Here's a paragraph from this EFL Magazine article "SUBJECT RAISING: DO YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW?" (2015):
Not long ago, most linguists believed there really was a set of processes in our brains called ‘transformations’, where words moved around inside sentences, to turn simple statements into things like questions, negatives, passives, etc. This idea seems to have fallen out of favour in modern linguistics, which feels like a shame to me – I like the idea of words whizzing around inside our brains. But whether or not it really happens in our brains, I think the image of subjects being raised to different parts of sentences is still a useful way of understanding the structure.
This paragraph seems to suggest that 'raising' is an outdated concept in modern linguistics (although the author still finds it useful).
Is this true?
If so, how does 'modern linguistics' explain what is called 'raising' constructions?
For example, doesn't HPSG do away with the concept of 'raising' altogether? I don't know if HPSG is one of the modernest linguistics theories, but it seems fairly new.
This paper on HPSG "Lingering Challenges to the Raising to Object and Object Control Constructions" has this description of HPSG regarding example (45):
The HPSG account shares with the overt raising account the assumption that ‘Marcia’ in (1), repeated here as (45), appears in the main clause in the surface string.
(45) Cindy believes Marcia to be a genius.
It differs from the movement accounts, though, by assuming a monostratal syntax, which means that though ‘Marcia’ is the object of ‘believes’ in the phrasal syntax, it is associated with the syntactic and semantic features of the embedded predicate (‘to be a genius’) by a kind of complete phrase coindexing called structure-sharing, and not movement. In a sense, the NP ‘Marcia’ is equally associated with the main clause verb and the embedded clause verb; but in the surface string it is in the main clause.
This sounds like HPSG doesn't posit movement (or raising for that matter) to analyze (45).