DOCSLIB.ORG

Generative Syntax: a Cross-Linguistic Approach

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Generative Syntax: a Cross-Linguistic Approach Generative Syntax: A Cross-Linguistic Approach Michael Barrie Sogang University May 30, 2021 2 Generative Syntax: A Cross-Linguistic Introduction ľ 2021 by Michael Barrie is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial- ShareAlike 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ (한국어: https: //creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/deed.ko) by-nc-sa/4.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, PO Box 1866, Mountain View, CA 94042, USA. This license requires that reusers give credit to the creator. It allows reusers to distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon the material in any medium or format, for noncommercial purposes only. If others modify or adapt the material, they must license the modified material under identical terms. Contents 1 Foundations of the Study of Language 13 1.1 The Science of Language .................................... 13 1.2 Prescriptivism versus Descriptivism .............................. 15 1.3 Evidence of Syntactic Knowledge ............................... 17 1.4 Syntactic Theorizing ....................................... 18 Key Concepts .............................................. 20 Exercises ................................................. 21 Further Reading ............................................ 22 2 The Lexicon and Theta Relations 23 2.1 Restrictions on lexical items: What words want and need ................ 23 2.2 Thematic Relations and θ-Roles ................................ 25 2.3 Lexical Entries .......................................... 33 Key Concepts .............................................. 34 Exercises ................................................. 35 Further Reading ............................................ 38 Interchapter A: Noun Incorporation 38 Further Reading ............................................ 43 3 Phrase Structure and Constituency 45 3.1 Review of Phrase Structure ................................... 45 3.2 Constituency Tests ........................................ 49 3.2.1 Pro-forms ......................................... 50 3.2.2 Stand Alone ....................................... 52 3.2.3 Coordination Tests ................................... 52 3.2.4 Movement Tests ..................................... 54 3.3 C-Command: A New Relation ................................. 62 3 4 CONTENTS 3.4 Bare Phrase Structure ...................................... 63 3.5 The Content of Lexical Categories .............................. 66 3.5.1 Noun Phrases ...................................... 66 3.5.2 Verb Phrases ....................................... 69 3.5.3 Adpostional Phrases .................................. 71 3.5.4 Adjective Phrases .................................... 71 3.5.5 Adverbial Phrases .................................... 72 Key Concepts .............................................. 73 Exercises ................................................. 74 Further Reading ............................................ 77 Interchapter B: Applicatives 78 Further Reading ............................................ 82 4 Developments of Phrase Structure 83 4.1 DP Theory ............................................ 83 4.1.1 The Structure of Pronouns .............................. 88 4.1.2 Classifiers (advanced) .................................. 91 4.2 Tense Phrases–TP ........................................ 92 4.3 CP–The Complementizer Phrase ............................... 97 4.3.1 Topics and Focus .................................... 99 4.3.2 Embedded Topics and Focus (advanced) ...................... 101 4.4 Ditransitive Constructions ................................... 103 4.5 Light Verbs ............................................ 108 4.6 Argument Structure Alternations ............................... 111 4.6.1 Dative Shift ....................................... 111 4.6.2 Spray-Load Alternations ................................ 112 4.6.3 Benefactive Alternation ................................ 113 4.7 Light Verbs in Other Languages ................................ 113 Key Concepts .............................................. 115 Exercises ................................................. 116 Further Reading ............................................ 121 Interchapter C: Discourse Configurationality 121 Further Reading ............................................ 126 5 The Architecture of Grammar 127 5.1 Principles and Parameters ................................... 127 CONTENTS 5 5.1.1 The Pro-Drop Parameter ............................... 128 5.2 Minimalism and The Model of Grammar .......................... 131 5.2.1 Bare Phrase Structure and Merge .......................... 131 5.2.2 Move ............................................ 133 5.3 Head Movement and Phrasal Movement ........................... 133 5.3.1 V-to-T Movement .................................... 