Book contents
- Language, Syntax, and the Natural Sciences
- Language, Syntax, and the Natural Sciences
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction
- Part I The Computational Component
- 1 Deriving Multiple “Object” Constructions
- 2 Verbal Complex Formation and Overt Subjects in Infinitivals in Spanish
- 3 Two Families of Questions
- 4 Context-Sensitive Aspects of Constituent Negation
- 5 Phasehood and Romance Adverbial Because-Clauses
- 6 No-Choice Parameters, Phi-Features, and the Structure of DP
- Part II Interfaces
- Part III Linguistics and Other Sciences
- Index
- References
1 - Deriving Multiple “Object” Constructions
from Part I - The Computational Component
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 October 2018
Book contents
- Language, Syntax, and the Natural Sciences
- Language, Syntax, and the Natural Sciences
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction
- Part I The Computational Component
- 1 Deriving Multiple “Object” Constructions
- 2 Verbal Complex Formation and Overt Subjects in Infinitivals in Spanish
- 3 Two Families of Questions
- 4 Context-Sensitive Aspects of Constituent Negation
- 5 Phasehood and Romance Adverbial Because-Clauses
- 6 No-Choice Parameters, Phi-Features, and the Structure of DP
- Part II Interfaces
- Part III Linguistics and Other Sciences
- Index
- References
Summary
The contemporary approach to “multiple object” constructions treats the applicative small clause as a syntactic complement of a higher verb. This contrasts with the traditional analysis wherein one of the arguments is analyzed as an adjunct. This paper shows that the virtues of these analyses can combine if we assume that the applicative small clause is a VP adjunct and surface relation between thematic object and small clause is akin to adjunct control effected via sidewards movement.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Language, Syntax, and the Natural Sciences , pp. 9 - 33Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2018
References
Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark 1997. “Thematic Roles and Syntactic Structure.” In Haegeman, L. (ed.), Elements of Grammar: Handbook in Generative Syntax, Kluwer International Handbook of Linguistics. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 73–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barss, Andrew and Lasnik, Howard. 1986. “A Note on Anaphora and Double Objects.” Linguistic Inquiry 17: 347–354.Google Scholar
Belletti, Adriana and Rizzi, Luigi. 1988. “Psych Verbs and Theta Theory.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6: 291–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bleam, Tonia. 1999. “Leísta Spanish and the Syntax of Clitic Doubling.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Delaware.Google Scholar
Bleam, Tonia. 2003. “Properties of the Double Object Construction in Spanish.” In Núñez-Cedeño, Rafael, López, Luis, and Cameron, Richard (eds.), A Romance Perspective on Language Knowledge and Use. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 233–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bleam, Tonia and Lidz, Jeffrey. In prep. “Towards a Unified Analysis of Ditransitive Alternations across Languages.” MS., University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, J. D. and Brown, S.. 1997. “Interarboreal Operations: Head Movement and the Extension Requirement.” Linguistic Inquiry 28(2): 345–356.Google Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric, Hornstein, Norbert, and Nunes, Jairo. 2010. Control as Movement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruening, Benjamin. 2000. “QR Obeys Superiority: Frozen Scope and ACD.” Linguistic Inquiry 32: 233–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel. 1995. Particles. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David. 1978. “Governed Transformations as Lexical Rules in a Montague Grammar.” Linguistic Inquiry 9: 393–426.Google Scholar
Emonds, Joseph. 1972. “Evidence that Indirect Object Movement is a Structure-Preserving Rule.” Foundations of Language 8: 546–561.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles. 1965. Indirect Object Constructions in English and the Ordering of Transformations. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Freynik, Suzanne. 2012. “Quantifier-Variable Binding in L2 Spanish Ditransitives.” Ms., University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Green, Georgia. 1974. Semantics and Syntactic Regularity. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, Samuel J.. 1993. “On Argument Structure and the Lexical Expression of Syntactic Relations.” In Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, Samuel J. (eds.), The View from Building 20. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 53–109.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris and Marantz, Alec. 1993. “Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection.” In Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, Samuel J. (eds.), The View from Building 20. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 111–176.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 1995. “If You Have, You Can Give.” In Agbayani, Brian and Tang, Sze-Wing (eds.), Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 15. Stanford, CA: CSLI, pp. 193–207.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2002. “Possession and the Double Object Construction.” Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2(1): 31–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert. 2009. A Theory of Syntax: Minimal Operations and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1990a. “On Larson's Treatment of the Doubled Object Construction.” Linguistic Inquiry 21: 427–456.Google Scholar
