The third way: object reordering as ambiguous labeling resolution

References

Abels, Klaus. 2003. Successive cyclicity, anti-locality, and adposition stranding. UConn Doctoral dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Adler, Julia. 2011. Dative alternations in German: The argument realization options of transfer verbs. Hebrew University Doctoral dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Alexiadou, Artemis, Elena Anagnostopoulou & Christina Sevdali. 2014. Opaque and transparent datives, and how they behave in passives. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 17(1). 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10828-014-9064-8.Search in Google Scholar

Allerton, David J. 1978. Generating indirect objects in English. Journal of Linguistics 14(1). 21–33. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022226700005648.Search in Google Scholar

Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2003. The syntax of ditransitives: evidence from clitics. Berlin: De Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar

Antonyuk, Svitlana. 2015. Quantifier scope and scope freezing in Russian. SUNY Doctoral dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Aoun, Joseph & Audrey Yun-Hui Li. 1989. Scope and constituency. Linguistic Inquiry 20(2). 141–172.Search in Google Scholar

Baltin, Mark R. 1989. Heads and projections. In Mark R. Baltin & Anthony S. Kroch (eds.), Alternative conceptions of phrase structure, 1–16. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

Barss, Andrew & Howard Lasnik. 1986. A note on anaphora and double objects. Linguistic Inquiry 17. 347–354.Search in Google Scholar

Beermann, Dorothee. 2001. Verb semantics and double object constructions – a constraint-based approach to double object constructions in German. In Elena Anagnostopoulou & Marc van Östendorp (eds.), Progress in grammar: Articles at the 20th anniversary of the Comparison of Grammatical Models Group in Tilburg, vol. I (MIEPiL). Amsterdam: Roquade.Search in Google Scholar

Bošković, Željko. 1994. D-structure, θ-criterion, and movement into θ-positions. Language Analysis 24. 247–286.Search in Google Scholar

Bošković, Željko. 2016. On the timing of labeling: Deducing comp-trace effects, the subject condition, the adjunct condition, and tucking in from labeling. The Linguistic Review 33. 17–66. https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2015-0013.Search in Google Scholar

Bruening, Benjamin. 2001. QR obeys superiority: Frozen scope and ACD. Linguistic Inquiry 17(2). 233–273. https://doi.org/10.1162/00243890152001762.Search in Google Scholar

Bruening, Benjamin. 2010. Ditransitive asymmetries and a theory of idiom formation. Linguistic Inquiry 41(4). 519–562. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00012.Search in Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.10.1515/9783112316009Search in Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.10.21236/AD0616323Search in Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1975. The logical structure of linguistic theory. New York: Plenum Press.Search in Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Roger Martin, David Michaels & Juan Uriagereka (eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalism in honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 2013. Problems of projection. Lingua 130(0). 33–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.12.003.Search in Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 2015. Problems of projection: Extensions. In Elisa Di Domenico, Cornelia Hamann & Simona Matteini (eds.), Structures, strategies and beyond: Studies in honor of Adriana Belletti, 1–16. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.223.01choSearch in Google Scholar

Collins, Chris. 2005a. A smuggling approach to raising in English. Linguistic Inquiry 36(2). 289–298. https://doi.org/10.1162/0024389053710701.Search in Google Scholar

Collins, Chris. 2005b. A smuggling approach to the passive in English. Syntax 8(2). 81–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2005.00076.x.Search in Google Scholar

Collins, Chris. 2014. Merge(X,Y) = {X,Y}. NYU Ms.Search in Google Scholar

Collins, Chris. 2021. A smuggling approach to the dative alternation. In Adriana Belletti & Chris Collins (eds.), Smuggling in syntax, 96–107. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780197509869.003.0005Search in Google Scholar

Cuervo, Maria Christina. 2003. Datives at large. MIT Doctoral dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Dowty, David R. 1978. Governed transformations as lexical rules in a Montague Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 9(3). 393–426.Search in Google Scholar

Dvořák, Věra. 2010. On the syntax of ditransitive verbs in Czech. In Formal approaches to Slavic linguistics 18, 161–177. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.Search in Google Scholar

Emonds, Joseph & Rosemarie Whitney. 2006. Double object constructions. In Martin Evaraert & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), The blackwell companion to syntax, chap. 21, 73–144. Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.10.1002/9780470996591.ch21Search in Google Scholar

Epstein, Samuel David, Hisatsugu Kitahara & T. Daniel Seely. 2014. Labeling by minimal search: Implications for successive-cyclic a-movement and the conception of the postulate “phase”. Linguistic Inquiry 45. 463–481. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00163.Search in Google Scholar

