Raising and Control Robert Levine Ohio State University levine.1@osu.edu Robert Levine 2019 5201 Raising and Control 1 / 21
Empty elements (1) a. It’s raining. b. There is a lion in the garage. ◮ What semantic content do it and there contribute? ◮ How should we treat the semantics of empty elements? ◮ Since when they combine with the properties corresponding to weather predicates they contribute nothing, ◮ we want some semantical operation allows a predicate to combine with an argument to yield absolutely no effect. ◮ Does the λ -calculus give us a way to do that?. Robert Levine 2019 5201 Raising and Control 2 / 21
Vacuous abstraction ◮ There is no way to avoid treating rain , snow , hail , and sleet as VPs which require it subjects. ◮ Each of these will combine with such a subject to yield S. ◮ Hence, they are functors on it arguments. ◮ It follows that the functions they correspond to combine with what it denotes to yield a proposition. ◮ But it does not denote a potential member of a set, since there is no linguistic expression specifying such a set element which can appear in place of it in such examples. ◮ Hence, in It rained , we do not want to say that rained has the semantics λy. rain ( y ) , since there is no denotation for it that can be a member of this set. ◮ In other words, we need a syntactic functor to apply to it that will not map any defined object to t . ◮ How about λy. rain ? Robert Levine 2019 5201 Raising and Control 3 / 21
◮ Remember that for any semantic terms φ which contains no variables, λα [ φ ]( β ) = φ for any α, β . ◮ Hence, regardless of what it denotes—call it ξ — [ [ It rained ] ] = λy [ rain ]( ξ ) = rain . ◮ On this treatment, rain denotes a constant function to the proposition rain , whose denotation is something like what is suggested by the phrasing, Rain is happening . ◮ This same treatment will work for dummy there , as in There is a unicorn in the garden . Robert Levine 2019 5201 Raising and Control 4 / 21
Dummy subjects ◮ Let’s suppose that we have three subtypes of NPs: NP it there normal ◮ Then we can force rain to combine with it as follows: (2) rain ; λx. rain ; it \ S allowing proofs such as (3): rained ; λx. rain ; it \ S it ; ξ ; it (3) it • rained ; λx [ rain ]( ξ ) ; S ................................ it • rained ; rain ; S Robert Levine 2019 5201 Raising and Control 5 / 21
Dummy subjects and auxiliaries ◮ What about (4) then? (4) It was raining. ◮ What is the VP selecting it here? ◮ Where does the it \ valence requirement originate? ◮ So what can you conclude about is ? ◮ Yes: is must adopt the subject type of its argument VP as its own. ◮ How can it do that? Robert Levine 2019 5201 Raising and Control 6 / 21
Revisiting VP ◮ We’ve used VP as a convenient symbol for NP \ S and VP α for NP \ S α ◮ But here we need to ensure that the subtype of the subject is shared between the valent of the argument VP and the valent of the auxiliary functor VP. ◮ The VP symbol ‘conceals’ the properties of the argument, spotlighting only those of the output type. ◮ So it looks as though we are going to have to rethink the notation we’ve used somewhat. ◮ Let’s say that is is actually ( γ \ S fin ) \ ( γ \ S prog ). ◮ Then we can prove it is raining as follows: Robert Levine 2019 5201 Raising and Control 7 / 21
It is raining is ; λP.P ; ( γ \ S fin ) \ ( γ \ S prog ) raining ; λx. [ rain ] ; it \ S prog is • raining ; λx. rain ; it \ S fin it ; ξ ; it it • is • raining ; λx [ rain ]( ξ ) ; S fin ...................................... it • is • raining ; rain ; S fin ◮ This sharing of subject arguments is required for all the auxiliaries: (5) a. It had rained. b. It will rain. ◮ And we expect that this argument-sharing property will create ‘chains’ of shared subject values: (6) It must have been raining. Robert Levine 2019 5201 Raising and Control 8 / 21
Raising predicates ◮ Should we add this subject-sharing property to the NICE properties as a diagnostic for auxiliary status? ◮ That would be the right move if all predicates which structure-shared with their VP argument also displayed the NICE properties. ◮ But that’s not the case: (7) a. It began to rain./* Began it to rain? b. It seems to be raining./Seems it to be raining? c. It appears to have rained overnight./*Appears it to have rained overnight? d. It’s likely to rain tonight./*Likely it to rain? ◮ Adjectives such as (un)likely , certain and sure support this subject-sharing (= raising ) behavior, ◮ a sure sign that it’s not diagnostic for auxiliaryhood. Robert Levine 2019 5201 Raising and Control 9 / 21
