• Dutch
  • Frisian
  • Saterfrisian
  • Afrikaans
Show all
5.2.2.2.Subject raising infinitivals
quickinfo

The infinitival clauses with te-infinitives discussed in this section differ from the ones discussed in Section 5.2.2.1 in that they do not involve the implied subject PRO, but take a lexical subject which is subsequently raised to the subject position of the matrix clause in order to receive nominative case. The difference between control and subject raising infinitivals is indicated schematically in (469).

469
a. [NPi Vfinite [infinitival clause PROi ... te Vinf ...]].
b. [NPi Vfinite [infinitival clause ti ... te Vinf ...]].

Typical examples of verbs triggering subject raising are the evidential modal verbs in (470a&b), but there are also verbs that occur incidentally in subject raising constructions, like dreigen and beloven in (470c).

470
Subject Raising verbs
a. Modal verbs: blijken'to turn out', lijken'to appear', schijnen'to seem'
b. Modal verbs (formal): dunken'to seem/be of the opinion', heten'to call/count oneself', toeschijnen'to seem', voorkomen'to appear'
c. Other: dreigen'to threaten' and beloven'to promise'

This section is organized as follows, subsection I starts by introducing the term subject raising and provides some general syntactic properties of subject raising constructions, subsection II continues with a more detailed discussion of the subject raising verbs in (470), subsection III concludes with the discussion of a more restricted type of expression, which we will refer to as passive subject raising constructions.

readmore
[+]  I.  General properties of subject raising constructions

Subsection A shows that subject raising constructions can be distinguished from control constructions by means of pronominalization, subsection B discusses two different analyses of subject raising verbs, namely, as main or non-main verbs; we will show that, in keeping with our definition of non-main verbs (verbs lacking argument structure), we have to do with main verbs, subsection C concludes by pointing out a number of characteristic syntactic properties of subject raising constructions.

[+]  A.  Subject Raising versus control infinitivals: pronominalization

Consider the examples in (471). Example (471a) shows that blijken'to turn out' is a monadic verb that may take a finite subject clause, which is introduced by the anticipatory pronoun het'it' (we ignore for the moment that in some cases blijken may also take an indirect object); that the clause functions as a subject is clear from the fact illustrated in (471b) that substitution of a lexical DP/referential pronoun for the pronoun het leads to ungrammaticality.

471
a. Het bleek [dat Jan een auto gekocht had].
  it  turned.out   that  Jan  a car  bought  had
  'It turned out that Jan had bought a car.'
b. * Marie/Zij bleek [dat Jan een auto gekocht had].
  Marie/she  turned.out   that  Jan  a car  bought  had

At first sight, the primeless examples in (472) seem to contradict the claim that blijken is monadic. The noun phrases Jan and Jan en Marie clearly function as the subjects of these sentences, as is clear from the fact that they agree in number with the verb blijken. There are nevertheless reasons for assuming that these nominative subjects are not arguments of the modal verb blijken but of the infinitival verb embedded under it. The most important reason for assuming this is that it is not possible to pronominalize the italicized parts of the examples in (472) while maintaining the nominative DP; pronominalization also requires the subject of the infinitival to be omitted. This is shown in the primed examples in (472).

472
a. Jan bleek een auto gekocht te hebben.
  Jan turned.out  a car  bought  to have
  'Jan turned out to have bought a car.'
a'. Dat bleek.
  that  turned.out
a''. * Jan bleek dat.
  Jan turned.out  that
b. Jan en Marie bleken een auto gekocht te hebben.
  Jan and Marie  turned.out  a car  bought  to have
  'Jan and Marie turned out to have bought a car.'
b'. Dat bleek.
  that  turned.out
b''. * Jan en Marie bleken dat.
  Jan and Marie  turned.out  that

In this respect, subject raising constructions conspicuously differ from control constructions such as (473a), in which pronominalization of the infinitival clause cannot affect the nominative subject of the matrix clause, as shown by (473b).

473
a. Jani probeert [PROi dat boek te lezen].
  Jan  tries  that book  to read
  'Jan is trying to read that book.'
b. Jan probeert dat. / *Dat probeert.
  Jan tries  that    that tries

The contrast between the examples in (472) and (473) suggests that the nominative noun phrases Jan and Jan en Marie in (472) originate as part of the infinitival clause and are raised to the subject positions of the matrix clauses, as in the representations in (474).

