DOCSLIB.ORG

And English Syntax

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
And English Syntax UNIT 16 A STRUCTURAL STUDY OF HINDI AND ENGLISH SYNTAX Structure 16.0 Objectives 16.1 Introduction 16.2 The Basic Sentence Structure in Hindi and English 16.3 Some Basic Word Order Universals 16.4 Key Words 16.5 Let Us Sum Up 16.6 Suggested Reading 16.7 Answers to Exercises 16.0 OBJECTIVES After reading this Unit carefully, you will be able to: describe the basic sentence structures in Hindi and English; distinguish between intransitive, transitive, ditransitive verbs in Hindi and English; illustrate the use of the verb be; define direct object, indirect object, dependent clause and independent clause; and outline the differences between Hindi and English which are a result of the different word order of these two languages. 16.1 INTRODUCTION A sentence is not just a string of words put next to each other. There are specific ways in each language in which words combine to form sentences. In this Unit we shall show how sentences are formed in Hindi and English and how the nature of the verb determines whether there should be no objects or one object or two objects in a sentence. We shall show that the position of the verb in a sentence plays a very important role in determining the position of many other elements such as the adjective, the preposition, the adverb etc. Apart from the exercises, we have also given you some in-text practice in translation. You will notice that in some sentences we have given the Hindi or English equivalents. But where we have not, we have left a blank line in which you are required to provide the translation. 162 THE BASIC SENTENCE STRUCTURE IN HINDI AND ENGLISH We shall first study the basic sentence structure in Hindi and Englis. Let us consider the following Hindi sentences first. 1)Tm & m % Ram run -ing is 'Ram is running'. 2)m m 4 sn w% Ram Sita hitting is 'Ram is hitting Sita'. Notice that in sentences (1) and (2) Tm is the subject noun phrase and it occurs in the INITIAL (FIRST) position in the sentence. The verb in both the sentences occurs in the FINAL (LAST) position. In sentence (2),* is the object noun phrase and* is the POSTPOSITION that is attached to the object. Thus, the word order in Hindi is: SUBJECT(S) OBJECT(0) VERB(V) that is SOV Syntactic amtSemantlc Structures Let us now look at the word order in English. Let us consider the following sehtences =ndi to English) from English: 3) Ram is running. 4) The boy is beating Sita. Note that Ram and the boy which are the subject noun phrases occur in the INITIAL position and thg verb in (3) occurs in the FINAL position. However, when we look at sentence (4) we notice that the object noun phrase occurs after the verb in the FINAL position. Thus, the word order in English is SUBJECT(S) VERB(V) OBJECT(0) that is, SVO Thus we can say that Hindi is a verb-final language and English is a verb-medial language. The order in which words occur is more important in English than in Hindi because sentences (3) and (4) are ungrammatical if we say 3a. Is running Ram. 3b. Is Ram running. 4a. Saw the boy Sita. 4b. The boy Sita saw. Note that (3b) is ungrammatical only as a statement. As a question, it is alright. But we're concerned only with statements at present. Verbs such as 9n;n 'hit' in sentence (2) and beat in sentence (4) are called transitive verbs because they permit an object. The object of the verb rCrm 'hit' in (2) is .Fftm and the object of the verb beat in (4) is also Sita. Transitive verbs in English always require an object overtly whereas in Hindi and the other Indian languages, this is not the case. For example, for a question in sentence (9,the answer must contain an it as in (6) or else it is ungrammatical. We shall mark an ungrammatical sentence by '*'. 5) Did you buy the car? 6) Yes, I bought it. 7) * Yes, I bought. In contrast, in Hindi, in an answer to a bestion in (8), there need not be an overt object noun phrase as (9) illustrates. 8) m3 * ?dl$? question word YOU car bought Did you buy the car? 9) *6 * e-9 Yes I bought In fact, to have an overt object in Hindi may look a bit awkward as (10) illustrates. 