<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="W06-1524">
  <Title>Reconsidering Raising and Experiencers in English</Title>
  <Section position="4" start_page="159" end_page="160" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
2 Establishing Argumenthood
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> Before embarking upon a discussion of the consequences of Frank's ternary branching structure, a more straightforward solution must be considered. Instead of treating it as a part of the seem-headed tree, one could attempt to formulate an argument that the prepositional phrase bearing the experiencer is introduced as a syntactic adjunct. This could be conceivably be accomplished through the use of one of the two trees of Figure 4. These are adjunct auxiliary trees, recursive on VP, which would introduce an experiencer prepositional phrase at either the left or right periphery of the VP, respectively.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> periencer prepositional phrase While an anonymous reviewer points out that considering the experiencer to be an argument of seem is quite uncontroversial, there does appear to be some evidence that a prepositional phrase of this form, serving to introduce something akin to an experiencer, can exist independent of the pred- null icate seem: (3) a. ? John to me likes coffee.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> b. John likes coffee to me.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4">  While the first example here sounds quite marginal to the ears of most native speakers, the second sentence is perfectly acceptable, and is a likely paraphrase of a sentence such as John seems/appears to like coffee to me. This suggests at least the possibility that the prepositional phrase bearing the experiencer might be considered an adjunct1. However, in the case of a sentence such as (2a), it can be easily demonstrated that adjunction of the prepositional phrase as an independent auxiliary tree is not an option. Adjunction of the right-recursive VP tree of Figure 4 into the VP node of either tree of Figure 1 would, after all the trees were composed, yield one of the following string orders:  (4) a. * John seems to to me like coffee.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> b. * John to me seems to like coffee.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="6">  As shown, there is no way to derive the medial experiencer string-order using a simple VPadjunction tree. This provides clear evidence that the mechanics of TAG derivation force an analysis where at least the medial experiencer must enter the derivation as a part of the seem auxiliary, giving further thrust to the contention that the experiencer here is indeed an argument of seem. In turning to the experiencer in final position, matters are less clear-cut, as there is a viable structure in which the prepositional phrase can adjoin to the seem auxiliary and appear at the end of the sentence, using the left-recursive tree of Figure 4. Recalling the examples of (3), it is possibly even more important to establish the argumenthood of this position, as there are strikingly similar sentences in which the equivalent prepositional phrase appears to be a bona fide adjunct. For the final experiencers of seem, evidence can be provided to show that the prepositional phrase  is not opaque to extraction, and therefore not an adjunct: (5) a. The woman whoma0 John seemed to like coffee to ta0 kept refilling his cup.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="7"> b. John seems to like coffee to the waitress. Her boss, too.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="8">  rived from a raising structure from which the raising predicate seem was subsequently elided can be easily dismissed. Aside from employing a host of tests to identify elision phenomena, one must simply observe that the verb like appears with finite tense, a distinct anomaly if one were to treat it as having been part of a raising structure.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="9"> c. Whoa0 is it that you saw the woman who seemed to like coffee to hima0 ? In (5a), it is quite clear that the experiencer can be relativised out of the final position with no difficulty at all. Similarly, the stripping case in (5b), where it also seems to Mary's boss that John likes coffee, indicates that the experiencer her boss can be extraposed from the sentence final position, and the rest of the sentence stripped away. Finally, the use of a resumptive pronoun to repair the complex noun phrase constraint violation in (5c) provides further proof that the final-position prepositional phrase is not opaque to extraction. This is thus an argument position, part of the seem-headed auxiliary. As such, the question left at the end of Section 1 must now be answered: can the ternary-branching auxiliary tree account for independent syntactic observations related to this particular structure?</Paragraph>
  </Section>
  <Section position="5" start_page="160" end_page="162" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
3 An Alternative View
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> At first glance, Frank's ternary branching structure is reminiscent of early accounts of ditransitive verbs. Such structures were famously argued against in Larson (1988), and subsequently re-examined in Harley (2002). In these treatments, a ternary structure is replaced with a VP-shell structure, as schematised in Figure 5.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> In the lower VP, the goal and theme of a ditransitive verb are projected as the specifier and complement, respectively. The verb itself then raises to an upper VP, which supports the agent of the ditransitive predicate. The motivation for adopting this structure lay in the observation of c-command phenomena between the goal and theme  positions. In a flat ternary structure, mutual c-command between these two positions would be expected, however Larson gives considerable data to argue that mutual c-command does not exist between these two positions.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> In looking at the tree from Figure 3, it is clear that straightforward considerations of mutual c-command will not be informative, as one of the ternary branches of the seem-headed tree will contain the remainder of the embedded clause material which exists below the Ta3 adjunction site. However, what can be observed is whether or not a c-command relation exists between the experiencer of seem and the embedded clause theme. This will speak to the matter of the possible transposition of the VP complements: if they do indeed exist in a flat structure, then the experiencer should c-command the embedded clause theme from both the medial and final positions2.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> In Storoshenko (2006), it is argued that a seem auxiliary with an experiencer should be analysed with a similar VP-shell analysis. Among the evidence provided, three of Larson's c-command tests are employed to illustrate that the experiencer of seem does c-command the embedded clause object when in the medial position:  (6) a. John seems to nobody to like anything. (NPI Licensing) b. John seems to every boya0 to like hima0 .</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="6"> For negative polarity licensing and bound variable readings to obtain in these cases, the experiencer must c-command the direct object. Similarly, the fact that extraction of the embedded clause theme (which would not in itself be the product of an ill-formed elementary tree), is ungrammatical here. This is a straightforward superiority violation, again illustrating that the experiencer c-commands the embedded theme.