In support of the PHAVE analysis of the double object construction

Heidi B Harley, Hyun Kyoung Jung

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Pylkkänen (2002, 2008) and Bruening (2010a) present several arguments against the “small clause” approach to the double object construction in English, building on the predictions that that proposal makes with respect to the transfer-of-possession entailment, Goaloriented depictives, nominalizations, subextraction, quantifier scope, and idioms. We argue that the small clause analysis proposed by Harley (1995, 2002) in fact makes correct predictions in all these cases. In addition, we point out the existence of previously overlooked parallels between double object structures and have-sentences with respect to depictives, eventive DP complements, and quantifier scope. This motivates an analysis that links these different behaviors to the properties of a single PHAVE element common to both.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)703-730
Number of pages28
JournalLinguistic Inquiry
Volume46
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1 2015

Fingerprint

possession
Prediction
Quantifiers
Depictives
Small Clause
Nominalization
Idioms
Entailment
Possession

Keywords

  • Applicatives
  • Depictives
  • Ditransitive constructions
  • Possession
  • Small clauses

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Language and Linguistics
  • Linguistics and Language

Cite this

In support of the PHAVE analysis of the double object construction. / Harley, Heidi B; Jung, Hyun Kyoung.

In: Linguistic Inquiry, Vol. 46, No. 4, 01.10.2015, p. 703-730.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Harley, Heidi B ; Jung, Hyun Kyoung. / In support of the PHAVE analysis of the double object construction. In: Linguistic Inquiry. 2015 ; Vol. 46, No. 4. pp. 703-730.
@article{4b97ef59433f458b96fb4cf2391d5cc8,
title = "In support of the PHAVE analysis of the double object construction",
abstract = "Pylkk{\"a}nen (2002, 2008) and Bruening (2010a) present several arguments against the “small clause” approach to the double object construction in English, building on the predictions that that proposal makes with respect to the transfer-of-possession entailment, Goaloriented depictives, nominalizations, subextraction, quantifier scope, and idioms. We argue that the small clause analysis proposed by Harley (1995, 2002) in fact makes correct predictions in all these cases. In addition, we point out the existence of previously overlooked parallels between double object structures and have-sentences with respect to depictives, eventive DP complements, and quantifier scope. This motivates an analysis that links these different behaviors to the properties of a single PHAVE element common to both.",
keywords = "Applicatives, Depictives, Ditransitive constructions, Possession, Small clauses",
author = "Harley, {Heidi B} and Jung, {Hyun Kyoung}",
year = "2015",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1162/ling_a_00198",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "46",
pages = "703--730",
journal = "Linguistic Inquiry",
issn = "0024-3892",
publisher = "MIT Press Journals",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - In support of the PHAVE analysis of the double object construction

AU - Harley, Heidi B

AU - Jung, Hyun Kyoung

PY - 2015/10/1

Y1 - 2015/10/1

N2 - Pylkkänen (2002, 2008) and Bruening (2010a) present several arguments against the “small clause” approach to the double object construction in English, building on the predictions that that proposal makes with respect to the transfer-of-possession entailment, Goaloriented depictives, nominalizations, subextraction, quantifier scope, and idioms. We argue that the small clause analysis proposed by Harley (1995, 2002) in fact makes correct predictions in all these cases. In addition, we point out the existence of previously overlooked parallels between double object structures and have-sentences with respect to depictives, eventive DP complements, and quantifier scope. This motivates an analysis that links these different behaviors to the properties of a single PHAVE element common to both.

AB - Pylkkänen (2002, 2008) and Bruening (2010a) present several arguments against the “small clause” approach to the double object construction in English, building on the predictions that that proposal makes with respect to the transfer-of-possession entailment, Goaloriented depictives, nominalizations, subextraction, quantifier scope, and idioms. We argue that the small clause analysis proposed by Harley (1995, 2002) in fact makes correct predictions in all these cases. In addition, we point out the existence of previously overlooked parallels between double object structures and have-sentences with respect to depictives, eventive DP complements, and quantifier scope. This motivates an analysis that links these different behaviors to the properties of a single PHAVE element common to both.

KW - Applicatives

KW - Depictives

KW - Ditransitive constructions

KW - Possession

KW - Small clauses

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84944752645&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84944752645&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1162/ling_a_00198

DO - 10.1162/ling_a_00198

M3 - Article

VL - 46

SP - 703

EP - 730

JO - Linguistic Inquiry

JF - Linguistic Inquiry

SN - 0024-3892

IS - 4

ER -