Planning of Raising and Control Complements

This experiment investigates the production of the sentences involving “raising to object” and “object control” sentences. For example: (1) The boy believed the dog to like the cat. (2) The boy taught the dog to like the cat. This experiment investigates the production of sentences involving “raising to object” and “object control” sentences. For example: The boy believed the dog to like the cat. The boy taught the dog to like the cat. In both sentences, “the dog” is the subject of the embedded verb “like” semantically. Also, in both cases, “the dog” is the syntactic object of the matrix verb “believed/taught,” as indicated by the fact that a pronoun would receive an accusative case. However, only in (2), “the dog” is the semantic object of the matrix verb “taught.” For this reason, those two constructions, despite surface similarity, are hypothesized to involve two different underlying structures. This experiment examines how speakers plan those sentences, and in particular, we hypothesize, according to some theories of syntax, there is a clausal boundary between “believed” and “the dog” but not between “taught” and “the dog.” Based on the an independent psycholinguistic hypothesis that two words interference more within the same clause, we predict that “the dog” and “the cat”, two words with similar meanings, interfere more in the raising to object sentences like (1) than in the object control sentences like (2).