Larson (1988): On the Double Object Construction #
@cite{larson-1988} @cite{barss-lasnik-1986}
Linguistic Inquiry 19(3): 335–391.
Core Claims #
VP shells: Ditransitive verbs project binary-branching VP structures with an outer VP shell whose head is initially empty. V raises from the inner VP to the outer V position (V Raising).
Dative Shift = PASSIVE: The double object construction (DOC) is derived from the oblique dative by Internal Merge — the same operation as Passive — applied within the VP domain rather than the IP domain. Both operations are
Step.imin theDerivationinfrastructure.@cite{barss-lasnik-1986} asymmetries: In the derived DOC, the indirect object (NP1) asymmetrically c-commands the direct object (NP2), deriving six asymmetries: anaphor binding, quantifier-pronoun binding, weak crossover, superiority, each...the other, NPI licensing.
Recoverability (§5.2): Dative Shift requires that to's semantic content be recoverable from V's θ-role assignment. V and to both independently assign θ-roles to the indirect object. When V's role subsumes to's role (both assign Goal), to's contribution reduces to Case marking and can be absorbed by PASSIVE. When V assigns only Beneficiary and not Goal, to's contribution is non-redundant — its suppression would cause irrecoverable loss of thematic information, blocking Dative Shift.
Simplification #
The paper's VP shell has V raising from the inner V position to an
initially empty outer V position (head-to-head movement, §2.1, trees
13–14). This formalization uses Step.im (phrasal Internal Merge)
for Dative Shift and Passive, which correctly captures the NP Movement
component. Head movement (V Raising) is not modeled — the
Derivation infrastructure does not currently support head movement.
This omission does not affect the c-command predictions, which depend
on the positions of DP arguments, not the position of V.
Cross-references #
Theories.Syntax.Minimalism.Core.Derivation:Step.im= Internal MergeStudies/Pylkkanen2008.lean: Modern Voice/Appl decomposition with tree-based c-command verification; bridge theorem proving convergencePhenomena.WordOrder.Studies.ColeHermon2008: English passive derivation using the sameDerivationinfrastructure
Equations
Instances For
Equations
Instances For
The oblique dative "John sent a letter to Mary" is built bottom-up:
1. EM-R the PP complement `[PP to Mary]`
2. EM-L the direct object `a letter` (inner VP-subject)
3. EM-L the agent `John` (outer VP-subject / Spec-VP)
The direct object (a letter) c-commands the goal (Mary), but not
vice versa — Mary is buried inside PP.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
The DOC "John sent Mary a letter" extends the oblique dative with
one additional step: Internal Merge of the indirect object (Step.im).
This is Larson's central insight: Dative Shift = PASSIVE within VP.
The Step.im constructor is the same one used for standard Passive
(cf. ColeHermon2008.lean's englishPassive derivation). The only
difference is which argument moves and when in the derivation.
Derivation steps:
- EM-R the PP complement
[PP to Mary] - EM-L the direct object
a letter - IM the IO
Mary— Dative Shift. Mary is extracted from inside[PP to Mary], leaving a trace, and re-merged at the left edge. This promotes Mary above the direct object. - EM-L the agent
John
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
In the DOC, the indirect object (Mary) c-commands the direct object (a letter). Mary has been promoted above the DO by Internal Merge. This derives all six @cite{barss-lasnik-1986} asymmetries (§3.2):
- Anaphor binding: "I showed Mary herself" vs *"I showed herself Mary"
- Quantifier binding: "I gave every worker his paycheck"
- Weak crossover, superiority, each...the other, NPI licensing
The direct object does NOT c-command the indirect object in the DOC.
Standard Passive ("The ball was kicked by John") is also Step.im:
the object moves to subject position. By using the same Step.im
constructor, the type system enforces Larson's thesis that Passive
and Dative Shift share the same structural operation.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Both Passive and Dative Shift use Step.im. We can extract the
movement steps and verify they share the same structure.
Dative Shift involves exactly one Internal Merge (of the IO).
Standard Passive involves exactly one Internal Merge (of the object).
Both operations promote an argument by Internal Merge, reversing the c-command relation between the two internal arguments.
Oblique dative: DO > IO (letter c-commands Mary) DOC: IO > DO (Mary c-commands letter) [reversed by Step.im] Active: Subj > Obj (John c-commands ball) Passive: Obj > Subj (ball c-commands John) [reversed by Step.im]
@cite{barss-lasnik-1986} identify six asymmetries in DOC sentences of the form V–NP1–NP2, all pointing to the same conclusion: NP1 c-commands NP2 but not vice versa. These are the empirical facts that Larson's Dative Shift analysis derives structurally.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
- Phenomena.ArgumentStructure.Studies.Larson1988.instBEqBLAsymmetry.beq x✝¹ x✝ = false
Instances For
Equations
- Phenomena.ArgumentStructure.Studies.Larson1988.bl_anaphor = { name := "anaphor binding", grammatical := "I showed Mary herself.", ungrammatical := "*I showed herself Mary." }
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- Phenomena.ArgumentStructure.Studies.Larson1988.bl_npi = { name := "NPI licensing", grammatical := "I showed no one anything.", ungrammatical := "*I showed anyone nothing." }
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
There are exactly six @cite{barss-lasnik-1986} asymmetries.
