<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="W06-1524">
  <Title>Reconsidering Raising and Experiencers in English</Title>
  <Section position="7" start_page="163" end_page="163" type="concl">
    <SectionTitle>
5 Conclusion and Implications
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> With the elimination of challenges to this new analysis of seem, the conclusion is that the structures in Figure 6 are justified, and generalisable to many uses of the verb. Potential counterexamples are either functions of weight considerations, or interference from ambiguous analyses.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> Having used extraction-based tests to reach this conclusion, it is worth noting that accounting for extraction from the seem auxiliary tree remains a problem for TAG (Frank, 2002). A Wh-question formed through the extraction of the experiencer argument would necessarily be extended all the way to CP, thus sacrificing recursivity. While this problem has not been solved here, the refinements to the structure of seem will contribute to future accounts. Specifically, any account of extraction which is sensitive to issues such as superiority or crossover will benefit from this analysis. Consider the sentences in (14): (14) a. Bill seems to Johna0 to like hima0 .</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> b. Bill seems to like him</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> c. To whoma0 does Bill seem to like hima0 ? In theory, either of (14a) or (14b) could represent the underlying structure of (14c). Binding, as shown in (14c), is possible for this question, though only the (14a) sentence shows equivalent binding. Extraction of the experiencer in the (14b) case would result in a weak-crossover violation, should the extracted experiencer bind the embedded object. This asymmetry between (14a) and (14b) would not be predicted by a ternary-branching analysis, but is captured by the structures in Figure 6. These sorts of alternations, and their implications, will need to be kept in mind as further work on extraction from raising predicates progresses.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>