136 5.3.2 T-to-C Movement .................................... 140 5.4 Parameterization and Word Order .............................. 145 Key Concepts .............................................. 156 Exercises ................................................. 157 Further Reading ............................................ 160 Interchapter D: Verb-Initial Languages 161 Further Reading ............................................ 164 6 Case Theory 165 6.1 Case and the Distribution of DPs ............................... 165 6.1.1 Nominative Case ..................................... 167 6.1.2 Accusative Case ..................................... 168 6.1.3 Case Assignment .................................... 168 6.2 The Case Filter .......................................... 169 6.3 Passivization ........................................... 171 6.4 Alternative Types of Passives ................................. 174 6.4.1 Inherent Case ...................................... 174 6.4.2 “Get”-Passives ...................................... 174 6.4.3 Middle Voice ....................................... 175 6.4.4 Impersonal Passives ................................... 176 6.4.5 SE in Romance ..................................... 177 6.4.6 Mandarin: The Ba-Construction ........................... 177 Key Concepts .............................................. 179 Exercises ................................................. 180 Further Reading ............................................ 183 Interchapter E: Verb Second in Germanic 184 Further Reading ............................................ 189 7 Case Alignment Systems 191 7.1 Unaccusativity .......................................... 191 6 CONTENTS 7.2 Ergativity ............................................. 202 7.3 Split Intransitivity ........................................ 207 Key Concepts .............................................. 212 Exercises ................................................. 213 Further Reading ............................................ 215 Interchapter F: Second Positions Clitics 216 Further Reading ............................................ 219 8 Wh-Movement and Relative Clauses 221 8.1 Wh-Movement .......................................... 221 8.1.1 Multiple Wh-Questions ................................. 231 8.1.2 Wh-Movement and Successive Cyclicity ....................... 232 8.2 Cross-Linguistic Patterns of Wh-Movement ......................... 241 8.2.1 Wh-in-situ ........................................ 241 8.2.2 Multiple wh-movement ................................. 249 8.3 Relative Clauses ......................................... 251 8.3.1 Accessibility Hierarchy ................................. 257 8.3.2 Internally-Headed Relative Clauses .......................... 258 8.4 Restrictions on wh-movement ................................. 260 8.4.1 Complex DP Constraint ................................ 260 8.4.2 Subject Constraint ................................... 260 8.4.3 Wh-Island Constraint .................................. 261 8.4.4 Resumptive Pronouns .................................. 261 8.5 Phases and Constraining Wh-Movement ........................... 262 8.5.1 Relative Clauses and Islands ............................. 269 8.5.2 Cross-Over Effects (advanced) ............................ 270 Key Concepts .............................................. 274 Exercises ................................................. 275 Further Reading ............................................ 279 Interchapter G: Romance Clitics 279 Further Reading ............................................ 283 9 The Syntax of Infinitives 285 9.1 Introduction ............................................ 285 9.2 Diagnostics for Raising and Control .............................. 288 9.2.1 Idiom Tests ........................................ 288 CONTENTS 7 9.2.2 Expletive Subjects .................................... 290 9.2.3 Voice Transparency ................................... 291 9.3 Deriving the Structure of Control and Raising/ECM ................... 292 9.4 Types of Control and Raising ................................. 301 9.4.1 Further Types of Control ............................... 302 9.4.2 Wanna-Contraction ................................... 304 9.5 Control in Other Languages .................................. 305 9.5.1 Balkan Languages .................................... 305 9.5.2 Portuguese Inflected Infinitives ............................ 305 9.5.3 Serial Verb Constructions ............................... 307 Key Concepts .............................................. 309 Exercises ................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Dative Constructions in Romance and Beyond