10) 96, 3 w e-9 Ye5 I it bought Sentence (10) may be appropriate if the speaker is pointing out to a car which is there on the spot. It is interesting to note that some transitive verbs, however, are used intransitively. For example, in English. 11) We were eating at that time. ........................................................................................................ 12) She was writing. ....................................................................................................... Though both eat and write are transitive verbs, there is no overt object present. In Hindi too a transitive verb can be used-intransitively. 13) Pq 3U W -Xi!* We that time were studying 'We were studyin~atthat time.' 14) &¶I ?r?a wf@ .\Structural Stud ~I'Hindiand She always keeps singing E:II~I~\IIS?t~ta\ 'She keeps singing all the time.' In sentences (13) and (14), the object is not overtly expressed thus using the verbs intransitively. Verbs which permit two objects are called ditransitive verbs. Some examples of these verbs in Hindi are- 'to write', h 'to send7,* 'to give'. Some examples from English are teach, send, refurn. ' In normal word order in Hindi the indirect object (10) ALWAYS comes first and the direct object (DO) follows it. Thus, the order is: I0 DO ' For example: . ' 15)Tm * h Ram Sita to book will give I0 DO 'Ram will give a book to Sita.' . In this sentence the person who receives (recipient) is Sita and the noun* precedes the noun f4ZFH 'book'. In English, however,,there are two word orders possible. For example: 16) a. Ramwillgive Mary ' the book INDIRECT DIRECT OBJECT OBJECT b. Rhm will give the book to Mary. DIRECT INDIRECT OBJECT OBJECT Sentences (16a) and (16b) have the same meaning. In (a) the indirect object precedes the direct object. In (b) the direct object precedes the indirect object. It is the order in (b) which is considered to be the normal basic word order for nonverb-final languages such as English. We should not go into further details on this. Thus, the order of the indirect object and direct object in English is: DO I0 There is a type of verbs in Hindi as well as English where the subject of an intransitive verb corresponds to the object of a transitive verb. For examljle: 17)m door opened 'The door opened.' ' 18) 7f4 ?V3fm * Rama door opened 'Rama opened the door.' In (17), the subject ism'door' and that becomes the object in (18) i.e.,w'to open'. The verb in sentence (18) is called the causative form of the verb in (17). Some more pairs of this type are: Intransitive Causative 3WmI 'to be boiled' 3TFFI'l 'to boil' mFll 'to burn' WIT 'to burn' h 'to fall' f4-Fl.I 'to drop' Fh 'to sleep' T-" 'to put some one to sleep' The verbs in column I1 are called the CAUSATIVE VERBS. English too has this type of pairs and in English, some of these pairs are homophonous (that is they have the same form). For examp1e:open in the sentence. The door opened. and open in the sentence I opened the door. Syntactic and Semantic Structures ~oAemore pairs include: (Hindi to English) Intransitive Causative close close melt melt burn burn boil boil cut cut The special feature of Hindi and many other Indian languages is that in addition to the causative forms discussed above, these languages have another causative verbal form which can take two objects. The second cqusative of a sentence such as (18) is as in (19): 19) % 3 71'4 4 3- Sita Ram by door had (it) opened 'Sita made Ram open the door.' In (19)' the verb- has two objects- 'door' andm. Verbs such as- are termed as second causatives. Some examples of the second causative are: m'aml 'to make someone boil something' n 'to make someone bum something' fmWll 'to make someone drop something' w 'to make someone put someone to sleep' Interestingly, English does not have one single verb like Hindi which will denote the second causative meaning. In English, as we have seen above in the glosses of the Hindi verbs, a paraphrase of the action is used to express a second causative. We have so far discussed intransitive, transitive and ditransitive verbs. We shall now discuss the nature of the verb be in Hindi and English. The verbh 'to be' in Hindi has the following forms in various tenses and persons. The two functions of the forms in set I below are to (a) denote tense and (b) denote existence or presence. The main function of the forms in set I1 below is to denote a process. a present tense, I person singular. 