Claire Halpert (U of Minnesota)
Raising parameters
In this talk, I investigate cross-linguistic variation in raising constructions, proposing a unified account for
the derivation of hyperraising and standard raising. I argue that the presence or absence of these constructions in a given language can be determined by independent properties of CP and TP in the language,
including: 1) whether CPs or infinitival phrases are phi-goals and 2) whether T shows an EPP effect (and
if so, what elements can satisfy it). I show that variation in these factors can capture the different raising
profiles found in Zulu, Makhuwa, and English, and Uyghur.
Languages with hyperraising constructions permit a subject to undergo A-movement out of an embedded
finite CP (e.g. Harford Perez, 1985; Ura, 1994; Rodrigues, 2004; Diercks, 2012). In Durban Zulu (Bantu),
raising out of a finite CP is optional (1a-b), while raising out of a nonfinite clause is ungrammatical (1c):
(1) a.
ku- bonakala [ ukuthi uZinhle
u- zo- xova ujeqe
]
17S- seems
that AUG.1Zinhle 1S- FUT- make AUG.1steamed.bread
b.
uZinhlei
u- bonakala [ ukuthi ti u- zo- xova ujeqe
]
AUG .1Zinhlei 1S- seem
that ti 1S- FUT- make AUG.1steamed.bread
* uZinhlei
u- bonakala [ ti uku- (zo-) xova ujeqe
]
AUG .1Zinhlei 1S- seem
ti INF- (FUT-) make AUG.1steamed.bread
‘It seems that Zinhle will make bread.’
This pattern contrasts with the familiar pattern of raising in languages like English, where a subject must
raise out of a non-finite TP, but cannot raise out of a finite TP/CP:
c.
(2)
a.
Johni seems ti to eat pizza.
(3) a.
It seems that John eats pizza.
b. * It seems John to eat pizza.
b. * Johni seems that ti eats pizza.
While the English-type pattern has been analyzed in terms of case/Activity (non-finite subjects lack
nominative) or the PIC (finite CPs are impenetrable by higher probes) (e.g. Chomsky, 2000, 2001), these
solutions are not straightforwardly adaptable to hyperraising, where A-movement takes place out of an
apparent full CP containing a finite/agreeing T. A common solution is to argue that the embedded clause,
despite appearances, is defective, lacking a phase boundary and nominative case (e.g., Rodrigues, 2004;
Zeller, 2006; Ferreira, 2009).
I propose instead that PIC effects in raising arise due to an A-over-A configuration, where the embedded
CP is a closer goal for the matrix T than the embedded subject. In Zulu, hyperraising is available because
matrix T sequentially Agrees: first with the embedded CP, which independently displays phi-goal behavior,
rendering it invisible for future probing by T (Rackowski and Richards, 2005); and then with the embedded
subject. Evidence for multiple Agree relations appears in the subject agreement morphology of hyperraising
predicates, which may optionally track either the raised DP or the embedded CP.
I further argue that the lack of raising out of nonfinite clauses in Zulu arises from the same A-overA issue. Nonfinite clauses in Zulu behave like nominals on a variety of measures (e.g. phi-agreement,
associative constructions), so an embedded infinitive will always be a closer phi-goal to matrix T than the
subject it contains. If embedded CPs and embedded infinitives both involve an A-over-A configuration in
Zulu, why is a second Agree operation (causing raising) only available for CP? I propose that this difference
is due to the fact that the Zulu EPP is only satisfied by DPs – and not CPs: although both are potential
phi-goals, CPs never surface in Spec,TP. Outside of hyperraising, agreement with T requires movement to
Spec,TP (as Baker, 2008, a.o. note for Bantu generally), so phi-agreement and the EPP are typically satisfied
via a single operation; when T finds a goal that cannot move to Spec,TP (a CP) it can engage in a second
Agree operation, satisfying to satisfy the EPP.