    Dative constructions in Romance and beyond Edited by Anna Pineda Jaume Mateu language Open Generative Syntax 7 science press Open Generative Syntax Editors: Elena Anagnostopoulou, Mark Baker, Roberta D’Alessandro, David Pesetsky, Susi Wurmbrand In this series: 1. Bailey, Laura R. & Michelle Sheehan (eds.). Order and structure in syntax I: Word order and syntactic structure. 2. Sheehan, Michelle & Laura R. Bailey (eds.). Order and structure in syntax II: Subjecthood and argument structure. 3. Bacskai­Atkari, Julia. Deletion phenomena in comparative constructions: English comparatives in a cross­linguistic perspective. 4. Franco, Ludovico, Mihaela Marchis Moreno & Matthew Reeve (eds.). Agreement, case and locality in the nominal and verbal domains. 5. Bross, Fabian. The clausal syntax of German Sign Language: A cartographic approach. 6. Smith, Peter W., Johannes Mursell & Katharina Hartmann (eds.). Agree to Agree: Agreement in the Minimalist Programme. 7. Pineda, Anna & Jaume Mateu (eds.). Dative constructions in Romance and beyond. ISSN: 2568­7336 Dative constructions in Romance and beyond Edited by Anna Pineda Jaume Mateu language science press Pineda, Anna & Jaume Mateu (eds.). 2020. Dative constructions in Romance and beyond (Open Generative Syntax 7). Berlin: Language Science Press. This title can be downloaded at: http://langsci-press.org/catalog/book/258 © 2020, the authors Published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Licence (CC BY 4.0): http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ISBN: 978-3-96110-249-5 (Digital) 978-3-96110-250-1
    [Show full text]
  • From Latin to Romance: Case Loss and Preservation in Pronominal Systems
    FLORE Repository istituzionale dell'Università degli Studi di Firenze From Latin to Romance: case loss and preservation in pronominal systems Questa è la Versione finale referata (Post print/Accepted manuscript) della seguente pubblicazione: Original Citation: From Latin to Romance: case loss and preservation in pronominal systems / Manzini, MARIA RITA; Savoia, LEONARDO MARIA. - In: PROBUS. - ISSN 1613-4079. - STAMPA. - 26, 2(2014), pp. 217-248. Availability: This version is available at: 2158/891750 since: 2016-01-20T16:23:29Z Terms of use: Open Access La pubblicazione è resa disponibile sotto le norme e i termini della licenza di deposito, secondo quanto stabilito dalla Policy per l'accesso aperto dell'Università degli Studi di Firenze (https://www.sba.unifi.it/upload/policy-oa-2016-1.pdf) Publisher copyright claim: (Article begins on next page) 27 September 2021 Probus 2014; 26(2): 217 – 248 M. Rita Manzini* and Leonardo M. Savoia From Latin to Romance: case loss and preservation in pronominal systems Abstract: The evolution from Latin into Romance is marked by the loss of case in nominal declensions. In most Romance varieties, however, pronouns, specifi- cally in the 1st/2nd person singular, keep case differentiations. In some varieties 1st/2nd singular pronouns present a three-way case split, essentially the same re- constructed for proto-Romance (De Dardel and Gaeng 1992, Zamboni 1998). We document and analyze the current situation of Romance in the first part of the article (section 1). In the second part of the article we argue that the Dative Shifted distribution of loro in modern Italian, accounted for by means of the category of weak pronoun in Cardinaletti and Starke (1999), is best construed as a survival of oblique case in the 3rd person system (section 2).
    [Show full text]
  • MR Harley Miyagawa Syntax of Ditransitives
    Syntax of Ditransitives Heidi Harley and Shigeru Miyagawa (in press, Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics) July 2016 Summary Keywords 1. Structure for the Two Internal Arguments 2. Underlying Order 3. Meaning Differences 4. Case, Clitic 5. The Structure of Ditransitives 6. Nominalization Asymmetries 6.1. A Morphological Account of the Nominalization Asymmetry 6.2. –kata Nominalization in Japanese and Myer’s Generalization 6.3 Selectional Accounts of the Nominalization Asymmetry 6.4 Applicative vs Small Clause Approaches to the DOC. 7. Constraints on the Dative/DOC Alternation 7.1 Morphological Constraints 7.2 Lexical Semantic Constraints 7.3 Information-Structural and Sentential Prosody Constraints 8. Overview and Prospects Further Reading References Summary Ditransitive predicates select for two internal arguments, and hence minimally entail the participation of three entities in the event described by the verb. Canonical ditranstive verbs include give, show and teach; in each case, the verb requires an Agent (a giver, shower or teacher, respectively), a Theme (the thing given, shown or taught) and a Goal (the recipient, viewer, or student). The property of requiring two internal arguments makes ditransitive verbs syntactically unique. Selection in generative grammar is often modelled as syntactic sisterhood, so ditranstive verbs immediately raise the question of whether a verb might have two sisters, requiring a ternary-branching structure, or whether one of the two internal arguments is not in a sisterhood relation with the verb. Another important property of English ditransitive constructions is the two syntactic structures associated with them. In the so-called “Double Object Construction”, or DOC, the Goal and Theme both are simple NPs and appear following the verb in the order V-Goal-Theme.
