A Unidirectionality of Derivational Relationship in the English Dative Alternation
2
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This article argues for the uniderectionality of the derivational relationship between the NP+NP and the NP+PP form in the pursuit of settling empirical as well as theoretical questions arising in common from three different types of analyses. It shows that the NP+PP is derived from the NP+NP only with [+Poss] verbs. It also claims that what is responsible for the syntactic alternation has closely to do with the tendency to regularize Case checking system. Once providing a conceivable cause for the alternation, it explains the puzzling mismatch between syntactic forms and their putative meanings. In brief, it defends the argument that it is not a particular syntactic form, but the [+/- Poss] feature of verbs that determines a putative meaning, as the feature is the one that is held accountable for selecting the base structure.
Abstract
This article argues for the uniderectionality of the derivational relationship between the NP+NP and the NP+PP form in the pursuit of settling empirical as well as theoretical questions arising in common from three different types of analyses. It shows that the NP+PP is derived from the NP+NP only with [+Poss] verbs. It also claims that what is responsible for the syntactic alternation has closely to do with the tendency to regularize Case checking system. Once providing a conceivable cause for the alternation, it explains the puzzling mismatch between syntactic forms and their putative meanings. In brief, it defends the argument that it is not a particular syntactic form, but the [+/- Poss] feature of verbs that determines a putative meaning, as the feature is the one that is held accountable for selecting the base structure.
참고문헌 (20)
- Baker, M, "Incorporation" (1988), University of Chicago Press
- Beck, S, "Double object again", Linguistic Theory, 35(1), pp.97~124 (2004)
- Bowers, J, "The theory of grammatical relations" (1981), Cornell University Press
- Chomsky, N, "The logical structure of linguistic theory" (1955), Plenum
- Dryer, M, "On primary objects, secondary objects, and antidative", Language, 62(4), pp.808~845 (1986)
- Goldberg, A, "Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure" (1995), University of Chicago Press
- Hale, K, "Prolegomenon to a theory of argument structure" (2002), MIT Press
- Halle, M, "The view from Building 20", pp.111~176 (1993), MIT Press
- Hallman, P, "Syntactic neutralization in double object constructions", Linguistic Inquiry, 46(3), pp.389~424 (2015)
- Harley, H, "Subjects, events and licensing", Doctor, pp.1995
- Harley, H, "Linguistic variation yearbook 2", pp.31~70 (2002), John Benjamins
- Hovav, M. R, "The English dative alternation: The case for verb sensitivity", Journal of Linguistics, 44(1), pp.129~167 (2008)
- Jackendoff, R, "Semantic structures" (1990), MIT Press
- Krifka, Manfred, "Semantic and Pragmatic conditions for the Dative Alternation", 영어학, 4(1), pp.1~31 (2004), 한국영어학회
- Larson, R, "On the double object construction", Linguistic Inquiry, 16(3), pp.595~621 (1988)
- Larson, R, "On “Dative Idioms” in English", Linguistic Inquiry, 48, pp.389~426 (2017)
- Oehrle, R, "The grammatical status of the English dative alternation", Doctor, pp.1976
- Ormazabal, J, "Argument structure and syntactic relations: A crosslinguistic perspective", pp.203~232 (2012), John Benjamins
- 박연미, "A Lexical Feature-based Analysis for the English Dative Alternation", 영어영문학, 24(4), pp.167~183 (2019), 미래영어영문학회[DOI]
- Ramchand, G, "Verb meaning and the lexicon: A first phase syntax" (2008), Cambridge University Press