474
a. Jani bleek [ti een auto gekocht te hebben].
b. [Jan en Marie]i bleken [ti een auto gekocht te hebben].

The movement is normally taken to be an instantiation of NP-movement, which implies that the motivation of this movement is the need of the noun phrase to be assigned case: the noun phrase cannot be assigned case from within the infinitival clause, for which reason it is raised to the subject position of the sentence where it can be assigned nominative case.

[+]  B.  The status of the subject raising verb: main or non-main verb?

It seems that the standard analysis in (474) has no implications for the status of the subject raising verb: it seems compatible with the traditional claim that modal verbs like blijken'to turn out', schijnen'to seem' and lijken'to appear' are non-main verbs, but also with the claim that they are main verbs. In fact, it is not immediately clear whether the two positions are really different from a syntactic point of view, given that they both maintain that the subject of the sentence, Jan/Jan en Marie, is an argument of the predicate in the te-infinitival. However, the two claims do make different predictions concerning the examples in (475), at least if we adopt our earlier definition of non-main verbs as verbs that do not assign thematic roles. Example (475a) shows that lijken'to appear' is a dyadic verb that selects an experiencer argument in addition to a clausal subject. If the subject raising construction in (475b) involves a non-main verb, and if non-main verbs are not able to select arguments, we wrongly predict that the experiencer argument cannot be realized in this construction. This implies that, according to our definition of non-main verbs, modal verbs like blijken, schijnen and lijken are also main verbs in subject raising constructions.

475
a. Het lijkt mij [dat Jan goed past in onze groep].
  it  appears  me   that  Jan  well  fits  in our team
  'It appears to me that Jan will fit well in our team.'
b. Jani lijkt mij [ti goed in onze groep te passen].
  Jan  appears  me  well  in our team  to fit
  'Jan appears to me to fit well in our team.'

The subject raising analysis of infinitival constructions with blijken, schijnen and lijken is essentially identical to the analysis of examples such as (476), in which these verbs take a complementive; these constructions are traditionally analyzed as copular constructions. The primed examples show that the nominative noun phrase is generated as the logical subject of an embedded predicate, with which it forms a so-called small clause, and is subsequently raised to the subject position in order to receive nominative case.

476
a. Jan bleek/leek/scheen erg aardig.
  Jan turned.out/appeared/seemed  very nice
  'Jan turned out/appeared/seemed very nice.'
a'. Jani bleek/leek/scheen [SCti erg aardig].
b. Jan bleek/leek/scheen een goede vriend.
  Jan turned.out/appeared/seemed  a good friend
  'Jan turned out/appeared/seemed a good friend.'
b'. Jani bleek/leek/scheen [SCti een goede vriend].

The main difference between subject raising and complementive constructions is the status of the complement of the verb; is it an infinitival clause (that is a verbal predicative phrase) or a small clause (a predicate of some other category)? It therefore does not come as a surprise that examples such as (476) alternate with the those in (477), which contain an infinitival copular construction.

477
a. Jan bleek/leek/scheen erg aardig te zijn.
  Jan turned.out/appeared/seemed  very nice to be
  'Jan turned out/appeared/seemed to be very nice.'
a'. Jani bleek/leek/scheen [Clauseti erg aardig te zijn].
b. Jan bleek/leek/scheen een goede vriend te zijn.
  Jan turned.out/appeared/seemed  a good friend  to be
  'Jan turned out/appeared/seemed to be a good friend.'
b'. Jani bleek/leek/scheen [Clauseti een goede vriend te zijn].

On this view there is no need for assuming that blijken, schijnen and lijken are ambiguous: we are not dealing with a set of modal and a set of copular verbs, but simply with a single category that takes a predicative complement that may either have the form of an infinitival clause or of a small clause; in both cases the subject of the predicate is raised to the subject position of the clause headed by the modal verb in order to receive nominative case.

[+]  C.  Syntactic properties of subject raising constructions

The conclusion from subsection B that subject raising verbs are main verbs raises several questions, which will be discussed in the following subsections.