Franks, Steven. 1994. Parametric properties of numeral phrases in Slavic. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 12(4). 597–674. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00992929.Search in Google Scholar

Georgala, Effi. 2011. Applicatives in their structural and thematic function: A minimalist account of multitransitivity. Cornell Unversity Doctoral dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Georgala, Effi, Waltraud Paul & John Whitman. 2008. Expletive and thematic applicatives. In Charles B. Chang & Hannah J. Haynie (eds.), Proceedings of WCCFL 26, 181–189. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Search in Google Scholar

Gračanin-Yuksek, Martina. 2006. Double object construction in Croatian: Arguments against Appl0. In Richard Compton, Magdalena Goledzinowska & Ulyana Savchenko (eds.), Formal approaches to Slavic linguistics 16, 94–112. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.Search in Google Scholar

Green, Georgia M. 1974. Semantics and syntactic regularity. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Grohmann, Kleanthes K. 2003. Prolific domains: On the anti-locality of movement dependencies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.66Search in Google Scholar

Gropen, Jess, Steven Pinker, Michelle Hollander, Richard Goldberg & Ronald Wilson. 1989. The learnability and acquisition of the dative alternation in English. Language 65(2). 203–257. https://doi.org/10.2307/415332.Search in Google Scholar

Haddican, William. 2010. Theme–goal ditransitives and theme passivisation in British English dialects. Lingua 120(10). 2424–2443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2009.11.003.Search in Google Scholar

Harley, Heidi. 1995. Abstracting away from abstract case. In Jill N. Beckman (ed.), Proceedings of NELS 25, 207–221. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Search in Google Scholar

Harley, Heidi. 2002. Possession and the double object construction. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2. 29–68. https://doi.org/10.1075/livy.2.04har.Search in Google Scholar

Harwood, Will, Marko Hladnik, Sterre Leufkens, Tanja Temmerman, Norbert Corver & Jeroen van Craenenbroeck. 2016. Idioms: Phasehood and projection. KU Leuven & Universiteit Utrecht Manuscript. Available at: http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002951.Search in Google Scholar

Heine, Bernd & Christa König. 2010. On the linear order of ditransitive objects. Language Sciences 32(1). 87–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2008.07.002.Search in Google Scholar

Hoji, Hajime. 1985. Logical Form constraints and configurational structures in Japanese. University of Washington Doctoral dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Holmberg, Anders & Christer Platzack. 1995. The role of inflection in Scandinavian syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195067453.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Holmberg, Anders, Michelle Sheehan & Jenneke van der Wal. 2019. Movement from the double object construction is not fully symmetrical. Linguistic Inquiry 50(4). 677–722. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00322.Search in Google Scholar

Ilc, Gašper & Tatjana Marvin. 2016. Unaccusatives in Slovenian from a crosslinguistic perspective. In Lanko Marušič & Rok Žaucer (eds.), Formal studies in Slovenian syntax. In honor of Janez Orešnik, 145–166. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.236.07ilcSearch in Google Scholar

Ingason, Anton Karl, Einar Freyr Sigurðsson & Jim Wood. 2016. Displacement and subject blocking in verbal idioms: Evidence from passive-like constructions in Icelandic. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 96. 26–49.Search in Google Scholar

Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli. 1996. Clausal architecture and case in icelandic. UMass, Amsherst Doctoral dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli. 2000. Case and double objects in Icelandic. In Diane Nelson & Paul Foulkes (eds.), Leeds working papers in linguistics 8, 71–94. Leeds: University of Leeds.Search in Google Scholar

Kayne, Richard S. 2005. Prepositions as probes. In Movement and silence, 85–104. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195179163.003.0005Search in Google Scholar

Kitagawa, Yoshishisa. 1994. Shells, yolked, and scrambled E.g.s. In Mercè Gonzàlez (ed.). Proceedings of NELS 24, vol. 1, 221–239. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Search in Google Scholar

Kristínardóttir, Iðunn & Jóhannes Gísli Jónsson. 2022. Prepositional vs. indirect objects in Icelandic. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 107. 32–46.Search in Google Scholar

Lacerda, Renato. 2020. Middle-field syntax and information structure in Brazilian Portuguese. UConn Doctoral dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Larson, Richard K. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19(3). 335–392.Search in Google Scholar

Larson, Richard K. 1990. Double objects revisited: Reply to Jackendoff. Linguistic Inquiry 21(4). 589–632.Search in Google Scholar

Lasnik, Howard. 1995. Case and expletives revisited: On Greed and other human failings. Linguistic Inquiry 26(4). 615–633.Search in Google Scholar

