Publishing Partner: Cambridge University Press CUP Extra Publisher Login
amazon logo
More Info


New from Oxford University Press!

ad

Linguistic Diversity and Social Justice

By Ingrid Piller

Linguistic Diversity and Social Justice "prompts thinking about linguistic disadvantage as a form of structural disadvantage that needs to be recognized and taken seriously."


New from Cambridge University Press!

ad

Language Evolution: The Windows Approach

By Rudolf Botha

Language Evolution: The Windows Approach addresses the question: "How can we unravel the evolution of language, given that there is no direct evidence about it?"


The LINGUIST List is dedicated to providing information on language and language analysis, and to providing the discipline of linguistics with the infrastructure necessary to function in the digital world. LINGUIST is a free resource, run by linguistics students and faculty, and supported primarily by your donations. Please support LINGUIST List during the 2016 Fund Drive.

Summary Details


Query:   Raising predicates in English
Author:  Yamaguchi Atsuko
Submitter Email:  click here to access email
Linguistic LingField(s):   Not Applicable

Summary:   DEAR LINGUISTS,

I ASKED THE MEMBERS OF LINGUIST ABOUT THE GRAMMATICAL JUDGMENTS OF THE FOLLOWING SENTENCES:

(1) HOW LIKELY TO BE INTELLIGENT IS JOHN?
(2) HOW LIKELY TO WIN THE PRIZE IS JOHN?
(3) JOHN SEEMS LIKELY TO BE INTELLIGENT.
(4) JOHN SEEMS LIKELY TO WIN THE PRIZE.
(5) JOHN SEEMS TO BE INTELLIGENT.
(6) JOHN SEEMS TO WIN THE PRIZE.

THEN 35 NATIVE ENGLISH SPEAKERS REPLIED TO ME. I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THEM AND
I AM SORRY THAT I HAD NOT REPORT ON IT FOR ABOUT HALF YEAR.

THEIR JUDGLINGUIST@LINGUISTLIST.ORGMENTS ARE AS FOLLOWS.
(P01-35 STAND FOR EACH OF THE PEOPLE
WHO JUDGE THE ABOVE SENTENCES.
S1-6 STAND FOR EACH OF THE ABOVE SENTENCES
IN (1-6), RESPECTIVELY.)
(OK ? ?? *? *
ACCEPTABLE----------UNACCEPTABLE)

(P01) S1 ??, S2 ??, S3 OK, S4 OK, S5 OK, S6 *
(P02) S1 ?, S2 ?, S3 OK, S4 OK, S5 OK, S6 *(CONTEXT-SENSITIVE)
(P03) S1 ??, S2 ??, S3 OK, S4 OK, S5 OK, S6 OK(CONTEXT-SENSITIVE)
(P04) S1 *, S2 *?, S3 ??, S4 ?, S5 OK, S6 OK(CONTEXT-SENSITIVE)
(P05) S1 ?, S2 ?, S3 ?, S4 ?, S5 OK, S6 *
(P06) S1 ?, S2 ?, S3 OK, S4 OK, S5 OK, S6 OK(CONTEXT-SENSITIVE)
(P07) S1 ?, S2 ?, S3 OK, S4 OK, S5 OK, S6 OK(CONTEXT-SENSITIVE)
(P08) S1 *?, S2 ?, S3 OK, S4 OK, S5 OK, S6 *
(P09) S1 ?, S2 ??, S3 OK, S4 OK, S5 OK, S6 OK(CONTEXT-SENSITIVE)
(P10) S1 ?, S2 ??, S3 OK, S4 OK, S5 OK, S6 OK(CONTEXT-SENSITIVE)
(P11) S1 OK, S2 OK, S3 OK, S4 OK, S5 OK, S6 OK
(P12) S1 OK, S2 OKK, S3 OK, S4 OK, S5 OK, S6 OK
(P13) S1 ?, S2 ?, S3 OK, S4 OK, S5 OK, S6 OK(CONTEXT-SENSITIVE)
(P14) S1 *, S2 *?, S3 *, S4 OK, S5 OK, S6 *
(P15) S1 ?, S2 ?, S3 OK, S4 OK, S5 OK, S6 OK
(P16) S1 OK, S2 OK, S3 OK, S4 OK, S5 OK, S6 ?(CONTEXT-SENSITIVE)
(P17) S1 ??, S2 ??, S3 OK, S4 OK, S5 OK, S6 *
(P18) S1 ?, S2 ?, S3 ?, S4 ?, S5 OK, S6 ?
(P19) S1 *, S2 OK, S3 *, S4 OK, S5 OK, S6 *(CONTEXT-SENSITIVE)
(P20) S1 OK, S2 OK, S3 OK, S4 OK, S5 OK, S6 ?(CONTEXT-SENSITIVE)
(P21) S1 ??, S2 OK, S3 ??, S4 ??, S5 OK, S6 *
(P22) S1 ??, S2 ??, S3 OK, S4 OK, S5 OK, S6 ?
(P23) S1 OK, S2 OK, S3 OK, S4 OK, S5 OK, S6 OK
(P24) S1 *, S2 *, S3 OK, S4 OK, S5 OK, S6 OK
(P25) S1 ?, S2 ?, S3 ?, S4 ?, S5 OK, S6 ?(CONTEXT-SENSITIVE)
(P26) S1 OK, S2 OK, S3 OK, S4 OK, S5 OK, S6 OK
(P27) S1 *, S2 *, S3 OK, S4 OK, S5 OK, S6 OK
(P28) S1 ??, S2 ?, S3 ??, S4 ?, S5 OK, S6 OK(CONTEXT-SENSITIVE)
(P29) S1 ??, S2 OK, S3 OK, S4 OK, S5 OK, S6 ??(CONTEXT-SENSITIVE)
(P30) S1 ?, S2 ?, S3 OK, S4 OK, S5 OK, S6 OK(CONTEXT-SENSITIVE)
(P31) S1 ??, S2 ??, S3 ??, S4 OK, S5 OK, S6 OK
(P33) S1 ?, S2 ?, S3 ?, S4 OK, S5 OK, S6 ??(CONTEXT-SENSITIVE)
(P34) S1 ?*, S2 ?, S3 ?*, S4 OK, S5 OK, S6 *
(P35) S1 OK, S2 OK, S3 OK, S4 OK, S5 OK, S6 OK

THE JUDGMENTS OF (1-4, 6) VARY ACCORDING TO THE SPEAKERS.

SEVERAL PEOPLE SAY THAT (1-2) IS MARGINAL OR AWKWARD. SOME OF THEM JUDGE (2) TO BE BETTER THAN (1). MANY PEOPLE POINT OUT THAT THEY PREFER

LL Issue: 10.648
Date Posted: 01-May-1999
Original Query: Read original query