8 present tense I1 & 111 person singular. 8 present tense I1 & 111 person plural. ~n/* past tense singular. */df past tense plural Set I1 !13= past tense singular R past tense plural The forms of set I, %/$/ */ */ a/ have two functions to perform. When these occur with the main verb (as in sentence (20)-(22) below), they perform the function of carrying the tense. 20) Tm sn w t Ram go -ing is (tense marker) 211m ;jn 7@ ft Sita go -ing was (tense marker) 'Sita was going.' 22) * * * b children play -ing were (tense marker) 'The children were playing.' rhese forms when they occur as main verbs denote existence or presence.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ditransitive Verbs in Language Use
    Chapter 3 Aspects of description: ditransitive verbs in language use This chapter provides a corpus-based description of individual ditransitive verbs in actual language use. First, the two verbs that are typical of ditransitivity in ICE-GB will be analysed: give and tell (see section 3.1). Second, the four habitual ditransitive verbs in ICE-GB (i.e. ask, show, send and offer) will be scrutinised (see section 3.2). Particular emphasis in all the analyses will be placed on the different kinds of routines that are involved in the use of ditransitive verbs. The description of peripheral ditransitive verbs, on the other hand, will centre on the concepts of grammatical institutionalisation and conventionalisation (see section 3.3). At the end of this chapter, the two aspects will be discussed in a wider setting in the assessment of the role of linguistic routine and creativity in the use of ditransitive verbs (see section 3.4). 3.1 Typical ditransitive verbs in ICE-GB In the present study, typical ditransitive verbs are verbs which are frequently attested in ICE-GB in general (i.e. > 700 occurrences) and which are associated with an explicit ditransitive syntax in some 50% of all occurrences or more (cf. Figure 2.4, p. 84). These standards are met by give (see section 3.1.1) and tell (see section 3.1.2). 3.1.1 GIVE In light of recent psycholinguistic and cognitive-linguistic evidence, it is not sur- prising that the most frequent ditransitive verb in ICE-GB is GIVE.1 Experiment- al data have led Ninio (1999), for example, to put forward the hypothesis that children initially acquire constructions through one (or very few) ‘pathbreaking verbs(s)’.
    [Show full text]
  • Flexible Valency in Chintang.∗
    Flexible valency in Chintang.∗ Robert Schikowskia , Netra Paudyalb , and Balthasar Bickela a University of Zürich b University of Leipzig 1 e Chintang language Chintang [ˈts̻ ʰiɳʈaŋ]̻ (ISO639.3: ctn) is a Sino-Tibetan language of Nepal. It is named aer the village where it is mainly spoken. e village lies in the hills of Eastern Nepal, bigger cities within day’s reach being Dhankuṭā and Dharān. ere are no official data on the number of speakers, but we estimate there to be around 4,000 - 5,000 speakers. Most speakers are bi- or trilingual, with Nepali (the Indo-Aryan lingua franca of Nepal) as one and Bantawa (a related Sino-Tibetan language) as the other additional language. Monolingual speakers are still to be found mainly among elderly women, whereas a considerable portion of the younger generation is rapidly shiing to Nepali. Genealogically, Chintang belongs to the Kiranti group. e Kiranti languages are generally accepted to belong to the large Sino-Tibetan (or Tibeto-Burman) family, although their position within this family is controversial (cf. e.g. urgood 2003, Ebert 2003). Based on phonological evidence, Chintang belongs to the Eastern subgroup of Kiranti (Bickel et al. 2010). ere are two major dialects (Mulgaũ and Sambugaũ ) named aer the areas where they are spoken. e differences between them concern morphology and the lexicon but, as far as we know, not syntax, and so we will not distinguish between dialects in this chapter. For all examples the source has been marked behind the translation. Wherever possible, we take data from the Chintang Language Corpus (Bickel et al.