Lebeaux, David. 2009. Where does binding theory apply? Cambridge: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262012904.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Lechner, Winfried. 1998. Two kinds of reconstruction. Studia Linguistica 52(3). 276–310. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9582.00037.Search in Google Scholar

Lenardič, Jakob. 2019. A syntactic re-analysis of the Slovenian impersonal se-construction. In Franc Marušič, Petra Mišmaš & Rok Žaucer (eds.), Advances in formal Slavic linguistics 2017 (Open Slavic Linguistics 3), 151–178. Berlin: Language Science Press.Search in Google Scholar

Mahajan, Anoop. 1990. The A/A-bar distinction and movement theory. MIT Doctoral dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Marantz, Alec. 1993. Implications of asymmetries in double object constructions. In Sam A. Mchombo (ed.), Theoretical aspects of Bantu grammar 1, 113–151. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Search in Google Scholar

Marušič, Franc. 2005. On non-simultaneous phases. SUNY Doctoral dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Marušič, Franc & Rok Žaucer. 2004. A reanalysis of the FEEL-LIKE dative-reflexive construction in Slovenian. In Olga Arnaudova, Wayles Browne, Maria-Luisa Rivero & Danijela Stojanović (eds.), Formal approaches to Slavic linguistics 12, 293–311. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.Search in Google Scholar

Marvin, Tatjana. 2009. Applicative constructions in Slovenian. In Vrinda Chidambaram, Steven Franks & Brian D. Joseph (eds.), A linguist’s linguist: studies in South Slavic linguistics in honor of E. Wayles Browne, 297–315. Bloomingdale, IL: Slavica.Search in Google Scholar

Marvin, Tatjana. 2012. A note on applicatives. In Maria Cristina Cuervo & Yves Roberge (eds.), The end of argument structure? 185–208. Bingley: Emerald.10.1163/9781780523774_009Search in Google Scholar

Marvin, Tatjana & Adrian Stegovec. 2012. On the syntax of ditransitive sentences in Slovenian. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 59(1–2). 177–203. https://doi.org/10.1556/aling.59.2012.1-2.8.Search in Google Scholar

McFadden, Thomas. 2004. The position of morphological case in the derivation: A study on the syntax-morphology interface. UPenn Doctoral dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

McGinnis, Martha Jo. 1998. Locality in A-movement. Cambridge: MIT Doctoral dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Miyagawa, Shigeru & Takae Tsujioha. 2004. Argument structure and ditransitive verbs in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 13. 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:jeal.0000007345.64336.84.10.1023/B:JEAL.0000007345.64336.84Search in Google Scholar

Miyagawa, Shigeru, Danfeng Wu & Masatoshi Koizumi. 2018. A revised labeling approach to long-distance agreement. In Proceedings of MAPLL × TCP × TL × TaLK (MT3), 1–6. Tokyo: IEICE.Search in Google Scholar

Mizuguchi, Manabu. 2019. Ambiguous labeling and full interpretation. Studia Linguistica 73(3). 563–603. https://doi.org/10.1111/stul.12109.Search in Google Scholar

Moore, John & David M. Perlmutter. 2000. What does it take to be a dative subject. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 18(2). 373–416. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1006451714195.10.1023/A:1006451714195Search in Google Scholar

Neeleman, Ad, Elena Titov, Hans van de Koot & Reiko Vermeulen. 2009. A syntactic typology of topic, focus and contrast. In Jeroen van Craenenbroeck (ed.), Alternatives to cartography, 15–52. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110217124.15Search in Google Scholar

Neeleman, Ad & Hans van de Koot. 2008. The nature of discourse templates. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 11(2). 137–189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10828-008-9018-0.Search in Google Scholar

Nunberg, Geoffrey, Ivan Sag & Thomas Wasow. 1994. Idioms. Language 70. 491–538. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1994.0007.Search in Google Scholar

Oehrle, Richard Thomas. 1976. The grammatical status of the English dative alternation. MIT Doctoral dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero syntax: Experiencers and cascades. Cambridge: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Pinker, Steven. 1989. Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Primus, Beatrice. 1998. The relative order of recipient and patient in the languages of Europe. In Anna Siewierska (ed.), Constituent order in the languages of europe, 421–474. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110812206.421Search in Google Scholar

Pylkkänen, Liina. 2002. Introducing arguments. MIT Doctoral dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Pylkkänen, Liina. 2008. Introducing arguments. Cambridge: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262162548.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Rappaport Hovav, Malka & Beth Levin. 2008. The English dative alternation: The case for verb sensitivity. Journal of Linguistics 44. 129–167. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022226707004975.Search in Google Scholar

