Explanation
Raising is a syntactic configuration in which a noun phrase appears in a higher clause position although semantically it belongs only to the embedded predicate. In “The plan seems to succeed,” seem assigns no participant role of its own to the plan; the contentful relation is with succeed. The higher position instead satisfies grammatical requirements such as subject occupancy or case. Standard diagnostics compare paraphrases, expletives, idioms, and selection restrictions. The conceptual movement separates visible sentence position from semantic origin: a phrase stands high but receives its role low. It thereby reveals that syntactic proximity does not necessarily entail semantic belonging.
Movement of thought
1. The visible noun phrase is tested for semantic relations with both predicates. 2. The analysis asks whether the higher predicate imposes selection restrictions on that phrase. 3. Expletives and idiomatic expressions diagnose the absence of a higher participant role. 4. Case, agreement, and infinitival structure reveal the grammatical motivation for the higher position. 5. The account reconstructs a dependency between the pronounced position and a lower interpretation.
Scientific use case
Generative syntax and comparative grammar use raising diagnostics to analyse infinitives, case, and subject positions. Cross-linguistic comparison shows which morphological and syntactic resources express the same dependency.
Example
In “It seems to be raining tomorrow,” semantically empty it can occupy the higher subject position. The higher predicate's acceptance of this element supports the claim that it assigns no independent participant role to it.
Counterexample
Not every subject preceding an infinitive has undergone raising. If the higher predicate semantically requires an acting, intending, or judging participant, the construction is more plausibly one of control.
Distinction
Raising and control differ in syntactic and semantic relations. Epistemic distance and intention are possible interpretive effects, not their definitions. Distinguish raising especially from control: a raising predicate assigns no theta role to the raised phrase and therefore typically permits expletives, whereas a control predicate establishes its own semantic relation to the controller.
Effect on thought and perception
Raising distributes grammatical requirements and semantic belonging across different structural levels. It explains why a phrase formally belongs to the matrix clause while remaining semantically anchored only in the embedded event.
Resonance
A phrase rises in visible structure while its semantic anchor remains below. A taut syntactic connection forms between the site of pronunciation and the site of role interpretation.
Cite this entry
Reich, Michael (Hrsg./ed.): „Raising“. Atlas der Sprache, AT-133-022. ATLAS 260, data model 1.6.0. https://atlasoflanguage.com/concept/AT-133-022The address remains stable; editorial content may evolve. Editorial reading state: 2026-10-15. Include your access date for precise references.
Historical background
Jespersen discusses expressions such as he seems to work hard by treating the larger predicative combination as what is at issue, rather than assuming that the isolated pronoun is the whole notional subject. This is a substantial historical comparison for constructions later analysed as raising. The modern framework differs in its representation of positions and dependencies, so a nexus must not simply be renamed a raising operation. The Atlas can ask whether the participant belongs semantically to the embedded predication and whether the main expression evaluates that predication. Jespersen’s account provides an English analytical witness to the construction. The term raising, the later theoretical formalisation and its distinction from control need their own explicit sources.
How conceptual history changes the analysis
Raising becomes distinct when syntactic position is separated from semantic-role assignment. The decisive question is whether the higher predicate assigns the raised expression a role of its own.
References for the historical section
- Otto Jespersen, The Philosophy of Grammar, work first published 1924; inspected later printing with November 1934 afterword, exact printing year unresolved · Chapter IX, he seems to work hard and passive infinitival nexus, pp. 119–120
Selected historical witness, not a complete genealogy or a first English attestation. Atlas comparisons and applications are original editorial interpretations. OCR of a later printing containing a 1934 afterword. The catalogue’s 1924 date identifies the work’s first publication, not the inspected copy. Historical judgments about languages and social groups require critical distance.