    [Show full text]
  • The Representation of Third Person and Its Consequences for Person-Case Effects
    The Representation of Third Person and Its Consequences for Person-Case Effects The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Nevins, Andrew. The representation of third person and its consequences for person-case effects. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25 (2007): 273-313. Published Version http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11049-006-9017-2 Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:2223518 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Open Access Policy Articles, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#OAP Nat Lang Linguist Theory (2007) 25:273–313 DOI 10.1007/s11049-006-9017-2 ORIGINAL PAPER The representation of third person and its consequences for person-case effects Andrew Nevins Received: 13 June 2005 / Accepted: 3 July 2006 / Published online: 28 April 2007 © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007 Abstract In modeling the effects of the Person-Case Constraint (PCC), a common claim is that 3rd person “is not a person”. However, while this claim does work in the syntax, it creates problems in the morphology. For example, characterizing the well-known “spurious se effect” in Spanish simply cannot be done without reference to 3rd person. Inspired by alternatives to underspecification that have emerged in phonology (e.g., Calabrese, 1995), a revised featural system is proposed, whereby syntactic agreement may be relativized to certain values of a feature, in particular, the contrastive and marked values.
    [Show full text]
  • The Diachronic Development of Differential Object Marking in Spanish Ditransitive Constructions Klaus Von Heusinger Universität Zu Köln
    Chapter 11 The diachronic development of Differential Object Marking in Spanish ditransitive constructions Klaus von Heusinger Universität zu Köln Differential Object Marking (DOM) in Spanish synchronically depends on the referential features of the direct object, such as animacy and referentiality, and on the semantics of the verb. Recent corpus studies suggest that the diachronic development proceeds along the same features, which are ranked in scales, namely the Animacy Scale, the Referentiality Scale and the Affectedness Scale. The present paper investigates this development in ditran- sitive constructions from the 17th to the 20th century. Ditransitive constructions in Spanish are of particular interest since the literature assumes that the differential object marker a is often blocked by the co-occurrence of the case marker a for the indirect object. The paper focuses on the conditions that enhance or weaken this blocking effect. It investigates three types of constructions with a ditransitive verb: (i) constructions with indirect objects real- ized as a-marked full noun phrases, (ii) constructions with indirect objects as clitic pronouns, and (iii) constructions with non-overt indirect objects. The results clearly show that DOM is more frequent with (iii) and less frequent with (i). Thus the results support the observation that the co-occurrence of an a-marked indirect object (partly) blocks a-marking of the di- rect object to a certain extent. Furthermore, the results show for the first time that indirect objects realized as clitic pronouns without the marker a have a weaker blocking effect, but still a stronger one than constructions without overt indirect objects. In summary, the paper presents new and original evidence of the competition between arguments in a diachronic perspective.
    [Show full text]
  • Ditransitive Constructions Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig (Germany) 23-25 November 2007
    Conference on Ditransitive Constructions Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig (Germany) 23-25 November 2007 Abstracts On “Dimonotransitive” Structures in English Carmen Aguilera Carnerero University of Granada Ditransitive structures have been prototypically defined as those combinations of a ditransitive verb with an indirect object and a direct object. However, although in the prototypical ditransitive construction in English, both objects are present, there is often omission of one of the constituentes, usually the indirect object. The absence of the indirect object has been justified on the basis of the irrelevance of its specification or the possibility of recovering it from the context. The absence of the direct object, on the other hand, is not so common and only occur with a restricted number of verbs (e.g. pay, show or tell).This type of sentences have been called “dimonotransitives” by Nelson, Wallis and Aarts (2002) and the sole presence in the syntactic structure arises some interesting questions we want to clarify in this article, such as: (a) the degree of syntactic and semantic obligatoriness of indirect objects and certain ditransitive verbs (b) the syntactic behaviour of indirect objects in absence of the direct object, in other words, does the Oi take over some of the properties of typical direct objects as Huddleston and Pullum suggest? (c) The semantic and pragmatic interpretations of the missing element. To carry out our analysis, we will adopt a corpus –based approach and especifically we will use the International Corpus of English (ICE) for the most frequent ditransitive verbs (Mukherjee 2005) and the British National Corpus (BNC) for the not so frequent verbs.