Lexical entries for Raising predicates ◮ So how shall we characterize the Raising predicates? ◮ We already know a bit about that, since auxiliaries belong to the class. ◮ So seem will be ( γ \ S ) / ( γ \ S ) . ◮ But what else? ◮ What did you notice about all the non-auxiliary Raising verbs we’ve looked at? ◮ Yes: they’re followed by infinitival expressions. ◮ That means we need to determine the right way to characterize these expressions, right now!. Robert Levine 2019 5201 Raising and Control 10 / 21
Capturing infinitives: what kind of subtype does it yield? ◮ You’ve already seen the critical data: to displays the ellipsis pattern. ◮ So that means. . . ? ◮ So as an auxiliary, it has the argument structure ( γ \ S ) / ( γ \ S ) . ◮ What should the output S be? ◮ It can’t be S fin or we’d get * John to go to the store . ◮ It can’t be S bse or we’d get * John will to go to the store . . . . . . . ◮ ◮ and the same holds for S prog , S perf , etc. ◮ Conclusion: we need a separate subtype for to + its arguments. ◮ How about inf ? Robert Levine 2019 5201 Raising and Control 11 / 21
Capturing infinitives: what kind of subtype does it combine with? ◮ So now we have ( γ \ S inf ) / ( γ \ S ) . ◮ But what about the input? What subtype of S is involved there? ◮ In other words, what kind of VP (or whatever) does to combine with? ◮ You know how to figure that one out. (8) a. Mary seems to be worried about something. b. John began to be worried about the job offer. c. For John to be awarded the contract, a lot would have to change. Robert Levine 2019 5201 Raising and Control 12 / 21
Wrapping up ◮ So, the specification ( γ \ S nonaux ) / ( γ \ S inf ) defines the class of raising verbs ◮ What about raising adjectives such as likely ? (9) John likely to change his mind? You can’t be serious. ◮ So ( γ \ S nonaux ) / ( γ \ S inf ) looks good here too. ◮ Things are a little more complicated than this. . . ◮ but basically, that’s the story on the syntax of raising verbs. ◮ What about their semantics? ◮ In particular, what about (10)? (10) It began to rain. ◮ Does it make sense to say that began denotes a relation between an individual and a property? ◮ So if not, what does it actually denote? Robert Levine 2019 5201 Raising and Control 13 / 21
Semantics of raising verbs ◮ How about the following: ◮ Begin is defined with respect to some some contextually determined time interval ∆ t 0 , ◮ and applies to an event which has been asserted via the proposition expressed by the sentence ◮ with the semantic action of identifying the first interval ∆ t e φ of that event’s temporal duration with ∆ t 0 . ] ∆ t 0 = 1 iff ∆ t 0 = ∆ t e φ ◮ In other words, [ [ begin ( φ )] ◮ So begin actually denotes an operator which applies to propositions and imposes an identity between a certain background interval on the one hand and the initial interval of a specific event which is a guarantor of the proposition’s truth, ◮ the point being that it is an operator on propositions, not a relationship between properties on the one hand and individuals on the other, ◮ making it very much like the denotation of a modal auxiliary. Robert Levine 2019 5201 Raising and Control 14 / 21
More on raising semantics ◮ Likewise, for It seems to be raining , ◮ which we can characterize informally as assertion that the proposition expressed by it is raining has a greater than random chance of being true based on evidence that the speaker takes to be generally relevant. ◮ Here again, the semantic action of seem is an operator which takes a proposition as its argument (in this case, mapping it to a certain level of confidence in accepting the truth of the proposition). Robert Levine 2019 5201 Raising and Control 15 / 21
Control verbs ◮ Consider the two cases in (11): � a. began � (11) John to play the piano. b. tried ◮ These seem very similar in form. ◮ But do they behave in the same way? � i. began � (12) a. It to rain. ii. *tried � i. began � b. There to be some indication that a verdict had ii. *tried been reached. � i. began � c. Some headway to be made on the project. ii. *tried ◮ Conclusion: meaningless material cannot be the subject of try Robert Levine 2019 5201 Raising and Control 16 / 21
Recommend
More recommend