    [Show full text]
  • Emergency Resources Guide 2020
    K.L.E.A.N. Emergency Resources Guide 2020 Emergency Resources Guide 2020 6 August K.L.E.A.N. Emergency Resources Guide 2020 This Page Intentionally Left Blank K.L.E.A.N. Emergency Resources Guide 2020 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction............................................................................................................................................. 1-1 K.L.E.A.N. Overview/Mission Statement ......................................................................................................... 1-1 Community Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 1-2 Purpose .......................................................................................................................................................... 1-3 Planning Assumptions ………………………………………………………………………………………………1-4 How to use the ERG ....................................................................................................................................... 1-4 2.0 Alert & Notification ................................................................................................................................. 2-1 Requesting Assistance ................................................................................................................................... 2-1 Emergency Numbers ...................................................................................................................................... 2-3 Public Information
    [Show full text]
  • Language Policy
    Federated States of Micronesia Language Policy FSM Division of Education Attn: FSM Language Policy P.O. Box PS 87 Palikir Station Pohnpei, FM 96941 FSM Language Policy Table of Contents ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................................................1 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................................................2 TABLE. FShl LANGUAGEPOL~CY .COMPONENTS ..................................................................................... 3 ORIENTATION OF LANGUAGE POLICY .............................................................................................. 4 LANGUAGE POLICY DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................................................4 MAJORFINDTNGS ......................................................................................................................................... 5 Local Languages .................................................................................................................................... 5 English ................................................................................................................................................... 6 Other International Languages ............................................................................................................. 7 Language Acquisition ........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • First Objects and Datives: Two of a Kind?
    BLS 32 February 2006 First Objects and Datives: Two of a Kind? Beth Levin Stanford University (beth.levin@stanford.edu) 1 The big question There are two options for expressing recipients in English with dative verbs—verbs taking agent, recipient, and theme arguments, such as give and other verbs of causation of possession. (1) a. Terry gave Sam an apple. (double object construction) b. Terry gave an apple to Sam. (to construction) Many languages which lack a double object construction still have a core (i.e., nonadjunct) grammatical relation, distinct from subject and object, used to express recipient. Specifically, many languages have a dative case and use the dative (case marked) NP as the basic realization of possessors, including recipients of verbs of causation of possession. (2) Ja dal Ivanu knigu. I.NOM give.PST Ivan.DAT book.ACC ‘I gave Ivan a book.’ (RUSSIAN; dative construction) A PERENNIAL QUESTION: What is the status of the first object in the double object construction? — Is it comparable to the object of a transitive verb? AN ANSWER: YES is implicit in the label “first/primary/inner object” and is supported by its passivizability and postverbal position; cf. Dryer’s (1986) “primary object languages”. (3) Sam was given an apple. — Is it comparable to the dative NP of languages with a dative case? AN ANSWER: In the context of the answer to the previous question, NO is the usual answer given; it is the NP in the to phrase in the to construction that is equated with the dative NP. THE COMPLICATION: Repeated observations that despite surface similarities with direct objects, recipients in the double object construction do not show all direct object properties (e.g., Baker 1997; Hudson 1992; Maling 2001; Marantz 1993; Polinsky 1996; Ziv & Sheintuch 1979).
