Revisiting the connection between (hyper)raising and evidentiality
Daniel Greeson
September 2024 

As long-distance A-dependencies such as hyperraising are discovered in more and more languages, syntactic theory must determine what makes hyperraising languages unique in being able to license A-movement out of finite clauses/CPs, and what sets these languages apart from languages like English which are traditionally understood to only license clause-bound A-movement. Currently, many analyses of hyperraising in the literature implicitly or explicitly assume that hyperraising is ruled out by default, but may be facilitated if a given CP is somehow "defective'' or is "deactivated'' as a barrier by some prior operation (Zyman 2024). In this paper, I paint a very different picture in which hyperraising is in principle allowed as long as it obeys the θ-criterion. I focus in particular on a documented connection between indirect perception/evidence predicates and hyperraising in Cantonese and Vietnamese (Lee and Yip 2024), which I argue is best captured in terms of the θ-criterion rather than the phase-deactivation analysis proposed in Lee and Yip (2024). After discussing my new analysis of the Cantonese/Vietnamese facts, I show that this analysis correctly predicts that hyperraising may be allowed even in English as long as the θ-criterion is obeyed.

Format:	[ pdf ]
Reference:	lingbuzz/008441 (please use that when you cite this article)
Published in:	Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 31.1 (PLC48 Proceedings)
keywords:	hyperraising, raising, a-movement, evidentiality, perception, theta criterion, argument structure, syntax
previous versions:	v1 [September 2024]
Downloaded:	569 times

 

[ edit this article | back to article list ]