Abstract

Raising to Object (RtoObj), like other types of Raising configurations, features a determiner phrase (DP) in a dual-clausal relationship with both the matrix and the embedded clauses. RtoO is possible in English and a few other languages, most famously, Icelandic. However, it is not possible in many other languages, such as Spanish. As far as we can tell, insight into what licenses RtoObj is largely speculative. The main goal of this paper is to limit the range of possible hypotheses by pinpointing the source of the cross-linguistic difference using code-switching data. A priori, we could hypothesize two possible sources for the licensor of RtoObj: it could be a feature in the matrix clause or a feature in the infinitival complement. In this chapter, we present code-switching data that support the second option: English TdefP is linked to the licensing of RtoObj. We find that early Spanish/English bilinguals overwhelmingly prefer code-switched RtoObj samples when the infinitival complement is in English and they reject RtoObj when the complement is a Spanish infinitival. This suggests that Spanish Tdef is either different or altogether missing.

Highlights

  • Raising to Object ( RtoObj), like other types of Raising configurations, features a determiner phrase (DP) in a dual-clausal relationship with both the matrix and the embedded clauses

  • We find that early Spanish/English bilinguals overwhelmingly prefer code-switched RtoObj samples when the infinitival complement is in English and they reject RtoObj when the complement is a Spanish infinitival

  • The Raising to Object Languages 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIsEwWitches differed by English CP1/2 (English CP2 > English CP1), whereas the ba1s0eloinf e15 Object Control condition did not

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Raising to Object ( RtoObj), like other types of Raising configurations, features a determiner phrase (DP) in a dual-clausal relationship with both the matrix and the embedded clauses. 1. John believes Mary to be intelligent. In (1), Mary is thematically linked to the infinitival complement—‘Mary’ is an argument of ‘being intelligent’. It has the grammatical function of object in the matrix clause, as is revealed using common tests, such as passivization or case morphology: 2. B. Mary is believed to be intelligent.

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
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