker almost exclusively in the matrix clause. Lastly, we show that extraposition constructions contain modal verbs in the matrix clause more frequently than the raising variants and we tie this observation to the idea that the clausal composition of the extraposition construction is structurally more suited for expressing tentativeness.

Highlights

  • In this paper, we present a corpus-based analysis of the raising and extraposition constructions, exemplified by the sentence pair in (1) and (2).1(1) George is likely to have committed a crime.(2) It is likely that George committed a crime.The two constructions are interesting because they present a uniquely complex structural environment in which the use of finite and non-finite clauses alternates

  • We show that the extraposition construction involves a greater number of derivational steps, both related to agreement and syntactic movement, than the raising construction, which is why it is the cognitively most complex structure among the two

  • We have presented a diachronic and synchronic corpusbased analysis of two semantically equivalent constructions – the raising construction, in which an epistemic predicate is followed by a non-finite clause as its sole semantic argument (e.g., John seems to love Mary), and the extraposition construction, in which the same predicate introduces a finite clause (e.g., It seems that John loves Mary)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

We present a corpus-based analysis of the raising and extraposition constructions, exemplified by the sentence pair in (1) and (2).. The NP George is allowed to (and must) remain as the embedded grammatical subject, whereas the matrix subject position is filled by the pronoun it, which is semantically vacuous and obligatorily enters the structure to satisfy the formal requirement which states that a non-pro-drop language like English always has to have a phonologically overt NP in the grammatical subject position in finite clauses In this respect, the term extraposition refers to the fact that, unlike in the raising variant, all the constituents of the clausal complement follow the predicate that semantically selects for it (Radford 2004: 266–268).

Extracting the data
The Historical Distribution in the Brown Family Corpus
The Contemporary Distribution in the English Web Corpus 2015
Previous Account
The Set-Up of the Synchronic Analysis
The Use of Relative Pronouns Favours Raising
The Use of Negation is Syntactically Constrained in the Raising Construction
The Use of Modal Verbs in the Matrix Clause Favours Extraposition
Findings
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call