[+]  1.  Om + te-infinitivals are excluded

Subject raising verbs differ from control verbs in that they do not take om + te-infinitivals. The unacceptability of the subject raising construction in (478b) is easy to account for, given that Section 5.2.2.1 has independently established that om + te-infinitivals are syntactic islands for movement, and can therefore be assumed to block subject raising. It is, however, less clear why (478c) is unacceptable, especially since (471a) has shown that similar constructions are possible with finite clauses; this unacceptability is possibly due to the fact that there is no suitable controller available for the implied subject PRO (cf. Bennis & Hoekstra 1989a).

478
a. Jani schijnt [ti de boeken gestolen te hebben].
  Jan seems  the books  stolen  to have
  'Jan seems to have stolen the books.'
b. * Jani schijnt [om ti de boeken gestolen te hebben].
  Jan seems  comp  the books  stolen  to have
c. * Het schijnt [om PRO de boeken gestolen te hebben].
  it  seems  comp  the books  stolen  to have

Such an account of the unacceptability of (478c) would leave unexplained, however, why the (c)-example in the parallel set of examples in (479) is unacceptable as well, given that the experiencer object me of lijken'to appear' could in principle function as a controller for PRO. We will not pursue this issue here and leave it for future research.

479
a. Jani lijkt me [ti de boeken gestolen te hebben].
  Jan appears  me   the books  stolen  to have
  'Jan appears to me to have stolen the books.'
b. * Jani lijkt me [om ti de boeken gestolen te hebben].
  Jan appears  me  comp  the books  stolen  to have
c. * Het lijkt me [om PRO de boeken gestolen te hebben].
  it  appears  me  comp  the books  stolen  to have
[+]  2.  The complement is a transparent infinitival (verb clustering and IPP)

The examples in (478a&b) in the previous subsection show that infinitival clauses of subject raising constructions must be transparent for NP-movement. This is consistent with the fact that such clauses are transparent infinitivals in the sense defined in Section 4.4.3: subject raising constructions exhibit verb clustering (and thus require the embedded infinitival clause to be split), and the te-infinitive seems to trigger the infinitivus-pro-participio (IPP) effect on the matrix verb in perfect-tense constructions. The former can be illustrated by the contrast between the two examples in (480).

480
a. dat Jan de boeken naar Groningen schijnt te sturen.
  that  Jan  the books  to Groningen  seems  to send
  'that Jan seems to send the books to Groningen.'
b. * dat Jan schijnt de boeken naar Groningen te sturen.
  that  Jan  seems  the books  to Groningen  to send

That subject raising constructions exhibit the IPP-effect is less easy to illustrate given that many speakers tend to object to perfect-tense constructions with evidential modal verbs; see Haeseryn et al. (1997:958) and also Schmid (2005:27), who claims that subject raising constructions tend to resist perfectivization cross-linguistically. Nevertheless, it seems that some speakers do at least marginally accept perfect-tense constructions such as (481), and then always prefer the IPP-effect; replacement of the infinitives schijnen, lijken and blijken in (481) by the corresponding participial forms geschenen, geleken and gebleken indeed greatly worsens the results; see Reuland (1983: Section 3.2) and Rutten (1991:70).

481
a. % dat Jan de boeken naar Groningen heeft schijnen te sturen.
  that  Jan the books  to Groningen  has  seem  to send
  'that Jan has seemed to send the books to Groningen.'
b. % dat Jan de boeken naar Groningen heeft lijken te sturen.
  that  Jan the books  to Groningen  has  appear  to send
  'that Jan has appeared to send the books to Groningen.'
c. % dat Jan de boeken naar Groningen heeft blijken te sturen.
  that  Jan the books  to Groningen  has  turn.out  to send
  'that Jan has turned out to send the books to Groningen.'

Note in this connection that Van der Horst (2008:1464&1796) claims that constructions with schijnen have exhibited the IPP-effect already since the 18th century, which he illustrates with a single example only. However, his claim can easily be substantiated by means of a Google Book search on the string [ heeft schijnen te]. Van der Horst (2008:1769) also provides a number of recent IPP-cases with blijken, and a Google Book search on the string [ heeft blijken te] again provides a number of additional cases. There are, however, also a number of relevant hits for [ heeft geschenen te] and [ heeft gebleken te]. Van der Horst does not discuss cases with the verb lijken, and a Google Book search on the strings [ heeft lijken/geleken te] did not result in any relevant hits either, but see Haegeman (2006) for the claim that lijken does occur in the perfect tense. The results of our searches are given in Table (482); the reported results were checked manually and exclude hits from linguistic sources.

482
Google Book search (1/13/2013) on the string [heeft modalinf/part te]
  infinitive participle
schijnen'to seem' 12 2
blijken'to turn out' 11 6
lijken'to appear' 0 0

The results in (482) are, of course, based on older written sources and are certainly not representative of present-day use. Unfortunately, the results of our Google searches on the strings [heeft modalinf/part te] are far too polluted by irrelevant cases (often machine translations from English) to allow anything enlightening to be said about the frequency on the internet of genuine cases of constructions such as (481) with and without IPP, apart from the fact that the numbers are low anyway. We therefore have to leave this issue to future research, and provisionally assume that, insofar as perfect-tense forms of subject raising constructions are possible at all, they preferably exhibit the IPP-effect.

[+]  3.  Subject Raising verbs are unaccusative

A more technical question raised by assuming that subject raising verbs are main verbs concerns the argumental status of the infinitival clause: Is it an internal or an external argument of the modal verb, that is, are we dealing with unaccusative verbs?
      The unaccusative analysis seems a plausible one; because the subject of the infinitival clause uncontroversially surfaces as the nominative subject of the matrix clause, it seems unlikely that the infinitival clause is generated as the external argument of the matrix verb given that such arguments normally must surface as the subject of active constructions—this would make subject raising impossible. If the infinitival clause is generated as an internal argument of the verb, there is no external argument and we may conclude that, as a result of this, the subject of the infinitival clause is able to raise to the subject position of the higher clause.
      That we are dealing with unaccusative verbs is also supported by the fact that blijken takes zijn in the perfect tense (in non-IPP-contexts): Dat is/*heeft gebleken'That has turned out'; selection of the perfect auxiliary zijn is a sufficient condition for assuming unaccusative status. The complementive constructions in (483) show that schijnen and lijken do not allow zijn in the perfect tense; that these verbs seem to prefer hebben is, however, not a problem given that the selection of zijn is not a necessary condition for assuming unaccusative status; cf. Section 2.1.2.

483
a. Jan heeft/*is me altijd aardig geleken.
  Jan has/is  me always  kind  seemed
  'Jan has always seemed kind to me.'
b. Jan ?heeft/*is altijd aardig geschenen.
  Jan   has/is  always  nice  appeared
  'Jan has always appeared kind.'
[+]  4.  Passivization

The conclusion that subject raising verbs are unaccusative correctly predicts that such verbs do not allow impersonal passivization. This is illustrated in (484) for the verb lijken in the three syntactic contexts in which it may occur. The reason why the nominative subjects cannot be suppressed in the primed examples is that they are not arguments of the passivized verb but originate as arguments of the complements of this verb; for convenience, the (split) complements are in italics in the primeless examples.

484
a. Het lijkt me dat Jan morgen komt.
finite subject clause
  it  appears  me  that  Jan  tomorrow  comes
  'It appears to me that Jan will come tomorrow.'
a'. * Er wordt me geleken dat Jan morgen komt.
  there  is  me appeared  that  Jan tomorrow  comes
b. Jan lijkt me morgen te komen.
subject raising
  Jan  appears  me  tomorrow  to come
  'Jan appears to me to come tomorrow.'
b'. * Er wordt me geleken morgen te komen.
  there  is  me  appeared  tomorrow  to come
c. Jan lijkt me geschikt voor die baan.
complementive
  Jan  appears  me suitable  for that job
  'Jan appears suitable for that job to me.'
c'. * Er wordt me geschikt geleken voor die baan.
  there  is  me suitable  appeared  for that job

The (b)-examples in (485) show that passivization of the embedded infinitival clause is possible; the (a)-examples are simply given for comparison. As predicted by the subject raising analysis, passivization of the infinitival clause also affects the nominative subject of the subject raising construction as a whole; the internal argument of the infinitival verb, de auto, surfaces as the nominative subject of the construction as a whole, while the subject of the active construction, Jan, is suppressed; in short, it is the derived subject in (485a') that becomes the nominative subject of the entire construction.

