Syntactic Neutralization in Double Object Constructions

Hallman, Peter

doi:10.1162/ling_a_00187

Cited by 49 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…There are three logical possibilities for the analysis of pairs of sentences like (26), each of which has some precedent in the literature. Either the double‐object frame in (26a) is derived from the prepositional frame in (26b) (Perlmutter & Postal ; Larson ; Ormazabal & Romero ), or vice versa (Bowers , Dryer , Aoun & Li , Kitagawa , Hallman ), or the two are not transformationally related (Pinker ; Bowers ; Hale & Keyser ; Den Dikken ; Pesetsky ; Basilico ; Bruening ; Hale & Keyser ; Harley ; Pylkkänen ; Anagnostopoulou ; Beck & Johnson ; Ramchand ; Harley & Jung ).…”

Section: Derivation Versus Representation In the Double‐object Alternmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…My goal in this article is to develop an analysis that captures the particular constellation of properties found in Syrian Arabic and the manner in which they interact. The analysis combines elements of the approach to dative case in McGinnis (); Cuervo (); and Woolford () with elements of Harley's () Distributed Morphology analysis of complex‐predicate constructions and Hallman's () analysis of the double‐object alternation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Double‐Object Constructions in Syrian Arabic

Hallman

2018

Syntax

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article documents double‐object constructions in contemporary Syrian Arabic and presents an analysis of the case‐frame alternations found there. Some double‐object verbs assign accusative case to their indirect object, as in English, while others assign it dative, as in German. Yet, for both verb types, the double‐object frame productively alternates with a frame in which the indirect object occurs in a prepositional phrase. Consequently, dative has, at the same time, properties of a lexical case (it is contingent on its lexical environment) but also properties of a structural case (it is suppressed in the prepositional frame). Further, restrictions on cliticization, animacy, and idiom patterns indicate that the prepositional frame of verbs displaying a double‐object frame is derived from the underlying double‐object frame. An analysis is presented in which D‐feature checking enforces the order indirect object > direct object in the double‐object frame regardless of the case of the indirect object, and the alternation between dative, accusative, and the prepositional frame is contingent on properties of the applicative head that θ‐licenses the indirect object.

show abstract

Section: Derivation Versus Representation In the Double‐object Alternmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Double‐Object Constructions in Syrian Arabic

Hallman

2018

Syntax

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, in dative constructions, the surface structure has changed into DP+DP while in locative constructions, the structure is the same as before applying the locative alternation. Furthermore, according to Hallman(2015), when the purpose clause is inserted after dative constructions, the PRO in the purpose clause corresponds to indirect object and the zero-element "e" in the purpose clause corresponds to direct object. But, in case of locative constructions, there is no corresponding phenomenons like dative constructions.…”

Section: The Similarity Between Locative Constructions and Dative Conmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, the structure of the dative constructions and locative constructions is likely to be analyzed alike. Hallman(2015) analyzed the dative constructions with "Cause X to have Y' method. Also, Hallman(2015) analyzed the locative constructions with "Cause X to be Y" method.…”

Section: The Similarity Between Locative Constructions and Dative Conmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Correlation between Dative Constructions and Locative Constructions

2017

June 29-30, 2017 London (UK) Back CABES-17, RTSET-17, SHSS-17, BELIS-17

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Although the precise analysis of the PDC has long been controversial (see Larson 1988, Pesetsky 1995, Harley 2002, Bruening 2010, Hallman 2015, Harley and Miyagawa 2016 there is a degree of consensus that the analysis in (46) is essentially right, for the active PDC.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Movement from the Double Object Construction Is Not Fully Symmetrical

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A movement asymmetry arises in some languages that are otherwise symmetrical for both A-and A-bar movement in the double object construction (DOC), including Norwegian, North-West British English, and a range of Bantu languages including Zulu and Lubukusu: a Theme object can be A-bar-moved out of a Recipient (Goal) passive, but not vice versa. Our explanation of this asymmetry is based on phase theory, more specifically a stricter version of the Phase Interpretability Condition proposed by Chomsky (2001). The effect is that, in a Theme passive, a Recipient object destined for the C-domain gets trapped within the lower V-related phase by movement of the Theme. The same effect is observed in Italian, a language in which only Theme passives are possible. Moreover, a similar effect is also found in some Bantu languages in connection with object marking/agreement: object agreement with the Theme in a Recipient passive is possible, but not vice versa. We show that this, too, can be understood within the theory that we articulate.

show abstract

Syntactic Neutralization in Double Object Constructions

Cited by 49 publications

References 41 publications

Double‐Object Constructions in Syrian Arabic

Double‐Object Constructions in Syrian Arabic

The Correlation between Dative Constructions and Locative Constructions

Movement from the Double Object Construction Is Not Fully Symmetrical

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About