In , we saw that the inconsistency between the data and the hypotheses as well as that between hypotheses can be resolved by paraconsistent tools.raises the problem of how to evaluate the paraconsistent treatment of inconsistency.will be devoted to a case study exemplifying the emergence and the usefulness of paraconsistency in generative syntax. In , we will discuss another two case studies that highlight the limits of paraconsistency. Finally, in , we will draw the conclusions from the case studies that evaluate the use of paraconsistency in linguistic theorising.

The properties of raising and control verbs that we discuss in this chapter can be summarized as follows. Unlike a control predicate, a raising predicate does not assign a semantic role to its subject (or object). The absence of a semantic role can be used to account for the possibility of expletive it or there, or a part of an idiom, as subject or object of a raising predicate, and the impossibility of such expressions as subjects of control predicates. Among control predicates, the VP complement’s unexpressed subject is coindexed with one of the syntactic dependents. Among raising predicates, the entire syntactic-semantic value of the subject of the infinitival VP is shared with that of one of the dependents of the predicate. This ensures that whatever category is required by the raising predicate’s VP complement is the raising predicate’s subject (or object). These properties of the raising and control verbs follow naturally from their lexical specifications. In particular, the present analysis offers a systematic, construction-based account of the mismatch between the number of syntactic complements that a verb has and the number of semantic arguments that it has.