{"title":"起初是一个至短语","authors":"Javier Ormazabal, Juan Romero","doi":"10.1162/ling_a_00534","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n In this paper we reply to the objections raised against a connection between Double Object Constructions (DOC) and to-constructions and present new arguments showing the empirical and theoretical advantages of derivational analyses over non-derivational ones. We argue that to-constructions and DOCs share a common substructure—where the theme is higher than the goal—that construction-based analyses fail to capture, both crosslinguistically and English-internally. We also argue that variation on the lexical properties of verbs and adpositions is the right tool to account for the alternation.","PeriodicalId":48044,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Inquiry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"In the Beginning Was a to-Phrase\",\"authors\":\"Javier Ormazabal, Juan Romero\",\"doi\":\"10.1162/ling_a_00534\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n In this paper we reply to the objections raised against a connection between Double Object Constructions (DOC) and to-constructions and present new arguments showing the empirical and theoretical advantages of derivational analyses over non-derivational ones. We argue that to-constructions and DOCs share a common substructure—where the theme is higher than the goal—that construction-based analyses fail to capture, both crosslinguistically and English-internally. We also argue that variation on the lexical properties of verbs and adpositions is the right tool to account for the alternation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48044,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Linguistic Inquiry\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Linguistic Inquiry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00534\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Linguistic Inquiry","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00534","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
In this paper we reply to the objections raised against a connection between Double Object Constructions (DOC) and to-constructions and present new arguments showing the empirical and theoretical advantages of derivational analyses over non-derivational ones. We argue that to-constructions and DOCs share a common substructure—where the theme is higher than the goal—that construction-based analyses fail to capture, both crosslinguistically and English-internally. We also argue that variation on the lexical properties of verbs and adpositions is the right tool to account for the alternation.
期刊介绍:
Linguistic Inquiry leads the field in research on current topics in linguistics. This key resource explores new theoretical developments based on the latest international scholarship, capturing the excitement of contemporary debate in full-scale articles as well as shorter contributions (Squibs and Discussion) and more extensive commentary (Remarks and Replies).