Download Lecture 04 - ELTE / SEAS

Lecture 4: Double Objects and Datives
ADVANCED SYNTAX
RECAP: VP STRUCTURE

Universal Theta role Assignment Hypothesis
Every argument bearing the same theta role is in the
same structural position in all constructions at Dstructure
 Therefore, we can identify what the agent, theme, etc.
positions are

theme
agent
experiencer
RECAP: VP STRUCTURE

Verbs which have only
theme arguments have a
simple VP structure
John arrived
 = unaccusatives


As lexical verbs do not
assign Case and there is
no abstract verb, the
theme will move to the
subject position
RECAP: VP STRUCTURE

Verbs which have only an agent
argument will have a more
complex structure


They have:






John laughed
an abstract agentive verb with an
agent specifier
A lexical verb with no argument
= unergative
The abstract verb assigns Case to
the specifier of its complement
The agent does not get Case and
therefore moves to subject
position
The verb moves to support the
abstract verb
RECAP: VP STRUCTURE

Some verbs have an agent and a
theme argument:


They have:






John killed Bill
An abstract agentive verb with
agent argument
A lexical verb with a theme
argument
= transitive
The abstract verb assigns Case to
the theme
The agent does not get Case, so
moves to subject
The verb moves to support the
abstract verb
RECAP: VP STRUCTURE

Verbs which have
experiencer and theme
arguments will have the
same structure




John saw Bill
The abstract verb will have a
different meaning
(‘experience’ rather than
‘do’)
Also transitive
Case and movement
relations will be the same
RECAP: VP STRUCTURE

Some verbs have both agent
and experiencer arguments






The clown scared the children
Must have two abstract verbs
(agentive + experiencer)
The agentive verb will assign
Case to the experiencer
The agent will not get Case
and so will move to subject
The verb will move to support
both abstract verbs
The experiencer is therefore
the object
THREE PLACE PREDICATES

But there are verbs which have three
arguments:
 Complex
 [He]
put [the book] [on the shelf]
 Datives
 [He]
– agent + theme + goal
gave [the money] [to his lawyer]
 Double
 [He]
transitives – agent + theme + location
object verbs – agent + goal + theme
wrote [Mary] [a letter]
DOUBLE OBJECT (DO) CONSTRUCTION

Traditionally a double object verb is said to have
two objects:

Indirect object = goal or beneficiary
 He
sent Mary a message
 He knitted his granny a scarf

Direct object = theme
 He
sent Mary a message
 He knitted his granny a scarf

The indirect object always precedes the direct object:
*
they built a house him
(they built him a house)
DOUBLE OBJECT (DO) CONSTRUCTION

The indirect object shows more object
properties than does the direct object:
 It
immediately follows the verb:
I
saw her yesterday
 I owed her the money
 It
* I saw yesterday her
* I owed the money her
moves to subject in passives:
 They
awarded her a medal
 She was awarded a medal
 * a medal was awarded her
THE DATIVE CONSTRUCTION

The dative construction expresses something very
close to the double object construction, but has a
number of syntactic differences:
Both have similar arguments (agent, theme,
goal/beneficiary)
 Dative verbs have one DP object (theme) and one PP
argument (goal/beneficiary)

 They
delivered the package to the shop
The goal is expressed as a to PP and the beneficiary as
a for PP – to him/for him
 The order is theme before goal/beneficiary

THE DATIVE CONSTRUCTION

The direct object has more object properties:
 It
is closest to the verb:
I
sent the letter to the manager
 * I sent to the manager the letter
 It
moves to subject in the passive:
 The
letter was sent to the manager
 * the manager was sent the letter to
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DO AND DATIVE
CONSTRUCTIONS

As the two constructions mean similar things, it
is often supposed that both are related
 Perhaps
one is a more basic form and the other is
derived from it

But which way round?
 DO
 Dative
 Dative  DO
ARGUMENTS FOR DO  DATIVE

There are some DO constructions which have no
dative counterparts

so how could they have been formed from a dative?