All six asymmetries are derived from a single structural fact: in the DOC, NP1 (IO) asymmetrically c-commands NP2 (DO).
Dative Shift is possible only when to's semantic content is recoverable from V's θ-role assignment (§5.2).
Both V and to independently assign θ-roles to the indirect object:
- to always assigns Goal (goal of motion along some path)
- V assigns its own role to the IO: Beneficiary + Goal for give/send, but only Beneficiary for donate/distribute/contribute
When V's role subsumes to's (V assigns Goal among its roles), to's contribution is redundant — it reduces to Case marking and can be absorbed by PASSIVE. When V does NOT assign Goal (only Beneficiary), to's Goal contribution is non-redundant — its suppression causes irrecoverable loss, blocking Dative Shift.
A dative verb entry with its θ-role assignment to the IO.
ioRoles lists the θ-roles V assigns to its indirect object.
Recoverability is DERIVED: Dative Shift is possible iff V's roles
include .goal, making to's contribution redundant.
- verb : String
θ-roles V independently assigns to the indirect object
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
Instances For
to always assigns Goal — this is its semantic contribution.
Instances For
Recoverability: V's IO roles subsume to's contribution iff V independently assigns a Goal role.
Equations
Instances For
give: V assigns Beneficiary + Goal → subsumes to → DS ✓
Equations
- Phenomena.ArgumentStructure.Studies.Larson1988.give_entry = { verb := "give", ioRoles := [ThetaRole.goal] }
Instances For
send: V assigns Goal → subsumes to → DS ✓
Equations
- Phenomena.ArgumentStructure.Studies.Larson1988.send_entry = { verb := "send", ioRoles := [ThetaRole.goal] }
Instances For
promise: V assigns Goal → subsumes to → DS ✓
Equations
- Phenomena.ArgumentStructure.Studies.Larson1988.promise_entry = { verb := "promise", ioRoles := [ThetaRole.goal] }
Instances For
donate: V assigns only Beneficiary → does NOT subsume to → DS ✗ Example (§5.2): "I donated money to charity." / *"I donated charity money."
Equations
Instances For
distribute: V assigns only Beneficiary → DS ✗ Example (§5.2): "I distributed apples to the children." / *"I distributed the children apples."
Equations
Instances For
contribute: V assigns only Beneficiary → DS ✗ Example (§5.2): "I contributed my time to the auction." / *"I contributed the auction my time."
Equations
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Recoverability correctly predicts Dative Shift for all six verbs: give/send/promise alternate (V assigns Goal); donate/distribute/contribute do not (V assigns only Beneficiary, to's Goal is non-redundant).
In the derived DOC, the IO (NP1) asymmetrically c-commands the DO
(NP2). This structural asymmetry predicts scope freezing: QR of DO
over IO would violate locality/superiority, so only surface scope is
available. The data are recorded in Phenomena.Quantification.Data
(examples dative_double_object and dative_variant).
Scope freezing follows from asymmetric c-command: in the DOC, IO c-commands DO but not vice versa. QR of the lower quantifier (DO) over the higher one (IO) is blocked, yielding surface-only scope.
This connects to Phenomena.Quantification.Data.dative_double_object
which records "Someone gave every student a book" as surfaceOnly.
@cite{larson-1988} §4: "Mary was sent a letter" is an indirect passive — the IO is promoted directly to subject. Under the standard two-step analysis, this requires Dative Shift (oblique → DOC) followed by Passive (DOC → indirect passive). Larson proposes an alternative "3→1 advancement" where PASSIVE applies directly to the oblique dative, promoting the IO without an intermediate DOC stage.
Both routes use the same operations (NP Movement = Step.im). We
formalize the two-step route, which produces the same surface
c-command relations.
Equations
Instances For
Indirect passive: "Mary was sent a letter"
Two-step derivation:
- Build oblique dative base: [VP a_letter [V' send [PP to Mary]]]
- Dative Shift (IM Mary): Mary promotes to inner Spec
- Passive (IM Mary again): Mary promotes to outer Spec (subject)
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
In the indirect passive, the promoted IO (Mary) c-commands the stranded DO (a letter).
The indirect passive uses two Internal Merge steps:
Dative Shift + Passive — both are Step.im.