Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T20:11:21.102Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Expressions of Distance and Raising

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 December 2008

Kjell-Åke Gunnarson
Kjell-Åke Gunnarson
Affiliation:
Institut d'études romanes, University of Lund, Sölvegatan 7, 22362 Lund, Sweden.
Get access

Abstract

It is shown, on the basis of Swedish and French data, that expressions of distance may be raising predicates. Given a raising analysis, two interesting consequences follow: (a) One of two widely adopted hypotheses must be abandoned (the idea that an S with a filled Comp is never transparent to government, and the idea that French de and Swedish att, when introducing infinitival complements, are complementizers); (b) Raising predicates may be drawn from lexical categories other than V and A.

Type
Research Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , June 1989 , pp. 1 - 12
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. 1983. Island Effects, Subjacency, ECP/Connectedness and Reconstruction, ms. Universití di Venezia.Google Scholar
Emonds, J. 1985. A Unified Theory of Syntactic Categories. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunnarson, K-Å. 1986. Loin de X, prés de X et paraéllement ά X: syntagmes prépositionnels, adjectivaux ou adverbiaux? Le Fran çais Moderne 54, 1–23.Google Scholar
Gunnarson, K-A. 1987. Expressions of Distance, Resultativity and the Theory of 0-roles, ms. Institut d'études romanes, University of Lund.Google Scholar
Higgins, F. R. 1973. The Pseudo-Cleft Construction in English. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Holmberg, A. 1986. Word Order and Syntactic Features in the Scandinavian Languages and English. Dept. of General Linguistics, University of Stockholm.Google Scholar
Huot, H. 1981. Constructions infinitives du francais. Geneva: Librairie Droz.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. 1981a. On Certain Differences between French and English. Lingustic Inquiry 12, 349–371. Also in Kayne (1984).Google Scholar
Kayne, R. 1981b. ECP Extensions. Linguistic Inquiry 12, 93–133. Also in Kayne (1984).Google Scholar
Kayne, R. 1984. Connectedness and Binary Branching. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lasnik, H. & Saito, M. 1984. On the Nature of Proper Government. Lingustic Inquiry 15, 235–289.Google Scholar
Platzack, C. 1986a. Comp, Infi, and Germanic Word Order. In Hellan, L. & Christensen, K. K. (eds.), Topics in Scandinavian Syntax. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Platzack, C. 1986b. The Structure of Infinitival Clauses in Danish and Swedish. In Dahi, Ö. & Holmberg, A. (eds.). Scandinavian Syntax. University of Stockholm: Dept. of general linguistics.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. 1982. Issues in Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruwet, N. 1972. Théorie syntaxique et syntaxe du francais. Paris: Editions clu Seuil.Google Scholar
Ruwet, N. 1982. Grammaire des insultes et autres études. Paris: Editions du Seuil.Google Scholar
Ruwet, N. 1983. Montée et Contrôle: Une question ά revoir? In Hersiund, M., Mørdrup, O. & Sørensen, F. (eds.), Analyses grammaticales du français. Revue Romane numéro special 24. Copenhagen: Akadetnisk Forlag, 17–37.Google Scholar
Vergnaud, J.-R. 1985. Dépendances et niveaux de représentation en syntaxe. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar