Ditransitive Constructions in Modern Standard Arabic

transcript

Proceedings of the 7th Athens Postgraduate Conference of the Faculty of Philology, National

and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 16-18 May 2013, Volume B.

Fawwaz An-Nashef

The English and Foreign Languages University, Hyderabad-India

This paper aims at investigating the ditransitive constructions of Modern Standard Arabic (MSA). It

argues that the two variants of ditransitive constructions in MSA, i.e. Double Object Construction (DOC)

and Prepositional Object Construction (POC), are not derivationally related as has been assumed for

English by Larson (1988) and Aoun & Li (1989), among others. Rather, the two variants in MSA have

two different structures. The paper shed more light on the double object variant. Following (Marantz

1993, Georgala & Whitman 2009), it proposes an applicative analysis for the DOC in MSA. Though this

construction in MSA manifests low applicative properties, the adopted single applicative analysis

captures the fact of Pylkkänen‟s (2002/2008) two types of applicatives (i.e., High and Low). The paper

adopts the recent syntactic licensing mechanism of Chomsky (2000, 2001 and subsequent works);

namely, Agree, and assumes that indirect and direct objects are assigned structural accusative Case by

little v and the applicative v, respectively.

1. Introduction

Ditransitive constructions have been one of the most prominent issues of linguistic

research that have been widely investigated in the last few decades. As such

constructions have not been tackled in MSA before, this paper attempts to shed light on

the ditransitive constructions in the language. I argue that there are two different

structures for ditransitive constructions in MSA. A double object construction (DOC)

with two DP objects and a prepositional object construction (POC) where the indirect

object is realized as PP object. In general, there are two different approaches that have

been remarkably followed to decide the structure of the two variants. An approach that

assumes the two variants to be derivationally related1; and another one which argues

against it and assumes a base-generated structure for each variant.2

Working on ditransitive constructions in MSA, I will limit the focus of this paper

on two important issues; one concerns the nature of the (two variants of) ditransitive

constructions, namely, DOC and POC. Another concerns the Case assignment to both

objects in DOC.

2. Double Object Constructions and Applicatives

The Applicative construction was used mainly to describe a linguistic phenomenon in

Bantu languages. Applicative, as defined by Jeong (2006: 6), is a construction in which

a verb bears a specific morpheme which requires the existence of a non-core argument

that would not otherwise be considered an argument of that verb.“[M]ost languages

have a means of adding an indirect object to the argument structure of a verb…, such

additional arguments are called applied arguments and the resulting constructions

applicative constructions” (Pylkkänen 2008: 11).

The point is that the presence of the applicative affix is responsible for the

presence of the oblique argument. In other words, if the base verb is transitive as in (1a),

the addition of the applicative affix may make it a ditransitive verb (1b); and if the base

verb is intransitive, the applicative morpheme does change it into transitive (2).

1 For proponents of this approach see for instance Larson (1988), Aoun and Li (1989).

2 Cf. Marantz (1993), Pesetsky (1995) and Harley (2003).

(1) a. N –ӓ– ї – lyì – á k-élyá [Chaga]

Foc-1sub-pr-eat-fv 7-food

„He/She is eating food‟

b. N - ӓ – ї – lyì – í - á m-k ák-élyá

Foc-1sub-pr-eat-Appl-fv 1-wife 7-food

„He/She is eating food for his wife‟.

(2) N – ӓ – ї – zrìc – í – á mbùyá

Foc-1sub-pr-run-Appl-fv 9-friend

„He is running for a friend‟. (As cited in Jeong 2006:7& 8)

For Baker (1988), DOCs and applicative construction are derived from the same

underlying structure. Marantz (1993) also suggests that DOC in English is, in fact, an

applicative construction with a non-overt applicative marker. Hence, the prepositional

variant of ditransitives is argued to have a simple verbal structure in which both internal

arguments are assumed to project in the same VP (4). Whereas the double object variant

is assumed to have a complex verbal structure where there is an additional verbal layer

above VP called ApplP (i.e., Applicative Phrase) with a null applicative head, as shown

in (3).

(3) (4)

The indirect argument in both double object and applicative constructions is introduced

by an applicative head; and the only difference is that this head is overt in applicative

languages but covert in double object languages. That is, Chichewa applicative

construction, for instance, implies a possession-like semantics similar to that implied in

a double object construction where the oblique argument (goal) asymmetrically c-

commands the theme.

