Applicatives Not Applicable: Evidence from Mandarin DOCs
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54691/bcpssh.v15i.381Keywords:
Applicatives; Indirect Passives; Mandarin DOCs; Bi-verbal Construction.Abstract
Applicatives have received intense discussion since they were proposed in 20 centuries. This paper pointed out some major issues in the theoretical implication and empirical application of the applicative theory. Extra supporting data were raised from Mandarin DOCs. Furthermore, instead of assuming an additional rule of permitting one verb taking two objects, this argued that Mandarin indirect passives transformed from DOCs and resultatives were both derived from the Bi-verbal underlying structure, but with different argument arrangements.
Downloads
References
Pylkkänen L. Introducing arguments [M]. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2008.
den Dikken M. High and Low Applicatives of Unaccusatives: Dependent Case and the Phase[J]. Linguistic Inquiry, 2021, 52(4): 1-53.
Kuo P. J. Three applicative GEIs in Mandarin Chinese [M]//The size of things I. Berlin: Language Science Press, 2021: 265-284.
Larson R. On Pylkkänen’s semantics for low applicatives [J]. Linguistic Inquiry, 2010, 41(4): 701-704.
Jerro K. Applied Objects and the Syntax–Semantics Interface [J]. Journal of Linguistics, 2020, 57(2): 1-39.
Mascarenhas S. Causing-to-have vs. Having-for: The Syntax of Double-object Get [R]. Ms., New York University, 2010.
Paul W., Whitman J. Applicative structure and Mandarin ditransitives [M]//Argument structure and syntactic relations from a cross-linguistic perspective. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2010: 261 -282.
Georgala E. Applicatives in their structural and thematic function: a minimalist account of multitransitivity [D]. New York: Cornell University, 2012.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
How to Cite