1
The ingredients that derive hyperraising in Zulu can also yield an extremely restricted pattern: no raising. Makhuwa (Bantu) also has rich phi-agreement and treats nonfinite clauses as nominals. Unlike Zulu,
Makhuwa lacks EPP: agreeing subjects may stay in vP (Van der Wal, 2014).
(4)
a. Wakisírwá a-náá-phíyá
alétto
16.island 2S-PRES . DJ-arrive 2.guests
‘On the island arrive guests.’ (vdW14, (24b))
b.
E-náá-rúpá
epúla!
9S-PRES . DJ-rain 9.rain
‘It is raining!’ (vdW14, (30))
In addition to the lack of EPP, Makhuwa differs from Zulu in another major respect: it apparently
completely lacks raising constructions (Van der Wal, 2014). Extending the analysis of Zulu, this absence of
raising in Makhuwa is expected: both CPs and nonfinite clauses are both potential goals for T, and so will
always be closer than the embedded subject. Without an EPP, nothing in Makhuwa impels the second Agree
operation that yields hyperraising in Zulu.
English, unlike Zulu and Makhuwa, does not nominalize in situ nonfinite clauses (though as Bresnan,
2001, notes, nonfinite TPs that undergo movement in English show fundamentally different properties,
behaving as though they project DP structure), so I propose that no A-over-A configuration arises here,
allowing the standard raising pattern in (2). CPs, by contrast, do give rise to an A-over-A configuration.
Unlike in Zulu, however, CPs in English are capable of satisfying the EPP, so T never probes a second time,
ruling out hyperraising. In English, CP goals of T result in optional movement of the CP; the EPP can also
be satisfied via insertion of an expletive in these cases, just as in Zulu. I suggest that the availability of
a preverbal CP hinges on prosody/focus properties of the predicate: when the verb is followed by heavy
material, the CP may raise:
(5) a.
That the world is round seems probable.
b. * That the world is round seems.
Finally, Asarina (2011) argues that Uyghur (Turkic), a language where embedded clauses are typically
nominalized, exhibits purely EPP-driven raising. She shows that when an adjectival predicate embeds an
NP-sized nominalized complement, the subject of the nominalized clause raises to matrix Spec,TP; when an
adjectival predicate embeds a DP-sized nominalized complement, the entire embedded clause raises. Based
on independent evidence, Uyghur seems to be a language where DPs can satisfy the EPP while NPs cannot;
on the account proposed here, the resulting raising pattern is expected: like Zulu, Uyghur seems to allow
hyperraising when the containing category (NP in this case) is not a goal that can satisfy the EPP.
This account unifies disparate patterns of raising and makes predictions about the possible range of
variation by proposing independent parameters that conspire to yield different raising profiles. In particular,
I argue that the status of CP and TP as potential goals for the matrix clause, combined with the type of EPP
effects present, determines whether a language will permit raising out of a particular clause. One promising
avenue for future research is raising out of subjunctive clauses, a relatively common phenomenon; while
previous research has focused on finiteness as the relevant characteristic for the availability of raising, this
proposal suggests that status as a goal for phi- and/or EPP may be more relevant. Beyond capturing the
raising patterns discussed here and providing a roadmap for investigating other variations, this analysis adds
to a growing body of work on the PIC, showing evidence that PIC effects can be obviated by multiple Agree
relations (e.g. Rackowski and Richards, 2005; Halpert, 2012; Richards and Van Urk, to appear).
Selected References: Asarina, A. Case in Uyghur and Beyond, PhD, MIT. Harford, C. 1985: Aspects
of complementation in three Bantu languages, PhD, Wisconsin. Richards, N. & C. Van Urk, to appear:
Two components of long-distance extraction: Successive cyclicity in Dinka, LI. Rodrigues, C. 2004: Impoverished morphology and A-movement out of case domains, PhD, Maryland. Ura, H. 1994: Varieties of
raising and the feature-based bare phrase structure theory, PhD, MIT. Van der Wal, J. 2014: Parameterising
Case: other evidence from Bantu, Ms, Cambridge. Zeller, J. 2006: Raising out of finite CP in Nguni: the
case of fanele. SALALS 24.
2