What makes you move? A minimalist study of object displacement in English Double Object Construction
Aleksandra Bartczak-Meszyńska
University of Finance and Management in Białystok , PolandAbstract
The aim of this paper is to analyse the displacement phenomena the direct and indirect objects in the English Double Object Construction (DOC) can undergo. The focus is on the movement out of the DOC to the sentence initial position. The analysis concerns not only globally acceptable Goal-Theme object sequence but also the Theme-Goal DOC, which grammaticality is restricted only to a few British English dialects. The processes affecting the objects in the Prepositional Construction are also mentioned. The initial part of the paper is devoted to the underlying syntactic representations of the DOC in English. Following, e.g. Citko (2011), Cuervo (2003), Pylkkännen (2002, 2008), a representation with the Low Applicative Phrase has been adopted. The exact case valuation mechanism for relevant objects (as proposed by Bondaruk and Bartczak-Meszyńska (2014)) has been established. The remaining part of this paper contains a detailed discussion of the derivation of particular object initial sentences with the DOC in the active and in the passive and the interplay between passivisation and topicalisation, as the triggers of the object fronting.
Keywords:
Double Object Construction, passivisation, topicalisation, the Minimalist Program, the Low Applicative PhraseReferences
Abels, K. 2003. Successive-cyclic, anti-locality and adposition stranding, Ph.D. diss., Storrs, University of Connecticut.
Anagnostopoulou, E. 2003. The syntax of ditransitives. Evidence from clitics. Studies in Generative Grammar 54. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bartczak-Meszyńska. A. 2013. The double object construction in English and German. Structural position, case valuation and movement of objects. Ph.D. diss., Lublin, John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin.
Biggs, A. 2014. Dissociating Case from Theta-roles: A comparative investigation. Ph.D. diss., King’s College, University of Cambridge.
Biggs, A. 2015. A new Case for A-movement in Northwest British English. In U. Steindl, T. Borer, H. Fang, A. Garcia Pardo, P. Guekguezian, B. Hsu, Ch. O’Hara, and I. Chuoying Ouyang (eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 32), 218-227. Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Bondaruk, A., and M. Charzyńska-Wójcik. 2003. Expletive pro in impersonal passives in Irish, Polish and Old English. Linguistische Berichte 195: 325-362.
Bondaruk, A., and A. Bartczak-Meszyńska. 2014. Dative or accusative in disguise? The study of the Double Object Construction in English. In M. Charzyńska-Wójcik, J. Wójcik and A. Bloch-Rozmej, (eds.), Language change, faces and facets. Studies in Linguistic and Methodology 7. 25-42. Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL.
Boneh, N., and L. Nash. 2011. When the benefit is on the fringe. In J. Berns, H. Jacobs, and T. Scheer (eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory XX, 19-38. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bresnan, J. 2007. Is syntactic knowledge probabilistic? Experiments with the English dative alternation. In S. Featherston, and W. Sternefeld (eds.), Studies in Generative Grammar. Roots: Linguistics in search of its evidential base, 77-96. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bresnan, J., A. Cueni, T. Nikitina, and H. Baayen. 2007. Predicting the dative alternation. In G. Boume, I. Kraemer, and J. Zwarts (eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation, 69-94. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.
Bresnan, J., and T. Nikitina. 2009. The gradience of the dative alternation. In L. Uyechi, and L.-H. Wee (eds.), Reality Exploration and discovery: Pattern interaction in language and life, 161-184. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Bruening, B. 2010a. Double Object Constructions disguised as prepositional datives. Linguistic Inquiry 41: 287-305.
Bruening, B. 2010b. Ditransitive asymmetries and a theory of idiom formation. Linguistic Inquiry 41: 519-562.
Chafe, W. 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and point of view. In C. Li, Subject and topic, 27-55. New York: Academic Press.
Chomsky, N. 2000. Minimalist Inquires: The framework. In R. Martin, D. Michaels, and J. Uriagereka (eds.), Step by Step, 89-155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. 2001. Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale. A life in language, 1-52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. 2007. Approaching UG from below. In U. Sauerland, and H.-M. Gartner (eds.), Interfaces + Recursion = Language?: Chomsky’s minimalism and the view from syntax-semantics, 1-29. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Chomsky, N. 2008. On phases. In R. Freidin, C. Otero, and M.-L. Zubizaretta (eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory. Essays in honour of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, 134-166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Citko, B. 2011. Symmetry in syntax. Merge, Move and labels. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cuervo, M. 2003. Dative at large. Ph.D. diss., Cambridge, MA, MIT.
