|
Abstract Abstracts: Adjectival Raising predicates and tough-predicates in English both denote abstract states or attributes, the two of which accommodate EXPERIENCER argument between their matrix and subordinate clauses. However, there still exist the following inadequacies in relevant studies: the maintaining of idiomatic connotation, the VP ellipsis, the state / event secondary predicate, (non) animacy, and scopal interaction with quantifiers. On the basis of data contrasts, the present article analyzes the systematic differences between the two constructions in terms of syntactic structures and semantic interpretations, and explores the phase approach to their derivations. The phase-based optimal proposal reveals the crucial contrasts between the relevant two constructions: adjectival raising predicates c-selects phasal categories as their complements, whereas tough-predicates non-phasal categories, which may well correlate to the systematic differences between the two constructions. This view harbors theoretical advantage, though more empirical data are needed to consolidate it.
Key words: Minimalist Program; Phase theory; Raising constructions; Tough-constructions; sub-categorization; complement status
|
|
|
|
|
|