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="7"> The opposite is demonstrated to be the case where the experiencer is in the final position:  (7) a. * John seems to like anything to nobody. null b. John seems to like him  Here, the negative polarity item is not licensed, and a bound variable reading does not obtain. However, the embedded theme can be extracted in the case where the experiencer is in the final position. These results demonstrate that in the final position, the experiencer does not c-command the embedded object, contrary to what would be expected of a flat ternary structure like that of Figure 4. The experiencer must not be in a position where it c-commands the embedded clause material beneath Ta3 . The elementary trees for seem with an experiencer in medial and final position, respectively, are given in Figure 6.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="8">  As in the case of the ditransitive structure of Figure 5, there is verb movement here. The lower VP supports the experiencer and the Ta3 foot node, essential if recursivity is to be maintained, while seem itself raises to an upper VP projection. Unlike the ditransitive case, seem projects no position for an agent argument, which retains Frank's argumentation for having an elementary tree rooted in  Ta3 . Crucially, this movement is licensed within TAG, as it remains local to this one elementary tree, and has no impact upon the recursive nature of the tree.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="9"> In terms of the relationship between the two experiencer positions, there are two possibilities, both of which have been explored in the parallel literature on ditransitives. In the pattern of Larson (1988), the two trees of Figure 6 would be derivationally related, one having been derived from the other. Countering this is the approach of Harley (2002), in which similar alternations are argued to be the result of lexically distinct (yet phonetically indistinguishable) predicates projecting different syntactic structures. The second argument is taken in Storoshenko (2006): there is no derivational relationship between the two trees Figure 6. Each is headed by a seem predicate which specifies whether the experiencer appears in the medial or final position.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="10"> Beyond c-command facts, there is additional evidence that such an articulated structure for seem may be required. An anonymous reviewer comments that the opening of potential adjunction sites is a common motivation for binarism over ternary structures in TAG-based syntax. In this case, neither the seem-headed tree of Figure 1 or 3 will account for the position of a VP-adjoined manner or temporal adjunct modifying the raising predicate: (8) a. John seems for all intents and purposes to be a professor to me.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="11"> b. John seemed for as long as we knew him to like coffee.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="12"> Assuming these adjuncts to be introduced through elementary trees recursive on VP, only the presence of the lower VP node in the shell structure allows for an adjunction into the seem auxiliary which yields the correct string order. Indeed, (8b) may indicate that the shell structure is required even in cases where there is no experiencer.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
  <Section position="6" start_page="162" end_page="163" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
4 Extending the Analysis
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> Thus far, this discussion has been limited to cases in which seem is adjoined into an infinitival clause.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> There are at least two other types of structure on which this analysis needs to be tested: those where seem adjoins into a small clause, and those where seem takes a finite clause complement: (9) a. John seems happy.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> b. It seems that John likes coffee.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> In exploring these cases, a further challenge to the ditransitive-style analysis arises. While the experiencer is licit in both positions where the seem-headed tree is adjoined into an infinitival clause, apparent asymmetries can be noted in these other constructions, calling into question the broader applicability of the structures in Figure 6. Where the seem auxiliary has adjoined into a small clause, the experiencer is degraded in the position immediately following seem, and is more acceptable in the sentence-final position, as in (10). Conversely, in the finite complement case, the experiencer is marginal at best in the sentence-final position, illustrated in (11).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4">  (10) a. ? John seems to me happy.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> b. John seems happy to me.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="6"> (11) a. It seems to me that John likes coffee.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="7"> b. ? It seems that John likes coffee to  me.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="8"> However, it has been pointed out (Tatjana Scheffler, p.c.) that considerations of phonetic weight may be at work in these cases. For the small clause cases, replacing the simple adjective with a more complex element yields a more comfortable sentence with the medial experiencer, and the experiencer in final position now seems more awkward: (12) a. John seems to me competent enough to finish the task at hand.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="9"> b. John seems competent enough to finish the task at hand to me.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="10"> The same reversal can be observed with the finite clause cases where a heavier experiencer appears alongside the complement clause. The sentence final experiencer is made to seem much more natural than in the simpler case above: (13) a. It seems to all of the cafe's customers that John likes coffee.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="11"> b. It seems that John likes coffee to all of the cafe's customers.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="12"> Taking this into consideration, these apparent variations are nothing more than red herrings, with the relative positioning of experiencer and embedded material demonstrating sensitivity to considerations of phonetic weight. Such considerations may determine which seem-headed auxiliary is the better choice for native speakers in a given context.  Furthermore, difficulties in the case of (11b) may be a function of ambiguity. An alternative derivation does exist in which the PP to me is not an argument of seem. Recalling the cases where a &amp;quot;pseudo-&amp;quot;experiencer appeared without an accompanying raising predicate, it is possible that the to me of (11b) and to all the cafe's customers of (13b) are adjuncts to the embedded clause VP, in the same pattern as (3b). Extraction tests along the lines of those employed earlier can be used to show that the experiencer can be an argument, but this still will not negate the fact that a derivation exists wherein it may simply be an adjunct.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>