Emonds, J. 1973. Evidence that indirect object movement is a structure-preserving rule. In. M. Gross, M. Halle, and C. Schutzenberger (eds.), The formal analysis of natural languages, 63-70. The Hague: Mouton.
Erteschik-Shir, N. 2006. On the architecture of Topic and Focus. In V. Molnar, and S. Winkler (eds.), The architecture of focus. Studies in Generative Grammar 82, 33-57. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Grashchenkov, P., and V. Markman. 2008. Non-core arguments in verbal and nominal predication: High and Low Applicatives and possessor raising. In N. Abner, and J. Bishop (eds.), Proceedings of the 27th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 27), 185-193. Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Haddican, W. 2010. Theme-goal ditransitives and theme passives in British English dialects. Lingua 120: 2424-2443.
Haddican, W., and A. Holmberg. 2011. Object movement symmetries in British English dialects: Experimental evidence for a case-based approach. In C. Jaehoon, E. Hogue, J.Punske, D. Tat, J. Schertz, and A. Trueman (eds.), Proceedings of the 28th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 28), 72-80. Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Harley, H. 2002. Possession and the double object construction. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2: 29-68.
Hiraiwa, K. 2002. Multiple Agree. Paper presented at GLOW Workshop: tools in linguistic theory, Utrecht Institute of Linguistics.
Hornstein, N., and A. Weinberg. 1981. Case theory and preposition stranding. Linguistic Inquiry 12: 55-91.
Hughes, A., and P. Trudgill. 1979. English accents and dialects: An introduction to the social and regional varieties in the British Isles. London: Arnold.
Jackendoff, R. 1990. On Larson’s treatment of the Double Object Constructions. Linguistic Inquiry 21(3): 427-456.
Kayne, R. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Krifka, M., and C. Fery. 2008. Information structure. Notional distinctions, ways of expression. In P. van Sterkenburg (ed.), Unity and diversity of languages, 123-136. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Larson, R. 1988. On the Double Object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19(3): 335-391.
Larson, R. 1990. Double objects revisited: Reply to Jackendoff. Linguistic Inquiry 21(4): 589-632.
Levin, B., and M. Rappaport Hovav. 2007. Deconstructing Thematic Hierarchies. In A. Zaenen, J. Simpson, T. Holloway King, J. Grimshaw, J. Maling, and C. Manning (eds.), Architectures, Rules, and Preferences: Variations on Themes by Joan W. Bresnan, 385-402. Stanford: CSLI.
McFadden, T. 2002. The rise of the to-dative in Middle English. In D. Lightfoot (ed.), Syntactic effects of morphological change, 107-123. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Oerle, R. 1976. The grammatical status of the English dative alternations. PhD diss., Cambridge MA, MIT.
Pesetsky, D. 1995. Zero syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Prince, E. 1981. Topicalization, focus-movement, and Yiddish-movement: A pragmatic differentiation. Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Meeting of the Berkley Linguistic Society 249-263.
Pylkkänen, L. 2002. Introducing arguments. Cambridge, MA, PhD dissertation, MIT.
Pylkkänen, L. 2008. Introducing arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Rizzi, L. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In L. Haegeman (ed.), Elements of grammar, 281-337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Rizzi, L. 2004. Locality and left periphery. In A. Belletti (ed.), Structures and beyond. The cartography of syntactic structures 3, 223- 251. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Slavkov, N. 2008. Formal consequences of dative clitic-doubling in Bulgarian ditransitives: An applicative analysis. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 16(1): 139-66.
Speyer, A. 2010. Topicalization and stress clash avoidance in the history of English. TiEL 69. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Tajsner, P. 1998. Minimalism and functional thematization. A cross-linguistic study. Poznań: Motivex.
Tajsner, P. 2008. Aspects of the grammar of focus. A minimalist view. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
van Riemsdijk, H. 1978. A case studying syntactic markedness: The binding nature of prepositional phrases. Dordrecht: Foris.
University of Finance and Management in Białystok
