On the Passive of Double Object Constructions in English
1
조회
0
다운로드
4
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Some English grammar books illustrate that the indirect object of some ditransitive verbs such as write and buy is not allowed to be passivized, and secondary school English teachers accordingly teach their students. To describe this linguistic aspect, I have conducted a survey on the passive of English DOCs among 20 high school students in the US. The survey exhibits a different result; only 2 out of 20 subjects respond that the passivization of the indirect object is ungrammatical. Some theoretical grounds such as Case and Ɵ-role assignment also lend support to the IO-passive movement. Nevertheless, its movement is not approved to be completely natural by the subjects. I attribute this to a diachronic observation that the passivization of IO has expanded from Old English up to the present. I also suggest that the trace of P, which is ‘active’, left by Preposition Incorporation somehow hinders its movement, and the degree of its being active varies across ditransitive verbs.
Abstract
Some English grammar books illustrate that the indirect object of some ditransitive verbs such as write and buy is not allowed to be passivized, and secondary school English teachers accordingly teach their students. To describe this linguistic aspect, I have conducted a survey on the passive of English DOCs among 20 high school students in the US. The survey exhibits a different result; only 2 out of 20 subjects respond that the passivization of the indirect object is ungrammatical. Some theoretical grounds such as Case and Ɵ-role assignment also lend support to the IO-passive movement. Nevertheless, its movement is not approved to be completely natural by the subjects. I attribute this to a diachronic observation that the passivization of IO has expanded from Old English up to the present. I also suggest that the trace of P, which is ‘active’, left by Preposition Incorporation somehow hinders its movement, and the degree of its being active varies across ditransitive verbs.
참고문헌 (22)
- Aoun, J, "On the formal theory of government", The Linguistic Review, 2, pp.211~236 (1983)
- Baker,M, "Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing" (1988), The University of Chicago Press
- Barss, A, "A note on anaphora and double objects", LI, 17, pp.347~354 (1986)
- Chomsky,N, "Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures" (1981), Foris
- Chomsky, N, "Filters and control", LI, 8, pp.425~504 (1977)
- Daultrey,B, "The structure of double object construction in English", PaGes, 4 (1997)
- Fillmore,Charles J, "The case for case. In Universals in Linguistic Theory", pp.1~88 (1968), Holt, Rinehart, and Winston
- Gropen, J., "The learnability and acquisition of the dative alternation in English", Language, 65, pp.203~257 (1989)
- Jackendoff,J, "On Larson’s treatment of the double object construction", LI, 21, pp.427~456 (1990)
- Jaeggli,O, "Passive", LI, 17, pp.587~622 (1986)
- Jeong,Y.J, "An Analysis of the Passive of Ditransitive Verbs and its Effective Teaching: Based on the Survey among Korean High School Students and English Native Speakers", 석사, pp.2009
- Kayne,R, "EXP extensions", LI, 12, pp.93~133 (1981)
- Kurniasih,Nia, "Benefactive verbs in double object construction (DOC) in English sentences", Jurnal Sosioteknologi Edisi, 16(8), pp.575~586 (2009)
- Larson,R, "On the double object construction", LI, 19, pp.335~391 (1988)
- Mazurkewich, I, "The acquisition of the dative alternation: unlearning overgeneralizations", Cognition, 16, pp.261~283 (1984)
- Newman,J, "Recipients and ‘give’ constructions. In The Dative. Volume 2: Theoretical and Contrastive Studies", pp.1~28 (1998), John Benjamins
- Oshima,Shin, "A minimalist analysis of double object constructions in English from the perspective of comparative syntax", Journal of Inquiry and Research, 85 (2007)
- Pinker,S, "Learnability and Cognition: the Acquisition of Argument Structure" (1989), MIT Press
- Quirk, R, "A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language" (1985), Longman
- Reinhart,T, "The Syntactic Domain of Anaphora", 박사, pp.1976
- van Valin, "Syntax: Structure, Meaning, and Function" (1999), Cambridge University Press
- van Voorst, "Thematic roles are not semantic roles", Revue quéebéecoise de linguistique, 17(1), pp.245~259 (1988)