Goal and DOM datives

Manzini, M. Rita; Franco, Ludovico

doi:10.1007/s11049-015-9303-y

Cited by 63 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 68 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We will address this question through the Hebrew object marker et (Berman 1978;Shlonsky 1997;Danon 2001;. et is a structural marker of definite direct objects in Hebrew, with characteristics similar to preposition-like differential object markers in other languages (Manzini & Franco 2016, for recent discussion). In order to examine whether children exploit the presence of the object marker to understand object A-bar dependencies, we took advantage of the optionality of et marking in which questions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

No case for Case in locality: Case does not help interpretation when intervention blocks A-bar chains

Friedmann

Rizzi

Belletti

2017

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We discuss a robust yet at first sight surprising fact: individuals who have problems understanding sentences with object A-bar movement cannot use overt Case marking of the object to interpret these sentences and to associate the DPs with thematic roles. We tested the effect of overt Case marking of the object in typically developing Hebrew-speaking children by comparing their comprehension of which object questions with and without the object Case marker et, and found that there was no difference in comprehension between the two. A similar pattern was found in an adolescent with syntactic SLI. We then tested the comprehension of object topicalized structures in the order OVS, where the only element identifying these sentences as objectfirst sentences and distinguishing them from simple SVO sentences was the object marker. We tested this in three populations with object A-bar movement problems: individuals with agrammatism, adolescents with syntactic SLI, and orally-trained children with hearing impairment, as well as in analysis of previous data on typically-developing children acquiring Hebrew. All populations failed to understand the sentence, but did not consistently reverse the thematic roles of the two noun phrases. This suggests that they were sensitive to the presence of the Case marker but could not use it for interpretation. We argue that these findings immediately follow from the way intervention and locality are computed, under the featural Relativized Minimality approach. Case is not among the features triggering movement, therefore a Case difference is not taken into account in trying to build a movement chain across an intervener. As a result, the object chain cannot be built across the intervening subject in the relevant cases, and overt Case marking of the object cannot help rescue the structure. Thematic role assignment in complex movement configurations requires the building of movement chains; if chain formation fails, strategies based on overt morphological cues do not help. These results argue for a featureselective approach to locality and for encapsulated syntactic computation of movement.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

No case for Case in locality: Case does not help interpretation when intervention blocks A-bar chains

Friedmann

Rizzi

Belletti

2017

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore our real targets are oblique cases. We take our bearings from a spate of recent works by Manzini & Savoia (2011), Manzini et al (2015), Manzini & Franco (2016) -which deal with the genitive/dative oblique(s). Their basic idea can be grasped by reference to data like (3).…”

Section: Core Proposal and Outlinementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Manzini et al (2015) and Manzini & Franco (2016) address these issues with respect to datives with ditransitive verbs, with unergative verbs, as experiencer subjects, as DOM objects and as oblique (ergative) subjects.…”

Section: Core Proposal and Outlinementioning

confidence: 99%

“…In other words, building on Manzini & Savoia (2011), Manzini & Franco (2016), the fundamental oblique system (genitive-dative-instrumental) has a common core consisting of part/whole content, deployed in order to enrich the argumental structure supported by verbal projections (via Chomsky's Agree, deriving direct case). Datives and instrumentals are singled out at least by another typologically relevant behaviour, namely the possibility of being encoded via verbal applicative morphology.…”

Section: (5)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Actually, the quantifier binding facts reported by Larson (1988: 338), are not completely clear-cut, as shown in (iii), leaving some room to believe that English to and Romance a may have the same status (cf. Manzini & Franco 2016). …”

Section: Reverse Goalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Instrumental prepositions and case: Contexts of occurrence and alternations with datives

Franco

Manzini

2017

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We will argue that instrumentals are the mirror image of dative/genitive obliques. We propose that both sets of adpositions/cases are elementary predicates, expressing a zonal inclusion (partwhole/possession relation); instrumentals reverse the direction of the relation with respect to datives/genitives. Our claim is that with-type morphemes provide very elementary means of attaching extra participants (themes, initiators, etc.) to events (VP or vP predicates) -with specialized interpretations derived by pragmatic enrichment (contextual, encyclopedic) at the C-I interface. We will extend our proposal to account for the observation that the instrumentals can be employed cross-linguistically in triadic verb constructions alternating with datives and we will broaden our discussion to account for dative/instrumental syncretism (eventually including DOM objects), arguing that the inclusion predicate (⊆) corresponding to 'to' or dative case and its reverse (⊇), corresponding to 'with' or instrumental case, may reduce to an even more primitive content capable of conveying inclusion in either direction. Finally, we will address ergative alignments, showing that languages may attach external arguments/agents either as possessors (⊆) or as causers (⊇) of a given event/state, yielding the two most widespread patterns of syncretism of the ergative morpheme, that is with either instrumentals or genitives/datives.

show abstract

The syntax and semantics of dative DPs in Russian ditransitives

Boneh

Nash

2017

Nat Lang Linguist Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Goal and DOM datives

Cited by 63 publications

References 68 publications

No case for Case in locality: Case does not help interpretation when intervention blocks A-bar chains

No case for Case in locality: Case does not help interpretation when intervention blocks A-bar chains

Instrumental prepositions and case: Contexts of occurrence and alternations with datives

The syntax and semantics of dative DPs in Russian ditransitives

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About