Your browser does not support the PubReader view.
Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.
The Korean Association for the Study of English Language and Linguistics
[ Article ]
Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 22, No. 0, pp.1561-1586
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print) 2586-7474 (Online)
Print publication date 31 Jan 2022
Received 30 Oct 2022 Revised 10 Dec 2022 Accepted 30 Dec 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.22..202212.1561

영어 이중목적어 구문의 삼층 구조 분석

백다윤 ; 장경철
부산대학교
부산대학교
A three-layered structural analysis of the double object construction in English
Dayoon Baek ; Kyungchul Chang
(1st author) Graduate Student, Pusan National University, Tel: 051-510-1510 100dayoon@naver.com
(corresponding author), Professor, Department of English Language and Literature, Pusan National University, Tel: 051-510-1510 seodaebu@pusan.ac.kr


© 2022 KASELL All rights reserved
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

This paper aims to develop a derivational analysis of the double object construction in English. We argue that the three arguments in the construction are realized by three different heads through the (re-)merge operation, yielding a three-layered VP structure. This is evidenced by data of the distribution of phrasal verbs that are considered to have a complex verb configuration. With respect to the aspectual properties of the construction, a functional head often called an Inner Aspect (IA) by Travis (2010) is introduced between the so-called vP shell and its root VP. As the indirect object is an additional argument, it remerges in the specifier of IA, which is the way station for the derivation in which the verb moves from V to v. We also suggest that the verb movement beneath the vP is not a single operation, but a combination of two types of adjunction. One is syntactic, and the other is post-syntactic.

Keywords:

double object construction, three-layered VP, (re-)merge, indirect object, inner aspect, verb movement, (post-)syntactic

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by PNU-RENovation (2021- 2022).

