Historical Syntax and Linguistic Theory 2009
DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199560547.003.0009
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Syntactic change as chain reaction: the emergence of hyper‐raising in Brazilian Portuguese

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0
1

Year Published

2010
2010
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3
3
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
0
3
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…For instance, Lasnik and Boeckx (2006: 117) distinguish Super‐Raising (‘operations which move an element across a closer potential checker’; see also Salih 1985, Ouhalla 1994, Ura 1994, 1996) from Hyper‐Raising (‘an element appears to have done too much checking’), and Fernández‐Salgueiro (2008) distinguishes Hyper‐Raising (in which the matrix verb agrees with the moved DP) from Further‐Raising (in which the matrix verb does not agree with the moved DP). See also Nunes (2008), Martins and Nunes (2009), and Zwart 1997, who argues such examples are cases of non‐raising or topicalization.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For instance, Lasnik and Boeckx (2006: 117) distinguish Super‐Raising (‘operations which move an element across a closer potential checker’; see also Salih 1985, Ouhalla 1994, Ura 1994, 1996) from Hyper‐Raising (‘an element appears to have done too much checking’), and Fernández‐Salgueiro (2008) distinguishes Hyper‐Raising (in which the matrix verb agrees with the moved DP) from Further‐Raising (in which the matrix verb does not agree with the moved DP). See also Nunes (2008), Martins and Nunes (2009), and Zwart 1997, who argues such examples are cases of non‐raising or topicalization.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…another embedded DP. Along the same lines, Fernández-Salgueiro (2008), Martins and Nunes (2009), and Ademola-Adeoye (2011) present cross-linguistic evidence for the existence of what they refer to as 'hyper raising'.…”
Section: Finite Raising Accountsmentioning
confidence: 86%
“…I show that the two should be analyzed as two distinct structures by virtue of the fact that they exhibit different structural and interpretive characteristics. Additionally, the chapter assesses the extent to which existing analyses, namely the 'finite' raising accounts (Copy Raising by Postdam and Runner 2001; Superraising by Ura 1994Ura , 1996Ura , 2007Hyper raising by Ura 1994, Fernández-Salgueiro 2008, Martins & Nunes 2009, Ademola-Adeoye 2011and Further raising by Fernández-Salgueiro 2008) and the base-generated account, i.e. Proleptic NP (Davies 2000(Davies , 2004(Davies , 2005a(Davies , 2010, can naturally capture the Sundanese facts.…”
Section: Structure Of the Studymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Primeiro, dentro de uma perspectiva tradicional dos infinitivos no português, o fato de infinitivos canonicamente considerados não-flexionados possibilitarem complementos infinitivos com flexão parece ser inesperado, já que, somente infinitivos flexionados com traços- completos e atribuidor de Caso apresentam concordância morfológica. Em segundo lugar, quando comparados com a perspectiva deNunes (2008Nunes ( , 2009, notamos que os predicados-L selecionam apenas por complementos infinitivos com traços- incompletos e que podem vir a ser realizados morfologicamente 111 , diferentemente dos casos em (278) a (279), em que os complementos infinitivos podem sempre ter traços- completos e licenciar um sujeito com Caso.2.9 Conclusão do capítuloNeste capítulo, investigamos o licenciamento do sujeito nulo em orações subjuntivas do português brasileiro. Observamos que o controle obrigatório é atestado em caso de subjuntivos-L e subjuntivos-A, porém o controle obrigatório não é possível em subjuntivos-R. Além disso, comportamentos opostos quanto a diferentes propriedades sintáticas diferem o subjuntivo-R dos subjuntivos-L e subjuntivos-A, como o quadro abaixo resume: desses contrastes, propomos que os subjuntivos-R e infinitivos competem derivacionalmente em contextos como em (282), considerando que eles compartilham de uma mesma numeração por serem ambos defectivos em Tempo.…”
unclassified