| This thesis focuses on the double object construction (DOC) and the relevant constructions in Chinese and English. Compared with the common monotransitive construction, the DOC is special, in that one verb interacts with two objects. This raises three major questions in our study: (i) how the DOC is generated; (ii) how the asymmetries between the direct object (DO) and the indirect object (IO) in the DOC are captured; and (iii) how the phi-features and Case of the IO and the DO are checked.The relations between the DOC and the dative construction have always been controversial. We assume that the DOC is an independent construction and there are no transformational relations between the two constructions. Meanwhile, the other two questions are always the focus of syntactic studies on the DOC. Different proposals vary greatly in the process of assigning Case.The DOC can be classified into two types: Source DOC and Goal DOC, and the IO may have two distinct interpretations, namely, Provider and Recipient. In order to solve the questions above, following Chomsky's Derivation by Phase, we reanalyze the DOC (as in (i), which involves two eventualities: one is the process of transferring something, which is realized by the right vP; and the other is how the first process affects the IO, which is encoded by the left vP.Regarding the theta role assignment, the IO gets a maleficiary role or a beneficiary role when the IO merges in [Spec, VPCAUSE], that is, the IO loses or gets the DO; while the DO gets a theme role from the verb it merges with., Phi-features and Case of the two objects are checked by two vs through the Agree operation.If our analysis is adopted, we can account for questions concerning the asymmetries between the IO and the DO and quantifier scope properties. Moreover, we have also discussed the derivation of the dative construction and the phenomenon of object-preposing, based on the comparative analyses of the functional categories T and v in Chinese and English.
|
PDF Full Text Request