Jayaseelan, K. A. 2002. “IP-internal Topic and Focus Phrases.” Studia Linguistica 55: 39–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1975. French Syntax: The Transformational Cycle. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1981. “Unambiguous Paths.” In May, Robert and Koster, Jan (eds.), Levels of Syntactic Representation. Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 143–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1993. “Towards a Modular Theory of Auxiliary Selection.” Studia Linguistica 47: 3–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. “Severing the External Argument from its Verb.” In Rooryck, Johan and Zaring, Laurie (eds.), Phrase Structure and the Lexicon. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 109–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, Richard. 1988. “On the Double Object Construction.” Linguistic Inquiry 19: 335–391.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard. 1990. “Double Objects Revisited: Reply to Jackendoff.” Linguistic Inquiry 2: 333–378.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard. 2010. “On Pylkkänen's Semantics for Low Applicatives.” Linguistic Inquiry 41: 701–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lasnik, Howard. 1999. “Chains of Arguments.” In Epstein, S. and Hornstein, N. (eds.), Working Minimalism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 189–215.Google Scholar
Lebeaux, David. 1998. “Where Does the Binding Theory Apply?” Ms., NEC Research Institute.Google Scholar
Lidz, J. 2002. “Two Structures for Kannada Ditransitives.” Paper presented at South Asian Languages Analysis Roundtable 22.Google Scholar
Lidz, J. and Williams, A.. 2005. “C-locality and the Interaction of Reflexives and Ditransitives.” In Moulton, K. and Wolf, M. (eds.), Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistics Society Annual Meeting (NELS) 34, Vol. II. New York: Stony Brook University, pp. 389–404.Google Scholar
Lidz, J. and Williams, A.. 2006. “On the Lack of Reflexive Benefactives in Kannada.” In Battacharya, T. (ed.), Yearbook of South Asian Languages and Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 237–254.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1982. “Affixation and the Syntax of Applied Verb Constructions.” In Flicklinger, D. P. et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 17. Stanford, CA: CSLI, pp. 330–340.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1984. On the Nature of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1988. “Clitics, Morphological Merger, and the Mapping to Phonological Structure.” In Hammon, Michael and Noonan, Michael (eds.), Theoretical Morphology. San Diego: Academic Press, pp. 253–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masullo, Pascual. 1992. “Incorporation and Case Theory in Spanish: A Crosslinguistic Perspective.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington.Google Scholar
McGinnis, Martha. 2003. “Variation in the Phase Structure of Applicatives.” In Rooryck, Johan and Pica, Pierre (eds.), Linguistic Variation Yearbook, 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 105–146.Google Scholar
Nakanishi, Kimiko. 2001. “Indefinites and Frozen Scope in Japanese: Restriction on QR and Choice Functions.” In Megerdoomian, Karine and Anne Bar-el, Leora (eds.), Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 20. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, pp. 101–114.Google Scholar
Nunes, Jairo. 1995. “The Copy Theory of Movement and the Linearization of Chains.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar
Nunes, Jairo. 2004. Linearization of Chains and Sideward Movement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oehrle, Richard. 1976. “The Grammatical Status of the English Dative Alternation.” Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Ormazabal, Javier and Romero, Juan. 1999. “On the Syntactic Nature of the Me-lui and the Person-Case Constraint.” Ms., University of the Basque Country and MIT.Google Scholar
Ormazabal, Javier and Romero, Juan. 2010. “The Derivation of Dative Alternations.” In Duguine, M., Huidobro, S., and Madariaga, N. (eds.), Argument Structure and Syntactic Relations from a Crosslinguistic Perspective. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 203–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero Syntax: Experiencers and Cascades. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pietroski, Paul. 2005. Events and Semantic Architecture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 1989. Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rappaport-Hovav, Malka and Levin, Beth. 2008. “The English Dative Alternation: The Case for Verb Sensitivity.” Journal of Linguistics 44: 129–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snyder, Kieran M. 2003. “The Relationship between *Form and *Function in Ditransitive Constructions.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, Juan. 1988. “On Government.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, Juan. 1998. Rhyme and Reason: An Introduction to Minimalist Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar