Against Adjunct Analyses of the Secondary Argument in the Double Object Construction and the Oblique Dative Construction
2
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Larson (1988a) argues that the secondary object of the double object construction (DOC) is an adjunct. In contrast, Aoun and Li (1989), Kitagawa (1994), and Stroik (1996) represent the oblique phrase of the oblique dative construction (ODC) as an adjunct. This paper argues that any syntactic analysis which resorts to the last linear argument of the DOC and the ODC as an adjunct, just like the by-phrase of a passive, is not supported from several aspects of linguistic facts. The secondary object of the DOC cannot be regarded as an adjunct. This point is supported by linguistic evidence from the optionality test, wh-extraction, secondary predication, idiom chunks, and the focus-related sentence accentual pattern of the DOC. Likewise, the oblique phrase of the ODC should not be considered as an adjunct. This point is clarified through linguistic evidence from two peculiar properties of APF, idiom chunks, and the focus-related sentence accentual pattern of the ODC. Even though this paper does not propose proper syntactic structures for the DOC and the ODC, it makes a reasonable contribution to the notorious unsolved problem of the syntax of dative alternation. At least, it is clear that dative alternation is not involved in a passive-like transformation. In this respect, any syntactic analysis of dative alternation is compatible with the results obtained in this paper if it argues that all arguments of the DOC and the ODC are represented in A-positions.
Abstract
Larson (1988a) argues that the secondary object of the double object construction (DOC) is an adjunct. In contrast, Aoun and Li (1989), Kitagawa (1994), and Stroik (1996) represent the oblique phrase of the oblique dative construction (ODC) as an adjunct. This paper argues that any syntactic analysis which resorts to the last linear argument of the DOC and the ODC as an adjunct, just like the by-phrase of a passive, is not supported from several aspects of linguistic facts. The secondary object of the DOC cannot be regarded as an adjunct. This point is supported by linguistic evidence from the optionality test, wh-extraction, secondary predication, idiom chunks, and the focus-related sentence accentual pattern of the DOC. Likewise, the oblique phrase of the ODC should not be considered as an adjunct. This point is clarified through linguistic evidence from two peculiar properties of APF, idiom chunks, and the focus-related sentence accentual pattern of the ODC. Even though this paper does not propose proper syntactic structures for the DOC and the ODC, it makes a reasonable contribution to the notorious unsolved problem of the syntax of dative alternation. At least, it is clear that dative alternation is not involved in a passive-like transformation. In this respect, any syntactic analysis of dative alternation is compatible with the results obtained in this paper if it argues that all arguments of the DOC and the ODC are represented in A-positions.
참고문헌 (25)
- Beckman, Mary E, "The parsing of prosody", 11, pp.17~67 (1996)
- Baker, "A theory of grammatical function changing The University of Chicago Press" (1988), Incorporation
- Baker, Mark, "Thematic roles and syntactic structure", pp.73~137 (1997), Dordrecht: Kluwer
- Barss, "A note on anaphora and double objects", pp.347~354 (1986)
- Dikken, Marcel den, "Particles: On the syntax of verb-particle, triadic, and causative constructions" (1995), Oxford: Oxford University Press
- Hans Bernhard, "Zur Frage der grammatischen Reprasentation thetischer und kategorischer Satze Informationsstruktur und Grammatik", pp.142~195 (1992)
- Hans Bernhard, "Island constraints and the syntactic nature of focus and association with focus", pp.51~ (1994), Universitat Tubingen
- "Evidence that indirect object movement is a structure-preserving rule Foundations of Language 8", pp.546~561 (1972)
- Gobbel, Edward, "Focus in double object constructions" (2003), Universitat Tubingen, ms
- Carlos, "On the grammar and semantics of sentence accents" (1993)
- Hale, Ken, "Prolegomenon to a theory of argument structure" (2002), Cambridge, MA: MIT
- Harley, Heidi, "Possession and the double object construction" (2000), University of Arizona, ms
- Hoskins, "On the phonology and phonetics of broad and narrow focus" (1997), Doctoral dissertation, University of Delaware
- Huang, "Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar" (1980)
- Ladd, Robert D, "Intonational phonology" (1996), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
- Levin, "The formation of adjectival passive", pp.623~661 (1986)
- Levin, Beth, "First objects and datives: Two of a kind?" (2006), Stanford University, ms.
- Maling, Joan, "Dative: The heterogeneity of the mapping among morphological Case, grammatical functions, and thematic roles", 111, pp.419~464 (2001)
- Marantz, "Implications of asymmetries in double object constructions Theoretical aspects of Bantu grammar", pp.113~150 (1993)
- Randall, "Windows on argument structure Paper presented at the University of Tubingen" (1992)
- Runner, "The double object construction at the interfaces", 2, pp.1~51 (2001)
- Selkirk, Elizabeth O, "Sentence prosody: Intonation, stress, and phrasing", pp.550~569 (1995), Cambridge, MA: Blackwell
- Stroik, Thomas, "Minimalism, scope, and VP structure" (1996), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
- Williams, "Another argument that passive is transformational", pp.160~163 (1982)
- Winkler, Susanne, "Focus and secondary predication" (1996), Berilin: Mouton de Gruyter