That gave John a shock

* that gave a shock to John

They made Mary president

* they made president to/for Mary

I spared the court the details

* I spared the details to the court

I envied John his good looks

* I envied his good looks to John

We gave the car a new door

* we gave a new door to the car
PROBLEMS

In the case of give (give him a shock) this is a
light verb construction
I
had a look = I looked
 I took a walk = I walked
 I gave him a shock = I shocked him

So it isn’t really a DO construction
PROBLEMS

In the case of make (make her president) this is
related to the secondary predicate construction
They painted the barn red (the barn is red)
 They made her president
(she is president)
 They gave him a pie
(* he is a pie)


The two predicates seem to form a single complex
predicate:
Paint-red
 Make-president


( to colour)
( to elect)
So it isn’t really a DO construction
PROBLEMS

In the case give the car a new door this involves inaliable
possession:




=>
>
John has a car
John has a leg
Just like this distinction between a ‘possessor’ in a DP and
the subject of the possessive verb, it seems that inaliable
possession only works in the DO construction
Give a new heart to John



John’s car
John’s leg
Is not ungrammatical
It just does not mean the heart is part of John
If anything, this indicates that the DO and dative
construction have properties of their own

So perhaps neither is formed from the other
ARGUMENTS FOR DATIVE  DO
If the dative were derived from the DO, the fact
that there are two datives (to and for) would be
hard to account for
 If the DO is derived from the dative, it is easy:

 The

process involves the loss of the preposition
I V-ed something to someone
I V-ed someone something


I V-ed something for someone
ARGUMENTS FOR DATIVE  DO







There are some datives with no DO counterpart:
I donated the money to charity
He said something to you
He reported the crime to the police
I sent the parcel to London




* I donated charity the money
* he said you something
* he reported the police the crime
* I sent London the parcel
The first two cases are difficult to explain as there are very
similar verbs (give and tell) which do allow both dative and
DO constructions
The last case shows that the two constructions can mean
different things


The goal in the dative does not have to be the recipient in the
dative
Hence one may not be derived from the other
THE STRUCTURE OF THE TWO CONSTRUCTIONS

With two arguments following the verb, three
argument verbs have always been problematic
for analysis
THE STRUCTURE OF THE TWO CONSTRUCTIONS

One old analysis assumes
both arguments are in
complement position


But this means the structures
have three branches and no
other structure has this
Another places the first
argument in complement and
the second in an adjunct
position

But adjuncts are recursive and
arguments are not
REASONS WHY BOTH OF THESE ARE WRONG

The two arguments together
form a constituent
I
gave [a rose to Mary] and
[deadly nightshade to Bill]

This suggests the structure 
 But
this does not conform to Xbar theory
 XP
 And
has no head
what is XP?
FURTHER OBSERVATIONS



It seems that the first argument is higher than the
second
The subject can be the antecedent of the object
But the object cannot be the antecedent of the subject




John1 likes himself1
* himself1 likes John1
Subjects are structurally higher than objects
Antecedents have to be structurally higher


John1 wants [himself1 to win]
* himself1 wants [John1 to win]
FURTHER OBSERVATIONS

Consider:
 The
analyst revealed Bill1 to himself1
 * The analyst revealed himself1 to Bill1
John showed Bill1 himself1 (in the mirror)
 * John showed himself1 Bill1 (in the mirror)


So it seems that the first argument is higher
than the second in both cases
FURTHER OBSERVATIONS

This suggests the structure 
This conforms to X-bar
principles
 The second argument is lower
than the first
 The two arguments are in the
same constituent
 We still don’t know what XP is
 But it looks familiar

 Similar
to the transitive structure
COMPARISON TO THE TRANSITIVE STRUCTURE
agent
agent
theme
theme
goal
transitive
dative
This is compatible with the UTAH
COMPARISON TO THE TRANSITIVE STRUCTURE
agent
agent
theme
goal
theme
transitive
Double object
This is not compatible with the UTAH
DO IS DERIVED

The fact that the DO construction is not
compatible with the UTAH, suggests that it is
derived and that the dative is the basic
structure
HOW TO DERIVE THE DO CONSTRUCTION