    [Show full text]
  • CASE ALTERNATIONS in ANCIENT GREEK PASSIVES and the TYPOLOGY of CASE Elena Anagnostopoulou Christina Sevdali
    CASE ALTERNATIONS IN ANCIENT GREEK PASSIVES AND THE TYPOLOGY OF CASE Elena Anagnostopoulou Christina Sevdali University of Crete Ulster University This article presents and discusses evidence that genitive and dative objects regularly become nominative in Ancient Greek passives of monotransitives and ditransitives. This is a typologically and theoretically significant state of affairs for two reasons . (i) As is well known, nonaccusative objects are, in many languages, not allowed to enter into Case alternations, a fact that has been ac - counted for in the government-binding /principles-and-parameters literature on the basis of the as - sumption that nonaccusative objects —prototypically datives —bear inherent , lexical , or quirky Case. By this reasoning, Ancient Greek genitives and datives must be concluded to have structural Case. (ii) Even in languages where dative -nominative (DAT-NOM) alternations do obtain, they are often limited to ditransitives, a fact that can been taken to suggest that dative qual - ifies as structural Case only in ditransitives. A language like Ancient Greek , which allows genitive and dative objects to become nominative in all passives (monotransitives and ditransitives) , shows that it is, in principle, possible to have a linguistic system where genitive and dative qualify as structural Cases in both monotransitives and ditransitives. Case theories must be designed in such a way as to allow for this option. We argue for an analysis of Case alternations that combines the view that alternating datives and
    [Show full text]
  • The Indirect Object in Educated English Brittany A
    Running head: INDIRECT OBJECT USE BY EDUCATED ENGLISH SPEAKERS Kemp The Indirect Object In Educated English Brittany A. Kemp California State Polytechnic University, Pomona INDIRECT OBJECT USE BY EDUCATED ENGLISH SPEAKERS Kemp This study examined the use of dative alternation in formal and informal spoken discourse to determine how specific verbs, were used in conversations by educated native speakers. Instances of use were collected as notebook data by the primary researcher, and the data were then categorized. This study analyzed verbs that occurred in both the double object and prepositional constructions, and investigated the effects of pronouns and heavy noun phrases. Furthermore, it considered instances of dative alternation in complex forms such as relative clauses, if clauses, and wh- questions, and described these forms as they occurred in natural, unsolicited speech. This research contributes to the preexisting body of research by providing data on natural indirect object use by educated native speakers of American English. 1 Introduction Generally, grammars define an indirect object as “a second noun object that tells us to whom or for whom the action expressed in the verb is being carried out.” (Celce-Murcia & Larsen-Freeman, 1983, p. 361) Ditransitive verbs take both indirect and direct objects in a sentence, and dative alternation, sometimes referred to as dative shift or movement, is the variation of indirect object placement within those sentences. In the double object, or postverbal, construction, the indirect object is situated immediately after the verb (Ex. 1). In the prepositional construction, the indirect object is positioned after a preposition (Ex. 2). (In both examples, Jane is the indirect object.) (1) Mary gave [Jane]IO [the cat]DO.
    [Show full text]
  • [.35 **Natural Language Processing Class Here Computational Linguistics See Manual at 006.35 Vs
    006 006 006 DeweyiDecimaliClassification006 006 [.35 **Natural language processing Class here computational linguistics See Manual at 006.35 vs. 410.285 *Use notation 019 from Table 1 as modified at 004.019 400 DeweyiDecimaliClassification 400 400 DeweyiDecimali400Classification Language 400 [400 [400 *‡Language Class here interdisciplinary works on language and literature For literature, see 800; for rhetoric, see 808. For the language of a specific discipline or subject, see the discipline or subject, plus notation 014 from Table 1, e.g., language of science 501.4 (Option A: To give local emphasis or a shorter number to a specific language, class in 410, where full instructions appear (Option B: To give local emphasis or a shorter number to a specific language, place before 420 through use of a letter or other symbol. Full instructions appear under 420–490) 400 DeweyiDecimali400Classification Language 400 SUMMARY [401–409 Standard subdivisions and bilingualism [410 Linguistics [420 English and Old English (Anglo-Saxon) [430 German and related languages [440 French and related Romance languages [450 Italian, Dalmatian, Romanian, Rhaetian, Sardinian, Corsican [460 Spanish, Portuguese, Galician [470 Latin and related Italic languages [480 Classical Greek and related Hellenic languages [490 Other languages 401 DeweyiDecimali401Classification Language 401 [401 *‡Philosophy and theory See Manual at 401 vs. 121.68, 149.94, 410.1 401 DeweyiDecimali401Classification Language 401 [.3 *‡International languages Class here universal languages; general
    [Show full text]
  • UNIVERSITY of Hawanubf<ARY
