A Note on Anaphora and Double Objects 1986

Barss, Andrew; Lasnik, Howard

doi:10.1007/978-94-009-2542-7_8

Cited by 101 publications

(157 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

149

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…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(1978) and others, and the structural properties noted by Barss and Lasnik (1986), Larson (1988), and others, can both be captured by postulating an extra head for the 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 specifier, and relates it to the VP that contains the verb and the theme (Marantz 1993), or directly to the theme (Pylkkänen 2002).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Argument Structure and Ditransitive Verbs in Japanese

Miyagawa

Tsujioka

2004

Journal of East Asian Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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(1978) and others, and the structural properties noted by Barss and Lasnik (1986), Larson (1988), and others, can both be captured by postulating an extra head for the 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 specifier, and relates it 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 todative, so that this construction 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 only to have one structure, in which the goal is marked with the dative and the theme with the accusative case marking. The goaltheme 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. We will give arguments that the difference between English and Japanese is only apparent.With close scrutiny, we find that the two argument structures corresponding to the DOC and the to-dative in English exist in Japanese.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Argument Structure and Ditransitive Verbs in Japanese

Miyagawa

Tsujioka

2004

Journal of East Asian Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This assumption is problematic, as the examples in (18) illustrate. As has been known at least since Barss and Lasnik (1986), the DP object in such examples c-commands into the PP, (18a). However, and this undermines the strength of Müller's objection, in example (18b) the subject can antecede the anaphor despite the fact that it is not the closest potential c-commanding antecedent, which is the DP object as in (18a).…”

Section: Proposed Evidence For Punctuated Paths (Abels 2003)mentioning

confidence: 96%

A note on the punctuated nature of movement paths

Abels¹,

Bentzen²

2009

catjl

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper addresses the question of how a moving item affects the nodes that lie along the path of movement. In particular, we are concerned with the question whether all nodes along the path of movement are affected in the same way or not. We first observe that most arguments that have been given to support the existence of intermediate reconstruction sites do not bear on this issue. We then discuss the logic of what a true argument would look like. Finally, we present three case studies. Two of them (A-reconstruction in Norwegian and VP-ellipsis in Dutch) provide prima facie arguments in favor of a position along the lines of Chomsky (1973, 1986, 2000), where some but not all nodes along the path of movement are affected by movement.

show abstract

“…In Barss-Lasnik (1986);Larson (1988) 2 and Pesetsky (1995) The proposed c-command relations for the examples in (2) are exemplified in (3) below. In terms of c-command relations the DAT ≫ ACC word order (3a-b) mirrors the English DOC, while the ACC ≫ DAT (3c) mirrors the PDC.…”

Section: Binding Of Possessivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Gračanin-Yuksek (2006) shows for Croatian, which has what appears to be an identical set of possible word orders, that these are linked to two different ditransitive constructions that behave like the English prepositional dative (PDC hereafter) and double object (DOC hereafter) constructions. In the same vein the different Slovenian word orders are analyzed in Stegovec (to appear) (repeated in this paper) with standard tests for c-command asymmetries (Barss-Lasnik 1986;Larson 1988;Pesetsky 1995), frozen scope relations (Aoun-Li 1989;Bruening 2001), and the availability of causative readings (Oehrle 1976;Gračanin-Yuksek 2006). The tests indicate that the dative ≫ accusative (DAT ≫ ACC) word order is an applicative construction, while the accusative ≫ dative (ACC ≫ DAT) has a structure similar to an English PDC.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the syntax of ditransitive sentences in Slovenian

Marvin¹,

Stegovec²

2012

Acta Linguistica Hungarica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper we discuss Slovenian ditransitive sentences with respect to the two possible word orders of the objects found with neutral intonation, DAT≫ACC and ACC≫DAT. We follow the idea in the Gračanin-Yuksek (2006) paper on Croatian that these two word orders instantiate different structures. In Slovenian, the DAT≫ACC order has an applicative structure (either high or low), while the ACC≫DAT is a prepositional dative construction. The applicative analysis provides a novel argument for this type of analysis. Other supporting arguments examined are scope properties, binding of possessives, the possibility of the causative reading, non-contrastive focus and heavy NP shift, and properties of idioms.

show abstract

A Note on Anaphora and Double Objects 1986

Cited by 101 publications

References 0 publications

Argument Structure and Ditransitive Verbs in Japanese

Argument Structure and Ditransitive Verbs in Japanese

A note on the punctuated nature of movement paths

On the syntax of ditransitive sentences in Slovenian

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About