485
a. Het lijkt me dat Jan de auto repareert.
finite subject clause
  it  appears  me that  Jan  the car  repairs
  'It appears to me that Jan is repairing the car.'
a'. Het lijkt me dat de auto gerepareerd wordt.
  it  appears  me that  the car  repaired  is
  'It appears to me that the car is being repaired.'
b. Jan lijkt me de auto te repareren.
subject raising
  Jan  appears  me the car  to repair
  'Jan appears to me to repair the car.'
b'. De auto lijkt me gerepareerd te worden.
  the car  appears  me repaired  to be
  'The car appears to me to be repaired.'

Finally, consider the examples in (486) adapted from Bennis & Hoekstra (1989c:172); the judgments hold only for speakers that allow passivization of the idiomatic expression de strijdbijl begraven'to bury the hatchet/to make peace'. The fact that the idiomatic reading is preserved in (486b') can be taken as in favor of the claim that the noun phrase de strijdbijl is base-generated as part of the infinitival clause: since phrasal idioms are listed in the lexicon, the expression de strijdbijl begraven must be inserted into the structure as a unit.

486
a. Het schijnt dat Jan en Marie de strijdbijl hebben begraven.
  it  seems  that  Jan and Marie  the hatchet  have  buried
  'It seems that Jan and Marie have buried the hatchet.'
a'. Jan en Marie schijnen de strijdbijl te hebben begraven.
  Jan and Marie  seem  the hatchet  to have  buried
  'Jan and Marie seem to have buried the hatchet.'
b. Het schijnt dat de strijdbijl begraven is.
  it  seems  that  the hatchet  buried  has.been
  'It seems that has been buried the hatchet.'
b'. De strijdbijl schijnt begraven te zijn.
  the hatchet  seems buried  to have.been
  'The hatchet seems to have been buried.'
[+]  5.  Subject raising is excluded in nominalizations

Subject raising requires the te-infinitival to be a complement of a verb; the primed examples in (487) show that whereas non-raising constructions such as (487a) have nominal counterparts, subject raising constructions such as (487b) have not.

487
a. het schijnt [dat Jan ziek is].
  it  seems   that  Jan ill  is
  'It seems that Jan is ill.'
b. Jani schijnt [ti ziek te zijn].
  Jan seems  ill  to
  'Jan seems to be ill.'
a'. de schijn [dat Jan ziek is]
  the appearance   that Jan ill is
  'the pretense that Jan is ill'
b'. * Jansi schijn [ti ziek te zijn]
  Janʼs  appearance  ill  to be

This suggests that te-infinitival complements of nouns differ from those of verbs in that they are not transparent. This is in line with Koster's (1984b) claim, discussed in Section 5.2.2.1 that te-infinitival complements of nouns do not involve obligatory control either.

[+]  6.  Conclusion

The facts discussed in the previous subsections conclusively show that subjects of subject raising constructions cannot be analyzed as arguments of the subject raising verb but originate as arguments of the embedded infinitival verb, subject raising occurs out of te-infinitival complements of certain unaccusative verbs (but not of their corresponding nominalizations)

[+]  II.  Subject raising verbs

Subject raising verb normally have a modal meaning. This is especially clear for the modal verbs blijken'to turn out', lijken'to appear', and schijnen'to seem' in (470a), which are traditionally analyzed as (semi-)auxiliaries in this context, but it also holds for verbs like beloven'to promise' and dreigen'to threaten' in (470c), which are used more incidentally in this construction. The following subsections briefly discuss these verbs in more detail, subsection A begins by having a closer look at the modal verbs blijken, lijken and schijnen, subsection B discusses the verbs in (470c) while Subsection C concludes with the more formal modal verbs in (470b) as well as a number of other potential cases from the formal register.

