This is actually the very first time that I’ve been asked what “raising” is all about. I’m not a linguist, so I also looked up the term in Wikipedia for starters. Like you, though, I found its definition so jargon-laden that it sounded every bit like mumbo jumbo:
“In linguistics, raising is the construction where a given predicate/verb takes a dependent that is not its semantic argument, but rather it is the semantic argument of an embedded predicate. In other words, an argument that belongs to an embedded predicate is realized syntactically as a dependent of a higher predicate/verb.”
Obviously, unless you’re a professional linguist who’s intimately familiar with Noam Chomsky’s transformational grammar and its buzzwords, it would be insufferably difficult to make heads or tails of what that definition is talking about. You’d really need to find alternative references that make a more heroic effort to define “raising” in terms that laypeople can understand.
The clearest bare-bones definition of “raising” that I found is that of the Random House Dictionary (2014 edition), as follows:
raising
a rule of transformational grammar that shifts the subject or object of an embedded clause into the subject or object position of the main clause, as in the derivation of The suspect appears to be innocent from It appears that the suspect is innocent.
Another clear, basic definition is that of Collins English Dictionary (2003 edition), as follows:
raising
(Transformational grammar) a rule that moves a constituent from an embedded clause into the main clause.
I gathered from various other sources that there are two types or raising: “subject-raising” (the one that baffled you) and “object-raising.” Now how do these two types of raising differ from each other?
The clearest definition of “subject-raising” that I found is that of Collins English Dictionary, which goes as follows:
subject-raising
“1. (Grammar) transformational grammar a rule that moves the subject of a complement clause into the clause in which it is embedded, as in the derivation of He is likely to be late from It is likely that he will be late.”
Now that looks to me like a simple, perfectly understandable definition. The template sentence “It is likely that he will be late” gives me enough confidence to explore “raising” from the practical usage standpoint. In that sentence, it’s clear that the complement clause is “that he will be late” and that the subject of that complement clause is the pronoun “he.” The process of subject-raising then turns out to be simply making the subject of the complement clause —perhaps “reassigning” is a more instructive word—as the subject of the sentence instead, as follows: “He is likely to be late.” By raising the role of “he” from subject of the complement clause to subject of the sentence itself, the original two-clause sentence is “transformed” into a simpler, single-clause sentence. The reduction of complicated grammar structures into simpler ones appears to me to be one virtue of transformational grammar.
Let’s now apply this finding about “subject-raising” to the three examples you presented:
1. “They seem to be trying.” “You seem to be impatient.” In both of these sentences, “seem” is considered a “raising-to-subject” verb because it’s a verb that allows the subjects “they” and “you”—the subjects of the complement clause in the two-clause sentences “It seems that they are trying” and “It seems that you are impatient”—to become the subjects instead of their corresponding reduced single-clause sentences, “They seem to be trying” and “You seem to be impatient.”
2. “Prices appear to be increasing.” In this sentence, “appear” is likewise considered a raising-to-subject verb because it’s another verb that allows the subject “prices”—the subject of the complement clause in the two-clause sentence “It appears that prices are increasing”—to become the subject instead of its single-clause transformation as the sentence “Prices appear to be increasing.”
Now let’s be a little bit more ambitious and try to explicate what “raising-to-object” is based on what we already know about “raising-to-subject.”
Let’s take up two examples of sentences that look amenable to “object-raising”:
1. “We expect her to give a donation.” (The pronoun “her” appears in object form). In that sentence, the verb “expect” is considered a “raising-to-object” predicate and the “raising-to-object” process involves the transformation of the object “her” into the subject of the sentence. This is achieved by reconstructing that sentence into its passive-voice form, as follows: “She is expected to give a donation.” Here, the object “her” has been raised to the subject “she.”
2. “You proved him to be corrupt.” (The pronoun “him” appears in object form). In that sentence, the verb “prove” is considered a “raising-to-object” predicate and the “raising-to-object” process involves the transformation of the object “him” into the subject of the sentence. This is achieved by reconstructing that sentence into its passive-voice form, as follows: “He was proved to be corrupt.” Here, the object “him” has been raised to the subject “he.”
At this point, I trust that I have adequately explained in layperson’s terms the basic process and practical uses of “raising” in English grammar, and that you’ll now be able to make further readings in transformational grammar with less tribulation and greater confidence. Just keep in mind that I’ve used a bare-bones approach to “raising” here and have not touched on the theoretical complexities and fine points of transformational grammar—a fascinating but admittedly tough school of thought that you might want to explore further as a student of the English language.
Good luck and Merry Christmas!
