Conclusion
M (1984) documents persuasively the existence of Irish raising constructions which, viewed from an ordinary constituent structure or transformational perspective, seem unique and bizarre and which, viewed from certain particular theoretical perspective, e.g., that of the Government-Binding framework, seem anomalous. The present remarks have aimed to show that viewed in relational terms, Irish raising constructions can unproblematically be taken to manifest a type of raising identical to that of better known languages like English and French. The relevant differences between Irish and English or between Irish and French have to do in these terms not with raising per se but with the interaction of the raising structure with other logically independent grammatical phenomena. In particular, it has been suggested that Irish raising structures manifest the same sort of dummy structure found in French examples like (18b), as represented in (19), with the chief difference being that the dummy arc determines that the earlier 2 demotes to 3 in Irish, rather than to 8, as in French. Finally, the relevant dummy 1 arcs in Irish self-erase, so that the Irish construction contains no phonologically visible dummies, while those in French in general do not and manifest as il.
Looked at in these terms, the apparently unique Irish raising phenomenon is a combination of independently recognized elements. From the APG perspective, Irish raising constructions satisfy all relevant relational grammatical principles, e.g., the Relational Succession Law, the Final 1 Arc Law, the Stratal Uniqueness Law, the Demotion Ban, the Ghost Arc Law, and other conditions on arcs whose heads are dummy nominals; for the latter, see Johnson and Postal (1980, Chapter 9). Hence, while relatively superficial assumptions suggest that Irish raising requires broadening the class of phenomena allowed by grammatical theory (to permit raising to object of a preposition), internal to the relational framework sketched here, Irish raising fits into the narrowest constraints on natural language grammatical structure independently permitted by what (little) is so far known about languages other than Irish. This provides an argument for adopting the sort of perspective capable of reducing the apparent anomaly to the interaction of independently known grammatical features.Footnote 1
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
A good deal of the force of the argument depends, however, on providing a similar analysis of the Modern Greek case mentioned in footnote 1. Unless some way can be found to reduce the apparent raising of 1s to object of a preposition in Greek to more widely documented phenomena, there is little reason to reject the idea that Irish might manifest such raising. Unfortunately, an analysis of the Greek situation reducing it to better-known structural features seems far less apparent than was the case for Irish and no one seems to have even tried to develop such an account to this point.
References
Burzio, Luigi: 1986, Intransitive Verbs and Italian Auxiliaries, D. Reidel, Dordrecht.
Carden, Guy, Lyn Gordon and Pamela Munro: forthcoming, ‘Raising Rules and the Projection Principle’.
Eung-Do Cook and Donna B. Gerdts (eds.): 1984, The Syntax of Native American Languages, Syntax and Semantics Volume 16, Academic Press, New York.
Couquaux, Daniel: 1981, ‘French Predication and Linguistic Theory’, in R. May and J. Koster (eds.), Levels of Syntactic Representation, Foris Publications, Dordrecht.
Davies, William: 1982, ‘2–3 Retreat, The Notion ‘Absolutive’, and Levels of Grammatical Relations’, in D. P. Flickinger et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the First West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
—: 1984a, ‘Demotion and Ambiguity in Choctaw’, in C. Rosen and L. Zaring (eds.), Cornell Working Papers in Linguistic Number 5, Department of Modern Languages and Linguistics, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
--: 1984b, ‘Antipassive: Choctaw Evidence for a Universal Characterization’, in Perlmutter and Rosen (1984).
—: 1986, Choctaw Clause Structure, D. Reidel, Dordrecht.
Dillon, Myles and Donncha ó Cróinín: 1961, Irish, The English Universities Press, London.
Dubinsky, Stanley and Carol Rosen: 1983, ‘A Bibliography on Relational Grammar through 1983 with Selected Titles on Lexical-Functional Grammar’, Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington, Indiana; also in Cornell University Working Papers in Linguistics, Number 5, Spring 1984.
Fauconnier, Gilles: 1974, La coréférence: syntaxe ou sémantique?, Editions du Seuil, Paris.
Gross, Maurice: 1968, Grammaire transformationnelle du français, syntaxe du verbe, Librairie Larousse, Paris.
Jake, Janice: 1983, Grammatical Relations in Imbabura Quechua, doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois.
James, Deborah: 1984, ‘Raising to Subject in Moose Cree: A Problem for Subjacency’, in Cook and Gerdts (1984).
Johnson, David E. and Paul M. Postal: 1980, Arc Pair Grammar, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
Joseph, Brian D.: 1979, ‘Raising to Oblique in Modern Greek’, in Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Meeting Berkeley Linguistics Society, Berkeley, California.