[+]  A.  The verbs blijken, schijnen and lijken

Adopting the categorization of modality proposed by Palmer (2001), which is discussed more extensively in Section 5.2.3.2, sub III, we may classify verbs like blijken'to turn out', lijken'to appear', and schijnen'to seem' in (488) semantically as evidential modals, in the sense that they can be used to indicate what kind of evidence there is in favor of the truth of a certain proposition p: see Van Bruggen (1980/1), Haeseryn et al. (1997:1007-8), Vliegen (2011) and Koring (2013) for discussion. The verb blijken suggests that there is conclusive evidence to conclude that p is true, in the sense that on the basis of this evidence most people would conclude that p is true. The verb lijken expresses that there is evidence in support of p but that the evidence is not yet conclusive; on the basis of the evidence one can only provisionally assume that p is true. The verb schijnen, finally, expresses that there is no identifiable evidence that supports p; the evidence may or may not exist—we are dealing with hearsay/rumors.

488
a. Uit zijn verklaring blijkt [dat Jan de dader is].
conclusive
  from his statement  turns.out   that  Jan the perpetrator  is
  'His statement clearly shows that Jan is the perpetrator.'
b. Het lijkt mij/haar [dat Jan de dader is].
not yet conclusive
  it  appears  me/her   that  Jan the perpetrator  is
  'It appears to me/her that Jan is the perpetrator.'
c. Het schijnt [dat Jan de dader is].
hearsay
  it  seems   that  Jan the perpetrator  is
  'It seems that Jan is the perpetrator.'
[+]  1.  The verb blijken'to turn out'

The verb blijken expresses that there is factual evidence in support of the proposition expressed by the argument clause. Use of this verb further suggests that the truth of the proposition can at least be intersubjectively established on the basis of the evidence available, that is, most people who consider this evidence carefully would come to the same conclusion. Example (489a) shows that the nature of the factual evidence submitted can be specified by means of an adverbial uit-PP if the clause is finite, but not in the corresponding subject raising and complementive constructions in (489b&c); the latter examples nevertheless imply that the truth of the proposition expressed by the infinitival/small clause can be intersubjectively established. Adverbial uit-PPs of this type are normally not found with the verbs lijken and schijnen; see Table 3 in Vliegen (2011).

489
a. Uit zijn verklaring blijkt [dat Jan de dader is].
  from his statement  turns.out   that  Jan the perpetrator  is
  'His statement clearly shows that Jan is the perpetrator.'
b. Jan blijkt (*uit zijn verklaring) [ti de dader te zijn].
  Jan turns.out     from his statement  the perpetrator  to be
c. Jan blijkt (*uit zijn verklaring) [SCti de dader].
  Jan turns.out     from his statement  the perpetrator

Note in passing that examples such as (489) are perfectly fine if the preposition uit is replaced by volgens'according to': this may be due to the fact that the complement of the volgens-PP does not refer to the evidence on which the speakers bases his judgment of the truth of the proposition, but to the "judgment" provided by some source. While example (489) expresses that the speaker concludes from Jans statement that Jan is the perpetrator, an example like Volgens zijn verklaring blijkt dat Jan de dader is attributes this conclusion to Jan himself.
      It seems often implied that there is a specific set of individuals who have drawn the conclusion from the available evidence. With a finite complement clause the person(s) responsible for the conclusion can be expressed by means of a dative object (often the first person, plural pronoun ons'us'), which the literature normally refers to as the experiencer. The verb blijken should therefore be considered a nom-dat (dyadic unaccusative) verb. The addition of an experiencer leads to a degraded result in the corresponding subject raising and complementive constructions.

490
a. Er is ons gebleken [dat Jan de dader is].
  there  is  us  turned.out   that  Jan the perpetrator  is
  'We have concluded that Jan is the perpetrator.'
b. Jan bleek (*ons) [ti de dader te zijn].
  Jan  turned.out       us  the perpetrator to be
  'Jan turned out to be the perpetrator.'
c. Jan bleek (*ons) [SCti de dader].
  Jan turned.out     us  the perpetrator
  'Jan turned out to be the perpetrator.'

It should be noted that the use of an experiencer object is limited even in the case of finite argument clauses: it seems easily possible in perfect-tense constructions but is generally rejected in simple past/present constructions. The contrast is also clear from our Google search (31/1/2014): whereas the string [er is ons gebleken] resulted in 52 hits, the strings [ er blijkt/bleek ons dat] resulted in no more than 9 relevant hits (all from very formal texts).