    [Show full text]
  • Grammatical Sketch of Beng
    Mandenkan Numéro 51 Bulletin d’études linguistiques mandé Printemps 2014 ISSN: 0752-5443 Grammatical sketch of Beng Denis PAPERNO University of Trento, Italy [email protected] Denis Paperno Content 1. Introduction 1 2. General information 9 2.1. Beng people and their language 9 2.2. Sociolinguistic situation 11 2.3. Names of the language 12 3. The history of Beng studies 12 3.1. Students of the Beng language and society 12 3.2. Beng dialects according to reports from the early 1900s 13 3.2.1. Delafosse: Beng of Kamélinsou 15 3.2.3. Tauxier: Beng of Groumania neighbourhood 16 4. Beng phonology 18 4.1. Phonological inventory 18 4.1.1. Tones 20 4.1.2. Syllable structure 22 4.1.3. Segmental sandhi 22 4.1.4. Tonal sandhi 22 4.2. Morphonology 23 4.2.1. ŋC simplification 23 4.2.2. Deletion of /l/ 24 4.2.3. High tone in the low tone form of verbs 24 5. Personal Pronoun Morphology 25 5.1. On the allomorphy of the 1SG subject pronoun 27 5.2. Contraction with 3SG object pronoun 28 5.3. Subject series of pronouns 29 5.4. Stative pronouns with verbs tá, nṵ̄ 29 6. Morphology of content words 30 6.1. Tonal changes in suffixation 31 6.1.1. Mobile tone suffixes 31 6.1.2. Low tone suffixes 31 6.1.3. Other suffixes 31 6.1.4. Stems ending in L tone 31 3 Denis Paperno 6.1.5. The verb blö ‘to press out’ 32 6.2.
    [Show full text]
  • Features of Lexical Verbs in the Discussion Section of Masters' Dissertations
    FEATURES OF LEXICAL VERBS IN THE DISCUSSION SECTION OF MASTERS' DISSERTATIONS FAIZAH BINTI MOHAMAD NUSRI FACULTY OF LANGUAGES AND LINGUISTICS UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR 2018 FEATURES OF LEXICAL VERBS IN THE DISCUSSION SECTION OF MASTERS' DISSERTATIONS FAIZAH BINTI MOHAMAD NUSRI DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ENGLISH AS SECOND LANGUAGE FACULTY OF LANGUAGE AND LINGUISTICS UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR 2018 UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA ORIGINAL LITERARY WORK DECLARATION Name of Candidate: Faizah binti Mohamad Nusri I.C/Passport No: 860610-38-6394 Matric No: TGB 120045 Name of Degree: Master of English as Second Language Title of Project Paper/Research Report/Dissertation/Thesis (“this Work”): Features of Lexical Verbs in the Discussion Section of Masters’ Dissertations Field of Study: Corpus Linguistics I do solemnly and sincerely declare that: (1) I am the sole author/writer of this Work; (2) This Work is original; (3) Any use of any work in which copyright exists was done by way of fair dealing and for permitted purposes and any excerpt or extract from, or reference to or reproduction of any copyright work has been disclosed expressly and sufficiently and the title of the Work and its authorship have been acknowledged in this Work; (4) I do not have any actual knowledge nor do I ought reasonably to know that the making of this work constitutes an infringement of any copyright work; (5) I hereby assign all and every rights in the copyright to this Work to the University of Malaya (“UM”), who henceforth shall be owner of the copyright in this Work and that any reproduction or use in any form or by any means whatsoever is prohibited without the written consent of UM having been first had and obtained; (6) I am fully aware that if in the course of making this Work I have infringed any copyright whether intentionally or otherwise, I may be subject to legal action or any other action as may be determined by UM.
    [Show full text]
  • English Ditransitive Verbs Often Allow Two Distinct Structures, the Double Object and the To-Dative Constructions
    SHIGERU MIYAGAWA AND TAKAE TSUJIOKA ARGUMENT STRUCTURE AND DITRANSITIVE VERBS IN JAPANESE Ditransitive verbs such as send and give appear in two distinct structures in English, the double object and the to-dative constructions. It is well known that the two differ semantically and syntactically. In some recent works, it is suggested that the semantic differences observed by Bresnan (1978), Oehrle (1976) and others, and the struc- tural properties noted by Barss and Lasnik (1986), Larson (1988), and others, can both be captured by postulating an extra head for the Double Object Construction (DOC, e.g., Marantz (1993), Harley (1995), Pylkkänen (2002)). This head, which corresponds to the applicative head in Bantu languages, takes the goal as its speci- fier and relates it either to the VP that contains the verb and the theme (Marantz (1993)), or directly to the theme (Pylkkänen (2002)). The applicative head contributes the meaning distinct to the DOC, and it gives rise to the hierarchical structure noted by Barss and Lasnik. This applicative head is missing in the to-dative so that this con- struction has an argument structure distinct from the DOC. In this paper, we will look at the corresponding construction(s) in Japanese. Unlike English, Japanese appears to have only one structure, in which the goal is marked with the dative and the theme with the accusative case marking. The goal-theme order is assumed to be the basic order (Hoji (1985), Takano (1998), Yatsushiro (1998, 2003)). The only variation is that the theme can occur before the goal, but this is viewed simply as an instance of optional scrambling.