    UNIVERSITY OF HAWAnUbF<ARY A CROSS -CULTURAL ASSESSMENT OF PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT IN EDUCATION IN POHNPEI, FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE DIVISION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAfI IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN EDUCATION DECEMBER 2003 By Timothy Donahue Dissertation Committee: Eileen Tamura, Chairperson Royal Fruehling Gay Reed Lois Yamauchi George Simson © 2003, Timothy Donahue iii Acknowledgements I would like to acknowledge the willing participation and importance ofmany people to the completion ofthis dissertation. The assistance ofthe Mauricio "peneinei," the extended family ofmy friend and colleague Rodrigo Mauricio, in transcribing and translating Pohnpeian was invaluable. Further thanks is due specifically to Rod for his assistance in clarifying matters ofculture and language and to Dr. Rufino Mauricio for listening to my interpretation ofthe data and making useful comments. Mr. Albert Augustine, Mr. Hanover Ehsa, and Mr. Robert Andres provided additional assistance with translation. My thanks also to Mr. Marcus Rosario, Chair ofthe Pohnpei State PTA Presidents' Association for endorsing my effort and inviting me to gather data at the 2002 School Community Partnership Forum. Finally, in Pohnpei, the logistical assistance and sure cultural guidance of Mrs. SeNellie Singeo were critical for me to meet people and gain their backing. I would also like to thank Dr. Lawrence Zane for starting me on the journey to a doctoral degree, and to Mr. Andy Aguillon and Dr. John Kofel for providing work environments that supported my endeavor. Last but not least I must acknowledge the patience, encouragement and continued support ofmy committee, Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Indigenous Language Revitalization on Social Media During the Early COVID-19 Pandemic
    Vol. 15 (2021), pp. 239–266 http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/ldc http://hdl.handle.net/10125/24976 Revised Version Received: 10 Mar 2021 #KeepOurLanguagesStrong: Indigenous Language Revitalization on Social Media during the Early COVID-19 Pandemic Kari A. B. Chew University of Oklahoma Indigenous communities, organizations, and individuals work tirelessly to #Keep- OurLanguagesStrong. The COVID-19 pandemic was potentially detrimental to Indigenous language revitalization (ILR) as this mostly in-person work shifted online. This article shares findings from an analysis of public social media posts, dated March through July 2020 and primarily from Canada and the US, about ILR and the COVID-19 pandemic. The research team, affiliated with the NEȾOL- ṈEW̱ “one mind, one people” Indigenous language research partnership at the University of Victoria, identified six key themes of social media posts concerning ILR and the pandemic, including: 1. language promotion, 2. using Indigenous languages to talk about COVID-19, 3. trainings to support ILR, 4. language ed- ucation, 5. creating and sharing language resources, and 6. information about ILR and COVID-19. Enacting the principle of reciprocity in Indigenous research, part of the research process was to create a short video to share research findings back to social media. This article presents a selection of slides from the video accompanied by an in-depth analysis of the themes. Written about the pandemic, during the pandemic, this article seeks to offer some insights and understandings of a time during which much is uncertain. Therefore, this article does not have a formal conclusion; rather, it closes with ideas about long-term implications and future research directions that can benefit ILR.
    [Show full text]
  • 'To' in Two Places and the Dative Alternation
    University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 11 Issue 1 Article 13 2005 'To' in two places and the dative alternation LISA LEVINSON Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl Recommended Citation LEVINSON, LISA (2005) "'To' in two places and the dative alternation," University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics: Vol. 11 : Iss. 1 , Article 13. Available at: https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol11/iss1/13 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol11/iss1/13 For more information, please contact repository@pobox.upenn.edu. 'To' in two places and the dative alternation This working paper is available in University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics: https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol11/iss1/13 'To' in Two Places and the Dative Alternation Lisa Levinson* 1 Introduction This paper addresses the well-known controversy over whether the 'dative al ternation' is, in fact, a syntactic alternation, or whether sentences such as (la) and (lb) are generated as entirely separate structures. (!) a. John sent a letter to Mary. (PP Goal) b. John sent Mary a letter. (DP Goal) Many researchers have addressed the observation that the double object construction does not seem to be fully productive, in that it seems to be blocked in cases where one might expect it to occur, such as (2): (2) * John sent London a letter. However, as noted in Larson (1988), there is a fundamental problem with this observation when stated as such, since it seems not that the construction is unproductive, but rather that it is our expectations of its occurrence which are wrong.
    [Show full text]