Double object / Applicative constructions have been classified into symmetric and

asymmetric. That is, If both the applied (indirect) object argument and the direct object

argument show structural properties, in the sense that they can be passivized; then, they

are symmetric applicatives (e.g. Norwegian, Swedish, Ancient Greek,…etc.). In

asymmetric applicatives (e.g. American English, Mandarin Chinese, Hindi/urdu, MSA

etc.), on the other hand, only one object shows properties of a structural object.

3. Previous analyses of double object/applicative construction

Different analyses have been proposed by different linguists. In this paper, I will

mention only two different recent analyses.

Subj V‟

V APPLP

IO APPL‟

APPL VP

Subj V‟

DO V‟

3.1. Anagnostopoulou (2003)

With slight modification to Marantz‟s (1993) proposal, Anagnostopoulou (2003)

proposes the following structure for an applicative construction:

In this structure, Anagnostopoulou is aware of the fact that DO in symmetric languages

can move up to the subject position (e.g., passivization). Therefore, she proposes “the

specifier to vAppl parameter”

(6) The specifier to vAppl parameter: (Anagnostopoulou 2003: 157)

Symmetric movement languages license movement of DO to a specifier

of vAppl. In languages with asymmetric movement, movement of DO may

not proceed via vAppl.

The asymmetric languages do not have the option of moving the DO to spec-

vAppl by the parameter setting. Therefore, moving the DO over the IO directly to T

incurs the minimal link condition violation.

3.2. Pylkkänen (2002/2008)

Pyllkänen has been influenced by different analyses proposed for DOC; more

specifically, Κayne‟s (1984) Small Clause analysis and Pesetsky‟s (1995) Cascade

analysis. These two analyses assume an extra projection within the lexical VP.

Subj V‟

V APPLP

IO APPL‟

APPL VP

v vAPPLP

IO APPL‟

DO vAPPL‟

vPAPPL

vAPPL‟

(8) [VP… [V‟ V [XP IO [X‟ X DO]]]] (Κayne 1984)

(9) [VP… [V‟ V [PP IO [P‟G DO]]]] (Pesetsky 1995) Building on Marantz‟s analysis, and by combining the structures of Κayne (1984) and

Pesetsky (1995), Pylkkänen (2002/2008) argues that, crosslinguistically, applicative

structures are of two types, high and low. The High applicative projects above VP, as in

(10a), and denotes a relation between an individual and an event. On the other hand, the

Low applicative is located as a complement of VP, represented by (10b), and denotes a

transfer of possession between two individuals.

(10) a. [VoiceP DPAGENT[Voice‟ Voice [ApplP DPGOAL [Appl’Appl [VPV DPTHEME]]]]]

b. [VoiceP DPAGENT[Voice‟ Voice [VP V [ApplP DPGOAL [Appl’Appl DPTHEME]]]]]

i. The head of high applicatives can combine with unergatives and static verbs since all

they require is a predicate of events.3

ii. Low applicatives are VP internal. Since they imply transfer of possession, they

cannot combine with verbs that are completely static.4

4. Two Base-Generated Structures for Ditransitives in MSA In this section, I argue that ditransitive constructions in MSA have two different

structures that are not derivationally related. I adopt an applicative analysis for double

object constructions and a simpler analysis for prepositional object construction which

lacks the (null) applicative head. The two structures are schematized as in (11) and (12)

below.

(11) DOC (An Applicative Analysis) (12) POC

The above assumption is supported by several diagnostics which have been applied

through literature to distinguish between the two structures. Here are some of these

tests:

4.1. Different verb classes

It is to be noticed that most of the verbs in MSA allow only the POC but not the DOC,

here are some of these verbs: ʔarsala „to send‟, dafaʕa „to pay‟, Talaba „to ask for‟,

tamannaa „to wish‟, etc.

3 For examples of this type see Pylkkänen (2008: 12).

4 English is an example of this type, see Pylkkänen (2008: 14).

Subj v‟

DO V‟

Such verbs are compatible only with POC.5

(13) a. ʔarsal-tu kitaab-an li-ʕalii-in

sent-1s book-acc to-Ali-gen

„I sent a book to Ali‟.

b. *ʔarsal-tu ʕalii-an kitaab-an

sent-1s Ali-acc book-acc

„I sent Ali a book‟.

