On the syntax of ditransitive sentences in Slovenian

Abstract

In this paper we discuss Slovenian ditransitive sentences with respect to the two possible word orders of the objects found with neutral intonation, DAT≫ACC and ACC≫DAT. We follow the idea in the Gračanin-Yuksek (2006) paper on Croatian that these two word orders instantiate different structures. In Slovenian, the DAT≫ACC order has an applicative structure (either high or low), while the ACC≫DAT is a prepositional dative construction. The applicative analysis provides a novel argument for this type of analysis. Other supporting arguments examined are scope properties, binding of possessives, the possibility of the causative reading, non-contrastive focus and heavy NP shift, and properties of idioms.

Adnominal Arguments in Phrases Headed by Deverbal Nouns in Slovenian

“…And their nominAlizAtions 3.1. sloveniAn ditrAnsitive verBs And their nominAlizAtions Marvin and Stegovec (2012) argue that the structure of Slovenian ditransitive sentences depends on the order of the Direct Object (DO) and Indirect Object (IO) arguments and also on the type of verb. The proposal is summarized in the following table: is certainly one of the reasons why native speakers rarely use three adnominal arguments with deverbal nouns.…”

“…13 However, her analysis fails to derive the correct WO if we add the dative argument (recipient/beneficiary). Suppose we adopt her structure and place the dative argument in the positions proposed by Marvin and Stegovec (2012), following then Dvořak's procedure of moving the internal argument to a position that is higher as the dative when forming the process nominal. This way we obtain the correct order Head >> Genitive-theme >> Dative-recipient, but still fail to obtain the correct position of the agent.…”

The Canonical Order of Russian Objects

“…15 The observation that the two hierarchies regulate the surface order of Russian objects can be captured either by assuming that the thematic hierarchy regulates the order in which objects merge, whereas the APH licenses A-movement of the indirect object across the direct object, or by arguing that both hierarchies affect the order in which objects merge, with the APH licensing a reversed order of merger. Both positions have been defended extensively; some scholars postulate that the inverse order of objects involves movement (Larson 1988, Junghanns and Zybatow 1995, King 1995, Bailyn 2003a,b, 2004, Slioussar 2007, and others that both object orders can be base-generated (Bruening 2001, Cuervo 2003, Gra?anin-Yuksek 2006, Neeleman and van de Koot 2008, 2012, Pylkkänen 2008, Slavkov 2008, Dvořák 2010, Marvin and Stegovec 2012. Although I take no firm stand here on the question of whether Russian A-scrambling should be analyzed as involving A-movement or variation in the base component, in what follows I adopt the base-generation analysis of object-across-object A-scrambling introduced in Neeleman and van de Koot 2012.…”

“…If we assume that scrambling involves movement of one object across the other, we can argue that the scrambled structure is more costly than the canonical structure because it involves an additional movement operation. But even if we assume that both object orders are base-generated in Russian, as has been argued for several other Slavic languages (e.g., Croatian, Bulgarian, Czech, and Slovenian; for discussion, see Bruening 2001, Cuervo 2003, Gra?anin-Yuksek 2006, Pylkkänen 2008, Slavkov 2008, Dvořák 2010, Marvin and Stegovec 2012, we can still argue that the base-generated scrambled structure is marked with respect to the canonical structure because the former involves an inverse order of -role assignment, which makes it more costly (Neeleman and van de Koot 2012). 3 Assuming that syntax produces marked structures along with unmarked ones, at the interface between the syntactic component and the interpretive component-that is, the postgrammatical level of discourse (Reinhart 1995(Reinhart , 2006-interface economy rules operate that ban more complex marked structures unless the marked construction achieves an interpretive effect that the simpler unmarked structure fails to express.…”

Dative antecedents for reflexives and pronouns

“…It must be noted that this conclusion does not hold for all Slavic languages. For example, Marvin and Stegovec (2012) show that in Slovenian, a quantifier in the higher dative object can bind a reflexive possessive in the lower object, as in (i). The dative of possession seems to behave like a regular VP-internal dative object.…”