Kayne, Richard: 1975, French Syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Klokeid, Terry: 1978, ‘Nominal Inflection in Pamanyungan: A Case Study in Relational Grammar’, in Werner Abraham (ed.), Valence, Semantic Case and Grammatical Relations, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Marlett, Stephen A: 1984, ‘Switch-Reference and Subject Raising in Seri’, in Cook and Gerdts (1984).
McCloskey, James: 1979, Transformational Syntax and Model-Theoretic Semantics: A Case Study in Modern Irish, D. Reidel, Dordrecht.
—: 1980, ‘A Note on Modern Irish Verbal Nouns and the VP-Complement Analysis’, Linguistic Analysis 6, 459–471.
—: 1983, ‘A VP in a VSO Language?’, in G. Gazdar, E. Klein and G. Pullum (eds.), Order, Concord and Constituency, Foris Publications, Dordrecht.
—: 1984, ‘Raising, Subcategorization and Selection in Modern Irish’, NLLT 1, 441–485.
Milner, Jean-Claude: 1978, De la syntaxe à l'interprétation, Editions du Seuil, Paris.
Özkaragöz, Inci: 1982, ‘Transitivity and the Syntax of Middle Clauses in Turkish’, in Working Papers in Relational Grammar, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California.
Perez, Carolyn Harford: 1984, ‘Anaphoric Binding in Bantu’, in Papers from the Twentieth Regional Meeting Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago, Illinois.
Perlmutter, David M.: 1978, ‘Impersonal Passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis’, in Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting Berkeley Linguistics Society, Berkeley, California.
--: 1979, ‘Working 1s and Inversion in Italian, Japanese, and Quechua’, in Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Meeting Berkeley Linguistics Society, Berkeley, California, reprinted in Perlmutter and Rosen (1984).
—: 1982, ‘Syntactic Representation, Syntactic Levels, and the Notion of ‘Subject’’, in P. Jacobson and G. K. Pullum (eds.) The Nature of Syntactic Representation, D. Reidel, Dordrecht.
—: 1983a, Studies in Relational Grammar 1, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.
— 1, 141–200.
--: forthcoming, ‘Successor Objects, the Demotion Ban and the Class of Careers’.
Perlmutter, David M. and Paul M. Postal: 1983a, ‘The Relational Succession Law’, in Perlmutter (1983a).
--: 19i3b, ‘Toward a Universal Characterization of Passivization’, in Perlmutter (1983a).
--: 1983c, ‘Some Proposed Laws of Basic Clause Structure’, in Perlmutter (1983a).
--: 1984a, ‘The I-Advancement Exclusiveness Law’, in Perlmutter and Rosen (1984).
--: 1984b, ‘Impersonal Passives and Some Relational Laws’, in Perlmutter and Rosen (1984).
Perlmutter, David M. and Carol Rosen: 1984, Studies in Relational Grammar 2, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.
Pollock, Jean-Yves: 1981, ‘On Case and Impersonal Constructions’, in R. May and J. Koster (eds.), Levels of Syntactic Representation, Foris Publications, Dordrecht.
—: 1983, ‘Accord, chaines impersonnelles et variables’, Linguisticae Investigationes 7, 131–181.
Postal, Paul M.: 1982, ‘Some Arc Pair Grammar Descriptions’, in P. Jacobson and G. K. Pullum (eds.), The Nature of Syntactic Representation, D. Reidel, Dordrecht.
—: 1985a, ‘La dégradation de prédicat et un genre néglige de montée’, Recherches Linguistiques 13, 33–68.
—: 1985b, ‘French Indirect Object Cliticization and SSC/BT’, Linguistic Analysis 14, 111–172.
—: 1986, Studies of Passive Clauses, State University of New York Press, Albany, New York.
--: forthcoming, French Indirect Objects and Semi Objects.
Pullum, Geoffrey K.: 1982, ‘Syncategorematicity and English Infinitival To’, Glossa 16, 181–215.
Salih, Mahmud Husein: 1985, Aspects of Clause Structure in Standard Arabic: A Study in Relational Grammar, doctoral dissertation, State University of New York, Buffalo, New York.
Seiter, William: 1979, Studies in Niuean Syntax, doctoral dissertation, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California.
--: 1983, ‘Subject-Direct Object Raising in Niuean’, in Perlmutter (1983a).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
I am indebted to Marie-Madeleine Saphire for help with the French examples and to Frank Heny, David Johnson, David Perlmutter, Geoffrey Pullum, John Ross and several anonymous referees for critical comments on an earlier version. Special thanks are due to James McCloskey for a long and detailed communication providing much new relevant information not in McCloskey (1984). But responsibility for these comments is mine alone.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Postal, P.M. Why Irish raising is not anomalous. Nat Lang Linguist Theory 4, 333–356 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00133373
Received:
Revised:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00133373