Řezáč, Milan. 2003. The fine structure of Cyclic Agree. Syntax 6(2). 156–182. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9612.00059.Search in Google Scholar

Richards, Norvin. 2001. An idiomatic argument for lexical decomposition. Linguistic Inquiry 32. 183–192. https://doi.org/10.1162/002438901554649.Search in Google Scholar

Richards, Norvin. 2008. Can A-scrambling reorder DPs. MIT Ms. Available at: http://web.mit.edu/norvin/www/papers/Ascrambling.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

Rivero, María Luisa & Milena Milojević Sheppard. 2003. Indefinite reflexive clitics in Slavic: Polish and Slovenian. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21(1). 89–155. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1021841517604.10.1023/A:1021841517604Search in Google Scholar

Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized minimality. Cambridge: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Rizzi, Luigi. 2016. Labeling, maximality and the head – phrase distinction. The Linguistic Review 33. 103–127. https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2015-0016.Search in Google Scholar

Saito, Mamoru. 1985. Some asymmetries in Japanese and their theoretical consequences. MIT Doctoral dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Saito, Mamoru. 1992. Long distance scrambling in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 1. 69–118. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00129574.Search in Google Scholar

Saito, Mamoru. 2014. Case and labeling in a language without φ-feature agreement. In Anna Cardinaletti, Guglielmo Cinque & Yoshio Endo (eds.), On peripheries: Exploring clause initial and clause final positions, 269–297. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo Publishing.Search in Google Scholar

Saito, Mamoru. 2016. (A) Case for labeling: Labeling in languages without φ-feature agreement. The Linguistic Review 33. 129–177. https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2015-0017.Search in Google Scholar

Saito, Mamoru. 2018. Kase as a weak head. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics 25(1) (Special Issue in Honour of Lisa Travis). 382–391.Search in Google Scholar

Saito, Mamoru & Naoki Fukui. 1998. Order in phrase structure and movement. Linguistic Inquiry 29(3). 439–474. https://doi.org/10.1162/002438998553815.Search in Google Scholar

Shlonsky, Ur. 2014. A note on labeling, Berber states, and VSO order. In Sabrina Bendjaballah, Noam Faust, Mohamed Lahrouchi & Nicola Lampitelli (eds.), The form of structure, the structure of form, 349–360. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/lfab.12.27shlSearch in Google Scholar

Siewierska, Anna & Ludmila Uhliřová. 1998. An overview of word order in Slavic languages. In Anna Siewierska (ed.), Constituent order in the languages of Europe. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110812206Search in Google Scholar

Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 1989. Verbal syntax and case in Icelandic in a comparative gb approach. Sweden: University of Lund Doctoral dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Stegovec, Adrian. 2012. Ditransitives in Slovenian: Evidence for two separate ditransitive constructions. University of Ljubljana BA thesis.Search in Google Scholar

Svenonius, Peter. 1994. C-selection as feature checking. Studia Linguistica 48(2). 133–155. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9582.1994.tb00853.x.Search in Google Scholar

Tada, Hiroaki. 1993. A/A-bar partition in derivation. MIT Doctoral dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Titov, Elena. 2012. Information structure of argument order alternations. UCL Doctoral dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Tomioka, Satoshi & Lan Kim. 2017. The give-type benefactive constructions in Korean and Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 26(3). 233–257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10831-017-9158-9.Search in Google Scholar

Travis, Lisa deMena. 1984. Parameters and effects of word order variation. MIT Doctoral dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Ura, Hiroyuki. 1996. Multiple feature checking: A theory of grammatical function splitting. MIT Doctoral dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Williams, Edwin. 2006. Circumstantial evidence for dative shift. In Hans Broekhuis, Norbert Corver, Riny Huybregts, Ursula Kleinhenz & Jan Koster (eds.), Organizing grammar, 661–668. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110892994.661Search in Google Scholar

Yatsushiro, Kazuko. 1999. Case licensing and VP structure. UConn Doctoral dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Yatsushiro, Kazuko. 2003. VP internal scrambling. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 12(2). 141–170. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1022423427865.10.1023/A:1022423427865Search in Google Scholar

Zaenen, Annie, Joan Maling & Höskuldur Thráinsson. 1985. Case and grammatical function: The Icelandic passive. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 3(4). 441–483. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00133285.Search in Google Scholar

Zubizarretta, Maria Luisa. 1998. Word order, prosody, and focus. Cambridge: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar