Double object constructions disguised as prepositional datives

Linguistic Inquiry

Volumn 41, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 287-305

  Bruening, Benjamin ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE   (United States)

Author keywords

Ditransitives; Double object constructions; Locative inversion; Quantifier scope; Weak crossover

Indexed keywords

EID: 77952893353     PISSN: 00243892     EISSN: 00243892     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1162/ling.2010.41.2.287     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Beck, Sigrid, and Kyle Johnson. 2004. Double objects again. Linguistic Inquiry 35:97-123.
2. Bresnan, Joan. 1994. Locative inversion and the architecture of Universal Grammar. Language 70:72-131.
3. Bresnan, Joan. 2007. Is syntactic knowledge probabilistic? Experiments with the English dative alternation. In Roots: Linguistics in search of its evidential base, ed. by Sam Featherston and Wolfgang Sternefeld, 75-96. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
4. Bresnan, Joan, Anna Cueni, Tatiana Nikitina, and Harald Baayen. 2007. Predicting the dative alternation. In Cognitive foundations of interpretation, ed. by Gerlof Boume, Irene Krämer, and Joost Zwarts, 69-94. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.
5. Bresnan, Joan, and Tatiana Nikitina. 2007. The gradience of the dative alternation. Available at http://www.stanford.edu/%7Ebresnan/bresnan-nikitina.pdf. To appear in Reality exploration and discovery: Pattern interaction in language and life, ed. by Linda Uyechi and Lian Hee Wee. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
6. Bruening, Benjamin. 2001. QR obeys Superiority: Frozen scope and ACD. Linguistic Inquiry 32:233-273.
7. Chomsky, Noam. 1976. Conditions on rules of grammar. Linguistic Analysis 2:303-351.
8. Dikken, Marcel den. 1995. Particles: On the syntax of verb-particle, triadic, and causative constructions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
9. Ferreira, Fernanda. 1994. Choice of passive voice is affected by verb type and animacy. Journal of Memory and Language 33:715-736.
10. Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
11. Green, Georgia M. 1974. Semantics and syntactic regularity. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
12. Gropen, Jess, Steven Pinker, Michelle Hollander, Richard Goldberg, and Ronald Wilson. 1989. The learnability and acquisition of the dative alternation in English. Language 65:203-257.
13. Harley, Heidi. 1997. If you have, you can give. In Proceedings of the 15th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. by Brian Agbayani and Sze-Wing Tang, 193-207. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
14. Harley, Heidi. 2002. Possession and the double object construction. Yearbook of Linguistic Variation 2: 29-68.
15. Higginbotham, James. 1980. Pronouns and bound variables. Linguistic Inquiry 11:679-708.
16. Koopman, Hilda, and Dominique Sportiche. 1983. Variables and the Bijection Principle. The Linguistic Review 2:139-160.
17. Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Phrase structure and the lexicon, ed. by Johan Rooryck and Laurie Zaring, 109-137. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
18. Larson, Richard K. 1990. Double objects revisited: Reply to Jackendoff. Linguistic Inquiry 21:589-632.
19. Marantz, Alec. 1993. Implications of asymmetries in double object constructions. In Theoretical aspects of Bantu grammar, ed. by Sam A. Mchombo, 113-150. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
20. Oehrle, Richard. 1976. The grammatical status of the English dative alternation. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
21. O'Grady, William. 1998. The syntax of idioms. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16:279-312.
22. Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero Syntax: Experiencers and cascades. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
23. Phillips, Colin. 1997. Merge right: An approach to constituency conflicts. In Proceedings of the 15th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. by Brian Agbayani and Sze-Wing Tang, 381-395. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
24. Postal, Paul M. 1971. Cross-over phenomena. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
25. Postal, Paul M. 2004. A paradox in English syntax. In Skeptical linguistic essays, 15-82. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
26. Richards, Norvin. 2001. An idiomatic argument for lexical decomposition. Linguistic Inquiry 32:183-192.
27. Ross, John Robert. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
28. Ruys, E. G. 2000. Weak crossover as a scope phenomenon. Linguistic Inquiry 31:513-539.
29. Safir, Ken. 1984. Multiple variable binding. Linguistic Inquiry 15:603-638.
30. Safir, Ken. 1996. Derivation, representation, and resumption: The domain of weak crossover. Linguistic Inquiry 27:313-339.
31. Wexler, Kenneth, and Peter W. Culicover. 1980. Formal principles of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
32. Williams, Edwin. 1995. Thematic structure in syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.