Consider the Case relations in
the dative
 Nothing
 So
assigns Case to the agent
it moves to subject position
 The
agentive verb assigns Case to
the theme
 The preposition assigns Case to
the goal

Everything is as it should be
HOW TO DERIVE THE DO CONSTRUCTION

If the DO construction has a
structure similar to the dative, it
should look like this
The theme is in specifier of the lexical
verb
 The goal is in the complement of the
lexical verb
 The agent gets no Case and so moves
 The theme gets Case from the
agentive verb
 The goal does not get Case

 Lexical
verbs don’t assign Case
 There is no preposition
theme
goal
HOW TO DERIVE THE DO CONSTRUCTION
The goal must move to a Case
position
 This is in front of the theme
 We might assume the presence of
another abstract verb

This would provide a specifier for the
goal to move to
 And provide an extra Case assigner

 The
agentive verb assigns Case to the
moved goal
 The extra verb assigns Case to the theme
PROBLEMS WITH THIS ANALYSIS

There are a number of problems which face
this analysis:
 Motivation
for the extra abstract verb
 Case assignment
 The movement
THE IDENTITY OF THE EXTRA VERB

We have assumed abstract verbs in other
structures


E.g. Transitives and unergatives
But there was motivation for these in terms of
their semantic contribution
Melt (transitive) = make + melt
 Hit = do + hit
 Smile = do + smile


There is little semantic contribution for the
proposed abstract verb

I sent it to him = I sent him it
CASE ASSIGNMENT
The abstract agentive verb assigns agent
thematic role and accusative Case (Burzio’s
generalisation)
 The passive morpheme does not assign any
thematic role and it does not assign Case
 The extra abstract verb does not appear to
assign a thematic role
 It is strange therefore that it can assign Case

MOVEMENT

The proposed analysis involves the movement of
the goal argument from the complement of the
lexical verb to the specifier of the abstract verb:
 [VP

DP1 absV [VP DP lexV t1 ]]
We know movements have to be short

Relativised Minimality = move to the nearest
appropriate position
The proposed movement moves the goal DP over
the theme DP
 This seems to violate Relativised Minimality

POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS
If the goal cannot move over the theme, then it
must originate in this position
 Thus, either

 The
dative is derived from the double object, or
 Both are basic and neither derives from the other
THE STRUCTURE OF THE DO CONSTRUCTION

Both these solutions require a viable structure
for the DO construction in which
 The
theme is in the specifier of the lexical verb (not
in its complement position)
 The goal is in a valid position consistent with X-bar
theory
THE STRUCTURE OF THE DO CONSTRUCTION

The only viable analysis is:
An agentive verb with agent
argument
 A goal verb with a goal
argument
 The lexical verb with a
theme argument


This is similar to the
agent-experiencer verbs

There are two abstract
verbs
THE STRUCTURE OF THE DO CONSTRUCTION





The goal verb assigns Case
to the theme
The agentive verb assigns
Case to the goal
The agent is not Case
marked, so it moves
The verb moves to support
both abstract verbs
So both the goal and the
theme are objects

Following the verb
SO ... WHAT ABOUT THE DATIVE?




It might be possible to derive the
dative construction from this
structure
But there is so much evidence
against the dative being derived
from the DO that it is unlikely
So we are left with the alternative
that both structures are unrelated
So we might as well assume the
simplest structure for the dative
SO ... WHAT ABOUT THE DATIVE?

But this appears to violate the
UTAH

There are two positions for goals
The specifier of an abstract goal verb
 The complement of a preposition


But recall that the two structures
don’t have the same meaning

The goal of the dative is not
necessarily a recipient


I sent the message to London
The goal of the DO may be an
inaliable possessor

They gave John a new heart
SO ... WHAT ABOUT THE DATIVE?

Certain arguments of verbs can appear as objects
of prepositions and maintain their meaning
John killed Bill
 Bill was killed by John
 He climbed the hill
 He climbed up the hill
 He loaded hay onto the cart
 He loaded the cart with hay


Perhaps the UTAH can allow one argument
position for each argument in the VP and another
one in the PP
CONCLUSION
The Dative Construction
The Double Object Construction