[+]  2.  The verb lijken'to appear'

The verb lijken indicates that the claim that the proposition expressed by the argument clause in (488a) is based on unmentioned evidence available; we are in a sense dealing with a subjective assessment of the evidence by a specific set of individuals, which includes the speaker by default. Example (491a) shows, however, that this set can also be made explicit by means of an optional experiencer object, in which case the default reading can readily be cancelled. The availability of an experiencer object shows that, like blijken, the verb lijken should be considered a nom-dat (dyadic unaccusative) verb. However, lijken differs from blijken in that the experiencer may also appear in the corresponding subject raising and complementive constructions in (491b&c).

491
a. Het lijkt mij/haar [dat Jan de dader is].
  it  appears  me/her   that  Jan the perpetrator  is
  'It appears to me/her that Jan is the perpetrator.'
b. Jani lijkt mij/haar [ti de dader te zijn].
  it  appears  me/her  the perpetrator  to be
  'Jan appears to me/her to be the perpetrator.'
c. Jani lijkt mij/haar [SCti de dader].
  it  appears  me/her  the perpetrator
  'Jan appears to be the perpetrator to me/her.'

      It seems that lijken differs from the other two verbs in that it can easily take a finite clause introduced by the linking element (als)of'as if'; the judgments on examples (492b) with schijnen vary from speaker to speaker, which is indicated by the percentage sign; we will briefly return to this issue in Subsection 4.

492
a. Het lijkt alsof Jan de dader is.
  it  appears  as.if  Jan the perpetrator  is
  'It appears as if Jan is the perpetrator.'
b. Het %schijnt/*blijkt alsof Jan de dader is.
  it    seems/turns.out  as.if  Jan  the perpetrator  is

This claim that modal lijken can be supplemented by an alsof-complement may be apparent, however, given that the verb lijken also occurs as a PO-verb with the meaning "to resemble/look like"; cf. example (493a). Since Section 2.3.1, sub VI, has shown that anticipatory pronominal PPs can often be omitted, it seems plausible to assume that example (492a) is a shorter form of example (493b) and thus does not involve the modal verb lijken.

493
a. Jan lijkt op zijn vader.
  Jan resembles  on his father
  'Jan resembles his father.'
b. Het lijkt erop alsof Jan de dader is.
  it  looks  like.it  as.if  Jan the perpetrator  is
  'It looks like Jan is the perpetrator.'

Example (494a), on the other hand, shows that (492a) can be extended with an experiencer object; the fact illustrated in (494b) that the experiencer and the anticipatory pronominal PP cannot co-occur therefore militates against the elision analysis. The bracketed numbers indicate the number of hits of our Google search (5/2/2013) for the search strings [ het lijkt mij/me alsof] and [ het lijkt mij/me erop alsof]. For completeness' sake notice that some speakers report that they consider example (494b) marked as well.

494
a. Het lijkt mij alsof Jan de dader is.
683
  it  appears  me  as.if  Jan the perpetrator  is
  'It appears to me like Jan is the perpetrator.'
b. * Het lijkt mij erop alsof Jan de dader is.
12
  it  appears  me  like.it  as.if  Jan the perpetrator  is

This leads to the conclusion that the evidential modal verb lijken can be supplemented by an alsof-complement after all.

[+]  3.  The verb schijnen'to seem'

An experiencer object is unlikely with the verb schijnen in examples such as (488c), and the same holds for the corresponding subject raising and complementive constructions in (495). The reason is that schijnen indicates that the truth of the proposition is based on rumors/hearsay; contrary to blijken and lijken, postulation of the truth of the proposition is not based on evidence available to any identifiable individual in the domain of discourse—it may in fact be entirely lacking.

495
a. Jani schijnt (*mij/*haar) [ti de dader te zijn].
  Jan  seems    me/her  the perpetrator  to be
  'Jan seems to be the perpetrator.'
b. Jani schijnt (*mij/*haar) [SCti de dader].
  Jan seems     me/her  the perpetrator
  'Jan seems to be the perpetrator.'

Moreover, the examples in (496) show that schijnen differs from blijken and lijken in that it does not readily allow pronominalization of its complement clause. It shows that evidence for claiming that the raising verb schijnen is a main verb is lacking; main verb status can only be argued on the basis of the assumption that schijnen belongs to the same class as blijken and lijken.

496
a. D