    [Show full text]
  • Ditransitive Constructions: Creole Languages in a Cross-Linguistic Perspective
    Creolica, 23 avril 2003 – Ditransitive constructions : Creole languages in a cross-linguistic perspective – Susanne Michaelis et Martin Haspelmath CREOLICA Ditransitive constructions: Creole languages in a cross-linguistic perspective 23 avril 2003, par Susanne Michaelis & Martin Haspelmath (Max-Planck-Institut für evolutionäre Anthropologie, Leipzig) To Annegret Bollée on the occasion of her 65th birthday 1. Introduction The goal of this paper is to describe and explain ditransitive constructions in creole languages. By ditransitive constructions we mean constructions with verbs of transfer like 'give', 'send', 'show' which require two objects, a Recipient (or receiver) and a Theme (or patient), i.e. the entity that is transferred1. Thus our class of ditransitive verbs does not comprise verbs like 'put', 'fill' or 'load', which in addition to a Theme role also have a Location role. In this paper we will mainly concentrate on the verb 'give', which is by far the most frequent ditransitive verb in all languages. There are three major constructions for expressing Recipient and Theme of ditransitive verbs in creole languages. First, there is the Double-Object Construction in which Recipient and Theme are equally zero-marked. Example (1) from English illustrates this construction: Double-Object Construction (DOC): (1) Lea gave Teresa a mango. A second option is the Indirect-Object Construction. An example is given in (2), in which the Recipient is marked by a special preposition: Indirect-Object Construction (IOC): (2) Lea gave the mango to Teresa. 1 We prefer the term "theme", which is not to be confused with "theme" in the (information-structural) theme/rheme-distinction. Creolica, 23 avril 2003 – Ditransitive constructions : Creole languages in a cross-linguistic perspective – Susanne Michaelis et Martin Haspelmath There is yet another possibility to link the two objects in question, the Serial-Verb Construction.
    [Show full text]
  • SENTENCES Wlth BOTH Lndirect OBJECT and VERB Particles•
    Edebiyat Dergisi, Yıl:2006, Sayı:15, s.51-58 SENTENCES WlTH BOTH lNDIRECT OBJECT AND VERB PARTICLEs• Arş. Gôr. Ayşen ÖZÇİMEN Selçuk Üniuersitesi, Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi İngiliz Dili ve Edebiyatı Bölümü DOLAYLI NESNE VE EYLEM PARTİKELİ İÇEREN CÜMLELER Özet Bu çalışma, dolaysız ve dolaylı nesne; çift geçişli yüklem partikellerinden oluşan İngilizce cümleleri içermektedir. Özne-yüklem-nesne dizimi göz önünde tutularak İnglllzce cümle yapısı içinde aynı yüklemle nesne ve partikelin yerleri değiştirilerek altı cümle kurulabilir. Ancak bu cümlelerin hepsi dilbilgisel değildir. Bu cümlelerden hangilerinin kabul edilebilir olduğunu belirlemek için ana dili İngilizce olan beş kişiye başuurulmuştur. Katılımcılar, bu cümleler içerisinde partikellerin en az vurgulu olduğu yapılara yönelmişlerdir. Anahtar Kelimeler: partikel, kabul edilebilirlik, çift geçişli yüklem Abstract This study deals wlth Eng//sh sentences with both direct object and indired object and ditransitiue verb partide. Considering the Eng/ish sentence structure, subject-uerb­ object, one can make six sentences using the same verb by moving around the objed and the partide. Not ali of these comblnatlons are accepted as grammaticaf. in order to determine which combinations are acceptable, /ive speakers of English are asked to mark a number of sentences constructed /rom phrasal verbs, for acceptability. Participants prefer sentences where the particles are placed in position of least focus. Key Words: Partide, Acceptable, Ditransitive uerb lntroduction In every language there are sets of rules that allow its speakers to combine words in a language into larger units. Not all the combinations of words are possible in most languages. As a speaker of a language, one can distinguish between the possible sentences and those that are not.