References

  • 김대익(Kim, D). 2010. 국면과 문자화와 동사이동(Phase, spell-out and verb movement). ⟪현대문법연구⟫(Studies in Modern Grammar) 60, 1-20.
  • 김대익(Kim, D). 2011. 동사이동과 최소주의(V-movement and Minimalism). ⟪언어과학⟫(Journal of Language Sciences) 18-4, 1-20.
  • 신흥택(Shin, H.). 2016. 영어 이중목적어 구문의 지향형의 구조, 의미와 의미역 자질(Structure, meaning, and theta features of applicative structure in English double object construction). ⟪언어과학⟫(Journal of Language Sciences) 23-2, 61-83.
  • Baker, M. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Baker, M. 1997. Thematic roles and syntactic structure. In L. Haegeman, ed., Elements of Grammar, 73-137. Dordrecht: Springer. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_2]
  • Barss, A. and H. Lasnik. 1986. A note on anaphora and double objects. Linguistic Inquiry 17. 347-354.
  • Beck, S. and K. Johnson. 2004. Double objects again. Linguistic Inquiry 35(1), 97-123. [https://doi.org/10.1162/002438904322793356]
  • Bobaljik, J. 1995. Morphosyntax: The Syntax of Verbal Inflection. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA.
  • Bobaljik, J. and S. Brown. 1997. Interarboreal operations: Head movement and the extension requirement. Linguistic Inquiry 28(2), 345-356.
  • Boeckx, C. 2008. Bare Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Boeckx, C. and S. Stjepanovic. 2001. Head-ing toward PF. Linguistic Inquiry 32(2), 345-355. [https://doi.org/10.1162/00243890152001799]
  • Bruening, B. 2010a. Double object constructions disguised as prepositional datives. Linguistic Inquiry 41(2), 287-305. [https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2010.41.2.287]
  • Bruening, B. 2010b. Ditransitive asymmetries and a theory of idiom formation. Linguistic Inquiry 41(4), 519-562. [https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00012]
  • Bury, D. 2003. Phrase Structure and Derived Heads. Doctoral dissertation, University of London, London, UK.
  • Chang, K. 2016. On the syntactic alternation of English transitive phrasal verbs. Studies in Modern Grammar 88, 1-18. [https://doi.org/10.14342/smog.2016.88.1]
  • Chang, K. 2018. English phrasal verbs are not primitives. Studies in Modern Grammar 100, 41-63. [https://doi.org/10.14342/smog.2018.100.41]
  • Chomsky, N. 1957. Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton Publishers. [https://doi.org/10.1515/9783112316009]
  • Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Chomsky, N. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In R. Martin, D. Michaels and J. Uriagereka, eds., Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, 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.
  • Dékány, É. 2018. Approaches to head movement: A critical assessment. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 3(1), 1-43. [https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.316]
  • Den Dikken, M. 1995. Particles: On the Syntax of Verb-particle, Triadic, and Causative Constructions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Edelstein, E. 2020. English Syntax: A Minimalist Account of Structure and Variation. England: Edinburgh University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1515/9781474425537]
  • Fanselow, G. 2004. Münchhausen-style head movement and the analysis of verb second. Linguistics in Potsdam 22, 9-49.
  • Goldberg, A. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago.
  • Goldberg, L. 2005. Verb-stranding VP Ellipsis: A Cross-linguistic Study. Doctoral dissertation, McGill University, Montreal, QC, CA.
  • Green, G. 1973. Semantics and Syntactic Regularity. Indiana: Indiana University Press.
  • Hale, K. and S. Keyser. 1993. An argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In S. Bromberger, ed., The View from Building 20, 53-109. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Hale, K. and S. Keyser. 2002. Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5634.001.0001]
  • Halle, M. and A. Marantz. 1994. Some key features of distributed morphology. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 21, 275-288.
  • Harley, H. 1995. Subjects, Events, and Licensing. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA.
  • Harley, H. 2002. Possession and the double object construction. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2(1), 31-70. [https://doi.org/10.1075/livy.2.04har]
  • Harley, H. and H. Jung. 2015. In support of the PHAVE analysis of the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 46(4), 703-730. [https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00198]
  • Harley, H. and S. Miyagawa. 2017. Syntax of ditransitives. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics, 1-25. [https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.186]
  • Huddleston, R., G. Pullum and B. Reynolds. 2021. A Student’s Introduction to English Grammar. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009085748]
  • Iorio, D. 2015. Subject and Object Marking in Bembe. Doctoral dissertation, Newcastle University, Newcastle, UK.
  • Jackendoff, R. 1996. The proper treatment of measuring out, telicity, and perhaps even quantification in English. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14(2), 305-354. [https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00133686]
  • Kayne, R. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Kratzer, A. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In J. Rooryck and L. Zaring, eds., Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, 109-137. Dordrecht; Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8617-7_5]
  • Krifka, M. 1989. Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification in event semantics. In R. Bartsch and J. van Benthem, eds., Semantics and Contextual Expression, 75-115. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. [https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110877335-005]
  • Krifka, M. 2004. Semantic and pragmatic conditions for the dative alternation. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics 4(1), 1-31.
  • Larsen, D. 2014. Particles and Particle-verb Constructions in English and Other Germanic Languages. Doctoral dissertation, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA.
  • 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. Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-lexical Semantics Interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Lohndal, T. 2011. Freezing effects and objects. Journal of Linguistics 47(1), 163-199. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226710000010]
  • MacDonald, J. 2008. The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect: A Minimalist Perspective. Amsterdam, NL: John Benjamins Publishing Company. [https://doi.org/10.1075/la.133]
  • MacDonald, J. 2015. A movement analysis of some double object constructions. In Proceedings of the 32nd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 276-285.
  • Marantz, A. 1993. Implications of asymmetries in double object constructions. In S. Mchombo, ed., Theoretical Aspects of Bantu Grammar, 113-150. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
  • Matushansky, O. 2006. Head movement in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 37(1), 69-109. [https://doi.org/10.1162/002438906775321184]
  • McIntyre, A. 2013. English particle verbs as complex heads: Evidence from nominalization. In H. Härtl, ed., Interfaces of Morphology, 41-57. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. [https://doi.org/10.1524/9783050063799.41]
  • Mezhevich, I. 2003. English resultatives: State versus location. In Proceedings of the 2003 Annual conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association, 166-177.
  • Nunes, J. 2001. Sideward movement. Linguistic Inquiry 32(2), 303-344. [https://doi.org/10.1162/00243890152001780]
  • Nunes, J. 2004. Linearization of Chains and Sideward Movement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/4241.001.0001]
  • Oehrle, R. T. 1976. The Grammatical Status of the English Dative Alternation. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA.
  • Ormazabal, J. and J. Romero. 2010. The derivation of dative alternations. In M. Duguine, S. Huidobro and N. Madariaga, eds., Argument Structure and Syntactic Relations: A Cross-linguistic Perspective, 203-232. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. [https://doi.org/10.1075/la.158.13orm]
  • Ormazabal, J. and J. Romero. 2012. PPs without disguises: Reply to Bruening. Linguistic Inquiry 43(3), 455-474. [https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00097]
  • Pesetsky, D. 1995. Zero Syntax: Experiencers and Cascades. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Pinker, S. 1989. Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Pinker, S. 2007. The Stuff of Thought: Language as a Window into Human Nature. London, UK: Panguin Books.
  • Pylkkänen, L. 2008. Introducing Arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262162548.001.0001]
  • Radford, A. 1997. Syntax: A Minimalist Introduction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166898]
  • Radford, A. 2009. Analysing English Sentences: A Minimalist Approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511801617]
  • Ramchand, G. 2008. Verb Meaning and the Lexicon. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486319]
  • Rizzi, L. 1990. Relativized Minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Schoorlemmer, E. and T. Temmerman. 2012. Head movement as a PF-phenomenon: Evidence from identity under ellipsis. In Proceedings of the 29th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 232-240.
  • Shim, J. 2022. Transfer and dynamic access. The Journal of Linguistic Science 101, 23-40. [https://doi.org/10.21296/jls.2022.6.101.23]
  • Smith, C. 1997. The Parameter of Aspect. Dordrecht; Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  • Snyder, W. 2001. On the nature of syntactic variation: Evidence from complex predicates and complex word-formation. Language 324-342. [https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2001.0108]
  • Travis, L. 2010. Inner Aspect. Dordrecht: Springer. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8550-4]
  • Ura, H. 2000. Checking Theory and Grammatical Functions in Universal Grammar. New York: Oxford University Press,
  • Uriagereka, J. 2000. Rhyme and Reason: An Introduction to Minimalist Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5949.001.0001]
  • Vendler, Z. 1967. Linguistics in Philosophy. New York: Cornell University Press. [https://doi.org/10.7591/9781501743726]
  • Verkuyl, H. 1972. On the Compositional Nature of the Aspects. Dordrecht: Reidel Publishing Company. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2478-4]