(14) a. tamanna-t Ɂal-bint-u reħlat-an saʕiidat-an li-Sadiiqat-i-haa

wished-3.s.f the-girl-nom trip-acc happy-acc to-friend-gen-her

„The girl wished a happy trip to her friend‟.

b. *tamanna-t Ɂal-bint-u Sadiiqat-a-haa reħlat-an saʕiidat-an

wished-3.s.f the-girl-nom friend-acc-her trip-acc happy-acc

„The girl wished her friend a happy trip‟

4.2. Animacy and categorial status of IO

Another argument that supports the postulation of two different structures for

ditransitive constructions in MSA stems from the fact that IO in DOC must be animate

as it has a possessor role whereas in POC, it seems that the object of the preposition „to‟

is not a possessor and hence, animacy requirement is not needed.

(15) a. ʔarsala ʕali-un ʔiswaar-an ʔilaa Lebnaan-a

sent.3.s.m Ali-nom bracelet-acc to Lebanon-gen

„Ali sent a bracelet to Lebanon‟

b. ?? Ɂarsala ʕali-un Lebnaan-a ʔiswaar-an

sent.3.s.m Ali-nom Lebanon-acc bracelet-acc

„Ali gave a bracelet to Lebanon‟

The only grammatical reading possible in (15b) above is the one in which Lebanon is

meant to be a female name rather than a country. In sum, DOC in MSA displays an

animacy constraint whereas the corresponding POC does not. Relevant to this

distinction is the difference in categorial status of the Goal argument in both DOC and

POC. Like English, MSA has a DP Goal argument in DOC, whereas it is a PP in the

(16) a. ʔaʕtaa ʕalii-un ʔal-bint-a kitaab-an

gave.3.s.m Ali-nom the-girl-acc book-acc (DOC)

„Ali gave the girl a book‟.

b. ʔaʕtaa ʕalii-un kitaab-an li-l-bint-i (POC)

gave.3.s.m Ali-nom the-book-acc for-the-girl-gen

„Ali gave a book to the girl‟.

Providing the distinction in theta role as well as in the categorial status of the goal

argument in DOC and POC, I conclude that the two constructions are not derivationally

related. Rather, it must be the case that two different structures are available to capture

the theta-grids of both constructions.

5 There are also class of verbs that are compatible only with DOC, but for space consideration, examples

of this class of verbs are not given in this paper.

4.3. Nominalization

Nominalization is another diagnostic test that shows an asymmetry between the DOC

and the POC in MSA. I assume that an optimal way to nominalize a ditransitive

structure in MSA is to introduce a word like Tariiqat which means „the way‟ in front of

the verb to be nominalized in the structure. When nominalizing the ditransitive verb in

DOC, the indirect object got a genitive case instead of its accusative case whereas the

direct object maintains its accusative case (17a). On the other hand, in nominalizing the

ditransitive verb in POC, both objects get genitive case marking (17b).

(17) a. *Tariiqat-u ɁiʕTaaɁi Moћammad-in Ɂal-kitaab-a

way-nom giving Mohammed-gen the-book-acc

„The way of giving Mohammed the book‟

b. Tariiqat-u ɁiʕTaaɁi Ɂal-kitaab-i li-Moћammad-in

way-nom giving the-book-gen to-Mohammed-gen

„The way of giving the book to Mohammed‟

As (17a) shows, the nominalization of DOC is not possible though a native speaker of

Arabic may find it grammatically correct. In other words, (17a) is grammatical under

the reading ‘the way of giving the book by Mohammed’, the trick in its grammaticality

lies in assigning a genitive Case to the DP following Tariiqat. Thus, considering

„Mohammed’ as the agent of giving the book rather than a goal/recipient of the same

act, renders the nominalization of DOC ungrammatical. On the other hand, (17b) is

perfect under nominalization. It has the meaning „the way of giving the book to

Mohammed’ but not any other possible reading. In a word, the above examples show

that DOC in MSA does not permit nominalization whereas the POC does. Given these

facts, I conclude that the two variants of ditransitive constructions in MSA should have

two different structures to account for such asymmetry.

4.4. Ditransitive Idioms

In addition to the three arguments above, idiom chunks have been used as test for

movement. Thus, they can be a reliable diagnostic for or against my assumption of the

two different base generated structures.

(18) a. Ɂalqam-tu ʕali-an ћajar-an

put in the mouth.1.s Ali-acc stone-acc

Lit. „I put a stone in Ali‟s mouth‟

Idiomatically, „I shut Ali‟s mouth‟

b. *Ɂalqam-tu ћajar-an li-ʕali-in

put in the mouth.1.s stone-acc to-Ali-gen

Lit. „I put a stone in Ali‟s mouth‟ (19) a. ʔaʕir-nii Ɂoðon-a-k

lend.2sm-me ear-acc-your

Lit. „Lend me your ear‟.

Idiomatically, „listen to me‟. b. *ʔaʕir Ɂoðon-a-k lii

lend.2sm ear-acc-your to me

Lit. „Lend your ear to me‟.

vPAPPL

vAPPL‟

The examples (18 & 19) show the unshiftability of idioms from one variant of

ditransitives, i.e., DOC to the other, i.e., POC. However, one might find the alternating

order of some ditransitive idioms acceptable but with a totally different non-idiomatic

meaning. In a word, the non-idiomatical interpretation of the (b) examples above falls

out naturally if we consider that both constructions are not derivationally related. On the

basis of the tests presented above, I argue that DOC and POC have different structures.

5. Double Object Construction in MSA: An Applicative Analysis

As recent works on DOCs assimilate their properties to those of the applicative

constructions (see Marantz 1993, Pylkkänen 2002/2008, Jeong 2006, among others), I

propose, in the spirit of Marantz‟s analysis and building on Georgala and Whitman‟s

(2009) proposal, that DOC in MSA contains a null applicative head which builds its

phrase between the VP and vP. The indirect object is hosted by the Spec of vAPPL

whereas the direct object is base generated as a complement of VP. These assumptions

are schematized in the structure below:

For the IO and DO licensing in the above structure, I adopt the recent syntactic

licensing mechanism of Chomsky (2000 and subsequent works), namely; Agree.

(21) Agree Chomsky (2000: 122)

The probe P agrees with the closest matching goal in D.

a. Matching is feature identity.

b. D is the sister of P. [D= c-command Domain of P].

c. Locality reduces to closest c-command.

I also assume that, though it is projected within the domain of a single phase, i.e., vP,

the applicative structure introduces an Agreeing head, vAPPL which has an EPP feature

(cf. Doggett 2004, Georgala et al. 2008, Georgala 2012, Citko 2011, Haddican and

Holmberg 2012, among others). Following Georgala (2012), Hiraiwa (2001), Collins

(1997), Bowers (2002), among others, I assume that EPP/ OCC feature is uncoupled

from Agree.

The syntactic derivation of the above DOC/applicative structure will proceed as

follows: First, V and DO merge together to form V‟ and IO merges in [Spec, VP]. IO

and DO have uninterpretable Case feature. Then, VP merges with the applicative head v

APPL. The IO moves to [Spec, vPAPPL] to satisfy the EPP feature of v APPL. Bearing a

Case feature, vAPPL enters into an Agree relation with the closest matching DP, namely

DO, and values its accusative Case.6 Finally, v merges with the vPAPPL, and an Agree

relation is established between v and the closest eligible goal in its c-command domain

i.e., IO. An important assumption of this proposal is that there are two sources of Case,

and hence Agree, in applicative constructions, namely, vAPPL and v. This assumption, in

fact, is supported by the facts found in Barupu (Macro-Skou family from northern New

Guinea) where, according to Donohue (2003), some applicative heads in the applicative

constructions of this language show agreement relations not just with the object but also

with the subject, in addition to the agreement with the subject found on the main verb

Similar relations that have been observed by Pylkkänen (2008) between the two

individuals (in the sense of low applicative) as well as between an individual and an

event (i.e., high applicative) can be captured by the single syntactic structure adopted in

(20) above without resorting to two different layers with two different applicative heads,

i.e., High and Low. I assume that the applied (indirect) object base-generates in the

specifier position of vPAPPL only if the latter is High. If the indirect object is base-

generated in the specifier position of VP and moves to the higher specifier position, to

satisfy the EPP of vAPPL, then we have what is called Low applicative structure (cf.

Georgala et al. 2008 and Georgala 2012).

