Another reason for differentiating between complement raising and complement extraction is that there are languages which allow complement extraction but not complement raising. One of them is English. That it allows complement extraction is well known. (87) provides examples of extraction out of verbal and adpositional projections.

(87)that topic I never want to discuss __ again

(88)what did you say she was speaking about __ ?

Complement raising, however, does not seem to exist in English. In fact, it is explicitly ruled out by the Empty Comps Constraint, as spelled out in Ginzburg and Sag (2000: 33).^{22}

This constraint makes it impossible for a phrase to inherit unsaturated *comps* requirements of its daughters.

For Dutch, which does allow complement raising, the constraint in (89) is obviously too strong, but that does not mean that its complements are allowed to be raised anywhere. For a start, they must be realized in the *Mittelfeld*. The first pole is, hence, a barrier for complement raising. To model this we need a way to define the first pole. Given that it contains either a complementizer or a verb, we introduce a feature that is assigned to both. We call it *position* and declare its values to be *initial* and *final*.^{23}

The complementizers are invariably initial, but the verbs show more variation: The non-finite forms are final, the imperative forms are initial and the other finite forms are underspecified. The latter’s *position* value is resolved to *initial* if they occur in the first pole and to *final* if they occur in the second pole. Assuming that *position* is a *head* feature, its value is propagated throughout the local projection, as in (91).

The non-finite *gegeven* is the head of the *vp*s *water gegeven* and *die plant water gegeven*, and hence shares its *position* value ($\overline{)1}$) with them. The finite auxiliary, by contrast, is the head of the *vp* *heeft die plant water gegeven*, and shares its *position* value ($\overline{)2}$) with the top node.

Employing the *position* feature, the barrier status of the first pole for complement raising can be formulated as follows:

What (92) says is that a headed phrase with the *position* value *initial* must have an empty *comps* list. An example is the top node in (91). The requirement that such phrases have an empty *comps* list implies that complements cannot be raised out of a *v*-initial *vp*, nor out of a *cp*. Raising out of a *v*-final *vp*, however, is allowed. Formally, (92) is similar to the Empty Comps Constraint in (89). The right hand side of the implication is, in fact, identical. The difference concerns the left hand side.

Intriguingly, the contrast between *v*-initial and *v*-final *vp*s is also relevant for *pp*s. Notice, for a start, that there are adpositions which invariably precede their complement, such as *met* ‘with’ and *tot* ‘till’,^{24} as well as adpositions which invariably follow their complement, such as *af, mee* and *toe*. Besides, there are adpositions which are underspecified in this respect, such as *over* ‘about’ and *aan* ‘on’. This strongly suggests that the distinction is relevant for adpositions too. Acting on that hint, let us assume that the *position* value is also assigned to adpositions and their projections. To model this we make a distinction between nominal and non-nominal parts of speech, where the latter comprise the verbs, the complementizers and the adpositions, and declare the *position* feature for the non-nominal parts of speech.^{25}

(94)*non-nominal* : [*position* *position*]

Given the constraint in (92) it follows that not only *cp*s and *v*-initial *vp*s are barriers for complement raising, but also *p*-initial *pp*s. This implication turns out to be correct. To show this let us compare (95–96) with (97–98).

(95)*ik* | *heb* | *toen* | *[een* | *boek* | *daar* | *over]* | *gelezen* |

I | have | then | a | book | that.*r* | about | read |

(96)*ik* | *heb* | *daar* | *toen* | *[een* | *boek* | __ | *over]* | *gelezen* |

I | have | that.*r* | then | a | book | __ | about | read |

(97)*ik* | *heb* | *toen* | *[aan* | *een* | *boek* | *daar* | *over]* | *meegewerkt* |

I | have | then | to | a | book | that.*r* | about | contributed |

(98)*** | *ik* | *heb* | *daar* | *toen* | *[aan* | *een* | *boek* | __ | *over]* | *meegewerkt* |

* | I | have | that.*r* | then | to | a | book | __ | about | contributed |

Both in (95) and (97), the *position* value of *over* is resolved to *final*, since it is preceded by its complement *daar* ‘that.*r*’. By contrast, the *position* value of *aan* in (97) is resolved to *initial*, since it precedes its *np* complement. Given that *p*-initial *pp*s are a barrier for complement raising, this accounts for the fact that *daar* can be raised out of the *pp* in (95), but not out of the *pp* in (97).

Turning now to complement extraction, it is clear that it is not constrained by (92). Neither *cp*s nor *v*-initial *vp*s are barriers for extraction, as illustrated in (99), where the extracted complement is separated from its selector by two complementizers and the *v*-initial verb *denk* ‘think’.

(99)*wat* | *denk* | *je* | *dat* | *ze* | *zei* | *dat* | *ze* | *wil* | __ | *kopen?* |

what | think | you | that | she | said | that | she | wants | __ | buy? |

*p*-initial *pp*s, however, do block extraction. This holds both for *pp*s wich are headed by an inherently initial adposition, such as *met* ‘with’, and for *pp*s which are headed by an adposition whose *position* value is resolved to *initial*, such as *aan* in (101).

(100)* | *daar* | *heb* | *ik* | *toen* | *een* | *deur* | *met* | __ | *geverfd* |

* | that.*r* | have | I | then | a | door | with | __ | painted |

(101)* | *waar* | *heb* | *jij* | *toen* | *[aan* | *een* | *boek* | __ | *over]* | *meegewerkt* |

* | what.*r* | have | you | then | to | a | book | __ | about | contributed |

To model this we assume that adpositions whose *position* value is of type *initial* must have an empty *slash* set.^{26}

This constraint applies both to adpositions and their projections. It is similar to a constraint that is proposed for the Dutch adpositions in Tseng (2005): “we can say that only [+post] Ps can put their complement in *slash*, or equivalently, that all the *slash* set [sic] of all *pre*positions must be empty.”

Returning to the main topic of this section, the fact that the constraint on complement raising in (92) differs from the constraint on complement extraction in (102) provides further evidence for differentiating the two phenomena. Moreover, zooming out and taking a broader perspective, it has long been recognized in generative grammar at large that scrambling and extraction are sufficiently different to require different treatments.

## Comments (0)

General note:By using the comment function on degruyter.com you agree to our Privacy Statement. A respectful treatment of one another is important to us. Therefore we would like to draw your attention to our House Rules.