    [Show full text]
  • The Possessive Dative and the Syntax of Affected Arguments*
    The possessive dative and the syntax of affected arguments* CRISTINA SÁNCHEZ LÓPEZ Abstract The goal of this paper is to provide an analysis of possessive dative constructions which explains the relationship between possessive datives and inalienable possession relation, on the one hand, and possessive datives and affectedness, on the other hand. I assume that inalienable possession is a kind of part-whole relation syntactically configured as a predication relation headed by a locative preposition. Under this assumption, I propose that the argument denoting the whole can be licensed by an extra verbal projection associated with the semantic feature of affectedness and able to give structural dative case. The analysis can explain some facts of Spanish dative constructions: the existence of diathetical alternations in transitive and unaccusative predicates (between dative/oblique adjunct and nominative/oblique adjunct, respectively), and the existence of (locative) datives within ergative predicates. 1. The problem The so-called possessive dative (cf. Bally 1926; Delbecque & Lamiroy 1996a, b among many others) denotes the possessor of the internal argument of a predicate, be it a direct object as in (1a) or a subject (as in (1b)): (1) a. El gato le arañó la cara. the cat him.DAT1 scratched the face ‘The cat scratched his/her face.’ b. A Juan le duele el brazo. to John him.DAT hurts the arm ‘His arm hurts.’ Possessive dative constructions are common to other languages, like romance languages and German. (2) are examples of transitive constructions analogous to (1a); (3) are examples of unaccusative constructions analogous to (1b): (2) a. ESP. Yo le corté los cabellos.
    [Show full text]
  • The Syntactic Status of Objects in Mooré Ditransitive Constructions Sara Pacchiarotti University of Oregon
    Chapter 4 The syntactic status of objects in Mooré ditransitive constructions Sara Pacchiarotti University of Oregon This paper offers a structural description of the overt and covert properties of objectsin Mooré (Gur, Burkina Faso) ditransitive constructions, along with a list of verbs which can be classified as ditransitive in this language on the basis of specific syntactic properties. The paper evaluates whether object relations in Mooré ditransitive constructions canbe characterized according to proposals about the typology of object relations present in the literature, i.e. primary vs. secondary object type language or symmetrical vs. asymmetrical object type language. 1 Introduction Mooré (Mòòré) [mos] is a Gur language spoken in Burkina Faso by approximately 6 million people (Lewis, Simons & Fennig 2016).1 Ditransitive constructions in Mooré re- semble what have been called double object constructions (Dryer 1986; 2007; Goldberg 1995). There are several proposals for typological classification of the object systems of languages which allow two objects in a construction. Dryer (1986) argues that while many languages employ object grammatical relations which can be best described as Direct Object (DO) and Indirect Object (IO), other languages use the grammatical relations of Primary Object (PO) versus Secondary Object (SO). In the latter case, the PO has morphosyntactic properties similar tothose of a Direct Object (DO) in a monotransitive clause. The SO, on the other hand, does not display the same object properties as the PO. In dealing with double-object constructions in Bantu languages, Bresnan & Moshi (1990) introduce the concepts of symmetrical ver- sus asymmetrical object type languages. In symmetrical object languages, the Theme 1 The data for this paper comes from elicitation at the University of Oregon with Timbwaoga AiméJudicaël Ouermi, a 25 year-old male native Mooré speaker born and raised in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso and residing in Eugene, Oregon since 2009.
    [Show full text]