Assuming that the relation between arguments is established during the derivation

at the time of external merge, the thematic relation between an individual

(indirect/applied object), if it is base-generated or externally merged at [Spec, vAppl], and

an event holds as High applicative. On the other hand, if the applied/indirect object is

base-generated or merged at [Spec, VP], regardless of its movement to the higher

projection, i.e., [Spec, vAppl], a possession relation holds between this applied/indirect

object (in its original position) and the other individual (the direct object) resulting in

what is called Low applicative. If these assumptions are on the right track, then the

proposal of the above single applicative structure with a uniform position of applicative

projection can account for double object/applicative (with its two types) constructions

cross-linguistically.

5.1. DOC is Raising/Low applicative in MSA7

The DOC pattern of MSA exhibits low applicative properties as it satisfies the main

diagnostic tests for low applicatives proposed by Pylkkänen (2002/2008). First, low

applicatives are incompatible with intransitives as in (22) below, because the semantics

of low applicative requires an obligatory presence of a theme. Second, low applicatives

are also incompatible with static verbs such as „hold‟. That is, the predicate of a low

applicative head denotes possession which is inconsistent with the predicate of a static

verb as (23) shows.

(22) raqaSat al-fataat-u *(le)-l-waziir-i

danced.3fs the-girl-nom (for)-the-minister

„The girl danced for the minister‟.

(23) ʔamsakt-u l-ћaqibat-a *(le)-Faatima

held.1s the-bag-acc (for)-Faatima

„I held the bag for Faatima‟.

6 I assume that v APPL is similar to light v in that both have Case features.

7Raising applicatives is a term corresponding to Pylkkänen‟s low applicatives. For more details see

Georgala and Whitman (2009).

As is clear in (22), the intransitive verb allows a PP predicate but disallows the DOC

pattern. Similarly, in (23) the static predicate is not allowed in the DOC pattern. Thus,

based on Pylkkänen‟s diagnostic tests, DOC in MSA is low applicative, since the

indirect object cannot combine with intransitive verbs or with a static predicate.

Another diagnostic that proves low applicative behavior of DOC of MSA comes

from the depictive secondary predicate. Basing my judgement on Pylkkänen‟s (2008:

27) argument that “if a language has an English type depictive secondary predicate, the

depictive can modify an applied argument only if the applied argument is high.”; I

conclude that DOC in Arabic is an instance of low applicative structure.

(24) a. I gave Mary the meat raw

b. *I gave Mary the meat hungry

(25) a. ɁaʕTay-tu Moћammad-an ɁaT-Taʕaam-a ħaar-an

gave.1.s Mohammed-acc the- food-acc hot-acc

„I gave Mohammed the food hot‟

b. *ɁaʕTay-tu Moћammad-an ɁaT-Taʕaam-a jaaɁiʕ-an

gave.1.s Mohammed-acc the- food-acc hungry-acc

„I gave Mohammed the food hungry‟

The data from MSA are consistent with the hypothesis that, unlike indirect/applied

objects, direct objects are available for depictive modification. Hence, DOC in MSA is a

low applicative construction.

Proving that DOC in MSA has a low applicative structure, one needs to justify the

raising of the indirect object to the [Spec,vPAPPL] in MSA. To prove this, I employ the

adverb placement test as illustrated in (26) below:

(26) a.Ɂaʕlama ʕali-un l-mudir-a fajɁaat-an Ɂistiqaalat-a-hu informed.3.s.m Ali-nom the-manager-acc suddenly resignation-acc-his

„The president suddenly informed the members his resignation‟ Under the standard assumptions that the manner adverbs are positioned at the left edge

of VP (27), the word order of the two internal arguments with respect to the manner

adverb position above is exactly what is predicted by the raising applicative assumption.

(27) [vPSubj [v’ v [ApplPIO [Appl‟Appl [VP [secretly] [VP tIO[V‟ DO V]]]]]]]

Another important evidence for our assumption that the IO raises from its base position

to a higher spec position comes from floating quantifier in MSA. More specifically, if

we look at data where the IO contains a quantifier like kull „all‟, as in (28).

(28) a. ɁaʕTaa l-muʕalim-u kull-a T-Tullaab-i ʔimteħaan-an

gave.3.s.m the-teacher-nom all-acc the-students-gen exam-acc

„The teacher gave all the students an exam‟

b. ɁaʕTaa l-muʕalim-u T-Tullaab-a kull-a-hum ʔimteħaan-an

gave.3.s.m the-teacher-nom the students-acc all-acc-them exam-acc

„The teacher gave all the students an exam‟.

