Applicative structure and Mandarin ditransitives

Abstract

We argue that applicative heads always appear above the lexical VP, regardless of the semantics of the construction. Thematic Applicatives select a nominal expression and a VP as argument, parallel to Pylkkänen's (2008) "high" applicatives. The applied argument is merged in Spec, ApplP and receives a role such as beneficiary. Raising Applicatives appear in the same position above the lexical VP, but do not select an underlying nominal argument. Instead, they attract a goal DP from within the ditransitive VP to their specifier. This pattern captures the properties of a theme-goal ditransitive construction (Pylkkänen's "low" applicative). We show that the Mandarin double object construction 'Verb gěi IO DO' instantiates a raising applicative, where gěi realizes Appl 0 .We would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for very detailed and insightful comments. We are also grateful to Victor Junnan Pan, Zhitang Yang-Drocourt, and Yuan Huahung for discussion of the Mandarin data.

Clitic pronouns in Archaic Chinese

“…26 Concerning the details of the derivation in the structures (1b-3b), it is not clear, either, how movement of V-to-Appl° followed by subsequent movement of that complex head to v can be excluded, leading to the undesired, non-attested sequence: 'V-yǐ DP DP'. In fact, this is precisely the derivation proposed by Paul & Whitman (2010) for the applicative head gěi in Modern Mandarin: 'V-gěi DPgoal DPtheme'.…”

Why particles are not particular: Sentence‐final particles in Chinese as heads of a split CP

“…Unlike the SFP le realizing C, the perfective ‐le instantiates the head Asp° situated above v P and attracting V (cf. Lin Tzong‐Hong 2001; Paul & Whitman ).…”

Disharmony in harmony with diachronic stability

“…jì 寄 'send' and xiě xìn 寫(信) 'write (a letter)') and for transitive verbs optionally involving the meaning of transfer, the recipient gěi PP 'to XP' can either follow or precede the verb (cf. Paul & Whitman 2010, Paul 2016b As reflected in the different translations provided in (51c), the postverbal gěi-PP indicates the recipient only, whereas the preverbal gěi-PP is ambiguous between a recipient and a benefactive reading, on a par with English for Mary. In the latter case, Mary as benefactive can, but need not coincide with the recipient, thus allowing for a person different from Mary (e.g.…”