Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-wxvwp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T17:51:06.677Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Argument Interpretations in the Ditransitive Construction

Review products

NZhang. 1998. Argument Interpretations in the Ditransitive Construction. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 21, 179–209.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 October 2010

Niina Ning Zhang
Niina Ning Zhang
Affiliation:
Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Jägerstr. 10–11, 10117 Berlin, Germany. E-mail: zhang@zas.gwz-berlin.de
Get access

Extract

An indirect object can be interpreted as a Provider or as a Recipient. The evidence considered in this article suggests that the two interpretations can be morphologically analytic in Chinese and typologically parametrized for certain natural classes of verbs in English and Chinese. Two VP projections are proposed for the ditransitive construction. The head of the lower VP can be phonologically realized or null. The content of the null verb is parametrized across languages. The contrasts in indirect object interpretations in these languages are explained in terms of the lexical meanings of the null verb. The contrasts in verb occurrence restrictions in these languages are accounted for by the interpretable feature compatibilities in head adjunction from the lower to the higher VP.

Information

Type
Review Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 21 , Special Issue 2 , December 1998, pp. 179 - 209
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Åfarli, T. A. 1992. The Syntax of Norwegian Passive Constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alsina, A. 1996. Passive Types and the Theory of Object Assymmetries. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14, 673–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aoun, J. & Li, Y. 1989. Scope and Constituency. Linguistic Inquiry 20, 141–172.Google Scholar
Baker, M. 1989. Object Sharing and Projection in Serial Verb Constructions. Linguistic Inquiry 20, 513–553.Google Scholar
Barss, A. & Lasnik, H. 1986. A Note on Anaphora and Double Objects. Linguistic Inquiry 17, 347–354.Google Scholar
Bowers, J. 1993. The Syntax of Predication. Linguistic Inquiry 24, 591–656.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Collins, C. 1997. Argument Sharing in Serial Verb Constructions. Linguistic Inquiry 28, 461–497.Google Scholar
Cowper, E. 1989. Thematic Underspecification: the Case of have. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics, 11.2, 1–8.Google Scholar
Green, G. 1974. Semantics and Syntactic Regularity. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Grimshaw, J. 1990. Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. 1994. Introduction to Government and Binding Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hale, K. & Keyser, S. 1993. On Argument Structure and the Lexical Expression of Syntactic Relations. In Hale, K. & Keyser, S. (eds), The View From Building 20. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 53–109.Google Scholar
Herslund, M. 1986. The Double Object Construction in Danish. In Hellan, L. & Christensen, K. K. (eds), Topics in Scandinavian Syntax, Dordrecht: Reidel, 125–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1990. On Larson's Analysis of the Double Object Construction. Linguistic Inquiry 21, 427–456.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. S. 1984. Connectedness and Binary Branching, Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, R. 1988. On the Double Object Construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19, 335–391.Google Scholar
Larson, R. 1990. Double Object Revisited: Reply to Jackendoff. Linguistic Inquiry 21, 589–632.Google Scholar
Law, P. 1996. A Note on the Serial Verb Construction in Chinese. Cahiers de Linguistique-Asie Orientale 25, 199–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Law, P. & Veenstra, T. 1992. On the Structure of Serial Verb Constructions. Linguistic Analysis 22, 185–217.Google Scholar
Levin, B. & Rapoport, T. 1988. Lexical Subordination. In Macleod, L. et al (eds) Papers from the 24th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, CLS 24, Part 1, Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 275–289.Google Scholar
Li, Y. 1990. Order and Constituency in Mandarin Chinese. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lü, S., et al 1980. Xiandai Hanyu Bahai Ci [800 Words in Modern Chinese], Beijing: Shangwu Yinshuguan.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. 1995. Zero Syntax, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ritter, E. & Rosen, S. 1996. Strong and Weak Predicates: Reducing the Lexical Burden, Linguistic Analysis 26, 29–62.Google Scholar
Stowell, T. 1981. Origins of phrase structure. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Sybesma, R. 1997. Why Chinese Verb -Le is a Resultative Predicate, Journal of East Asian Linguistics 6, 215–261.Google Scholar
Tang, J. 1990. Chinese phrase structure and the extended X'-Theory. Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Tenny, C. 1994. Aspectual Roles and the Syntax-semantics Interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wunderlich, D. 1998. Bantu applicatives reconsidered. Presented at Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Berlin.Google Scholar
Zhang, N. 1998a, to appear. The Interactions Between Construction Meaning and Lexical Meaning. Linguistics.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, N. 1998b. Remedy of defective ellipses, Ms. Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Berlin.Google Scholar
Zhang, N. 1998c. A study of the semantic typology of the ditransitive construction. To be presented at the International Conference on Modern Chinese Grammar, Beijing, Aug. 26–31, 1998.Google Scholar
Zhang, S. 1990. Correlations Between the Double Object Construction and Preposition Stranding. Linguistic Inquiry 21, 312–316Google Scholar
Zhu, D. 1979. Sentences Containing the Verb Gei. Fangyan [Dialects] 1979. 2, 81–87.Google Scholar
Zhu, D. 1981. Complex Constructions with Verb Gei. Zhongguo Yuwen [Chinese Linguistics] 174.3, 161–166.Google Scholar