I can assume that the DP ‘the students’ moved to the specifier position of the higher

projection [Spec, vAPPL] leaving the quantifier and a pronominal clitic behind in the base

position of the IO (i.e., in Spec,VP), cf. Sportiche (1988) and Benmamon (1999).

6. Conclusion The paper has argued for two different structures that represent the two variants of the

ditransitive constructions in MSA (i.e. DOC & POC). I have proposed an applicative

structure for DOC in MSA with a null applicative head similar to that first proposed for

English by Marantz (1993). I adopted a unified structure that can capture the facts of the

two different types of Pylkkänen‟s (2002/2008) applicatives (i.e. High & Low). If we

assume this to be the case, the proposed analysis seems to be more economical than

Pylkkänen‟s (2002/2008). Further, this paper has proved empirically that MSA exhibits

low applicative properties. Thus, IO is generated in [Spec,VP] and then moves to [Spec,

vAPPL]. The paper is placed within the recent minimalist framework. Therefore, I have

argued that the null applicative head vAPPL is another probing head that has a Case

feature that values the lower argument‟s Case feature whereas the higher argument gets

its Case feature valued by little v.

Bibliography Anagnostopoulou, E. 2003. The Syntax of Ditransitives: Evidence from Clitics. New York: Mouton de

Gruyter.

Aoun, J. and Li, Y.A. 1989. Scope and Constituency. Linguistic Inquiry 20, 141-72.

Baker, M. 1988. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago, IL: University of

Chicago Press.

Benmamoun, E. 1999. The Syntax of Quantifiers and Quantifier Float. Linguistic Inquiry 30, 621-642.

Bowers, J. 2002, Transitivity. Linguistic Inquiry 33, 183-224.

Chomsky, N. 2000. Minimalist Inquiries. In R. Martin et al. (eds.) Step By Step: Essays on Minimalist

Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 89-157.

Chomsky, N. 2001. Derivation by Phase. In M. Kenstowics (ed.) Ken Hale: A Life in Language.

Cambridge, Mass: MIT.

Citko, B. 2011. Symmetry in Syntax: Merge, Move and Labels. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Collins, C. 1997. Local Economy. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Doggett, T. 2004. All things being unequal: Locality in movement. Ph.D dissertation, MIT.

Donohue, M. 2003. Morphological templates, headedness, and applicatives in Barupu. Oceanic

Linguistics 42, 111–143.

Georgala, E. 2012. Applicatives in their Structural and Thematic Function: A Minimalist Account of

Multitransitivity. Ph.D. Dissertation, Cornell University.

Georgala, E. and J. Whitman 2009. Ditransitives and Applicative Structure in Greek. In N. Adams, A.

Cooper, F. Parrill, and T. Wier (eds.) Proceedings from the Annual Meeting of the Chicago

Linguistic Society. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society 43 (1), 77-91.

Georgala, E., et al. 2008. Expletive and thematic applicatives. In C. Chang & H. Haynie (Eds.),

Proceedings of WCCFL 26, 181–189. Sommerville, Mass.: Cascadilla Press.

Haddican, B. and A. Holmberg 2012. Object movement (a)symmetries in British English dialects. Paper

presented at the 29th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, University of Arizona.

Harley, H. 2003. Possession and the double object construction. In P. Pica and J. Rooryck, (eds.)

Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 31-70.

Hiraiwa, K. 2001. EPP: Object shift and stylistic fronting in Scandinavian. In K. Megerdoomian and L.

A. Barel (eds.) Proceedings of the 20th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville,

Mass.: Cascadilla Press, 290-303.

Jeong, Y. 2006. The Landscape of Applicatives. Ph.D dissertation. University of Maryland.

Kayne, R. 1984. Connecedtness and Binary Branching. Dordrecht: Foris.

Larson, R. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic inquiry, 19(3), 335–391.

Marantz, A. 1993. Implications of asymmetries in double object constructions. In A. S. Mchombo (ed.)

Theoretical Aspects of Bantu Grammar. Stanford CA: CSLI Publications 1, 113-151.

Pesetsky, D. 1995. Zero Syntax: Experiencers and Cascades. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Pylkkänen, L. 2002. Introducing arguments. Ph.D dissertation, MIT.

Pylkkänen, L. 2008. Introducing Arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Sportiche, D. 1988. A Theory of Floating Quantifiers and its Corollaries for Constituent Structure.

Linguistic Inquiry 19, 425-451.

Ditransitive Constructions in Modern Standard Arabic

Documents