Specificity and the structure of the vp



Descargar 134,34 Kb.
Fecha de conversión08.06.2017
Tamaño134,34 Kb.


SPECIFICITY AND THE STRUCTURE OF THE VP*

Norberto Moreno Quibén

Universidad de Castilla la Mancha-Instituto Universitario Ortega y Gasset (IUOG)

e-mail: nmoreno@ceu-tr.uclm.es

2nd draft (February 2001)

Comments are wellcome

  1. Introduction


In this paper, we examine the specific/nonspecific ambiguity of indefinite NPs in the domain of verbal complementation.

We propose that the notion of scope of an intensional predicate may be defined in syntactic terms. In particular, we will define the scope of an intensional verb as the minimal domain of the verb in terms of Chomsky 1995. Indefinite NPs that are in the minimal domain of an intensional verb at LF will have the option of the nonspecific interpretation.

From a theoretical point of view, our proposal offers a new argument for the existence of a vP phase or cycle. In a model of grammar without Deep Structure as an independent level of representation, the nonspecific construal in the interpretation of indefinite NPs that are internal arguments of an intensional verb must be at work at the same phase or cycle in which thematic relations are interpreted. This phase or cycle must be precisely the vP.

  1. General Remarks on the Specific/Nonspecific Ambiguity


The specific/nonspecific ambiguity in the interpretation of indefinite NPs.

  1. John wants to catch a fish.

The specific interpretation of the indefinte NP a fish can be paraphrased as in (2).

  1. There is a fish such that John wants to catch it.

The nonspecific interpretation of the indefinite a fish can be paraphrased as follows (Fodor 1976).

  1. John wants there to be a fish such that he catches to.

Opaque contexts

From the truth of a sentence such as (1), in the nonspecific interpretation of the indefinite NP, we cannot infer the existence of an entity such that it is a fish and John catches it. The interpretation of the indefinite NP is dependent on the verb want. We say that the verb want induces an opaque context in which the logical rule of existential generalization does not apply. The sentence in (1) can be true even if there does not exist an entity such that John catches it.



  1. a. John caught a fish.

b. x (fish (x) & John catches x)

The verb catch does not belong to the class of verbs that induce opaque contexts. The application of the existential generalization is valid.

Substitution of coreferential terms


  1. a. My (only) brother is an engineer.

  2. b. John is my brother.

  3. John is an engineer.

Opaque contexts do no validate this type of inference. In these contexts, substitution of coreferential terms does not preserve truth conditions (in general). Therefore, a sentence like (10) cannot be made to follow from (8).

  1. a. Valeria believes that my brother is an engineer.

  2. b. John is my brother.

  3. Valeria believes that John is an engineer.

The class of verbs inducing this particular kind of context includes the following

  1. aceptar, aconsejar, buscar, creer, desear, intentar, merecer, pedir, perseguir, prometer, proponer, querer, sugerir...

(accept, suggest, look for, believe, wish for, hope for, try, deserve, ask for, intend, promise, want,...)

Syntactic enviroments that induce the possibility of having nonspecific interpretations of indefinite NPs (Jackendoff 1971, 1972; Bosque in press).

Modality expressions:


  1. a. John may have caught a fish.

  2. b. A rattlesnake can kill you.

The constraint that applies to the nonspecific interpretation of the indefinite NP in these cases claims that the existence of an identifiable referent is possible (Jackendoff 1971).

Temporal operators:

Future tense or subjunctive mood (Bello 1988, Fernández Ramírez 1986).


  1. Valeria will bring a boy to the party.

  2. Cuando Valeria traiga un chico a la fiesta, lo celebraremos.

When Valeria bring-SUBJ. a boy to the party, it celebrate-FUTURE-1st. Pl.

‘In case Valeria comes with a boy to the party, we will celebrate it’

The condition placed on the NP claims that there is no identifiable referent at the present, but it may be one in the future or when the situation expressed by the sentece comes about.

Negation


  1. John didn’t catch a fish.

The specific interpretation of the indefinte NP a fish is difficult to obtain under normal intonative conditions.

Coreference with a definite pronoun in a conjoined clause requires the specific interpretation of the NP.



  1. # ...but Peter caught it.

The condition placed on the interpretation of the nonspecific interpretations claims that there is no identifiable referent at all.

Quantifiers

Indefinite NPs may have nonspecific interpretations when they appear under the scope of quantified expressions.


  1. a. All of the boys told me a story.

  2. b. Some tourists brought a souvenir with them.

Generic sentences

Indefnite NPs that appear in sentences that express charactering properties of the entitites of which they are predicated often receive nonspecific interpretations (Jackendoff 1971, 1972; Carlson 1977, Chierchia 1995).



  1. a. A rhino eats small snakes.

  2. b. A dinosaur ate the leaves of the tall trees.


  1. Specificity and the Case of Internal Arguments

    1. The scope of intensional predicates


The indefinte NP, a cigar, displays the specific/nonspecific ambiguity. However, the indefinte NP, a man, can only be specifically interpreted.

  1. Bill asked a man for a cigar.

Jackendoff 1972, p. 292:

  1. If a lexical item containing a modal operator belongs to a category that strictly subcategorized for NPs (e.g. adjectives in copula position and verbs, but not determiners, modals or negation), the scope consists of one of the NPs that it strictly subcategorizes.

In these cases, the possibility of obtaining nonspecific interpretation is limited to the complement position of the intensional predicate.

Other arguments of the intensional predicate such as external arguments or indirect objects remains unaffeced by the modal condition placed by the intensional predicate.


    1. Leonetti’s generalization (1990)




  1. Leonetti’s Generalization

  2. In intensional verbs that select for two or three arguments, the only argument that can receive an intensional interpretation is the one that is properly governed by the verb and receives the q-role of Theme.

(Leonetti 1990, p. 377)

In (26), the elements that induce nonspecificity are the intensional verbs pedir (ask for), prometer (promise), buscar (seek, look for), aconsejar (advise), sugerir (suggest) and proponer (propose).

Indefinite NPs that are thematically interpreted as Themes can be interpreted specifically or nonspecifically.

Indefinite NPs that are assigned the Goal or the Experiencer q-role can only receive the specific interpretation in the same context.



  1. a. Juan le pidió a un amigo un libro.

  2. ‘Juan asked a friend for a book’.

  3. b. Juan le prometió a un amigo un piso.

  4. ‘Juan promised an apartment to a friend’.

  5. c. Juan le buscó a un amigo una mascota.

  6. ‘Juan looked for a pet to a friend’.

  7. d. Juan le aconsejó a un amigo un libro.

  8. ‘Juan suggested a book to a friend’.

  9. e. Juan le sugirió a un amigo un médico.

  10. ‘Juan suggested a physcian to a doctor’.

  11. f. Juan le propuso a un amigo un empleado.

‘Juan proposed an employee to a friend’.

A remark before going on, the range of interpretations of the indefinte NPs in the examples above is not dependent upon the relative orderings of the internal arguments. If the direct object precedes the indirect object, the former is subject to the specific/nonspecific construal but the latter can only be interpreted specifically.



  1. a. Juan pidió un libro a un amigo.

  2. ‘Juan asked a friend for a book’.

  3. b. Juan prometió un piso a un amigo.

  4. ‘Juan promised an apartment to a friend’.

  5. c. Juan buscó una mascota a un amigo.

‘Juan looked for a pet to a friend’.

The presence of the preposition a with indirect objects selected by this type of intensional verbs , typically associated with semantic notions such as specificity, animacy or affectation is obligatory (Torrego 1998).



  1. a. * Juan pidió un amigo un libro.

  2. b. * Juan prometió un amigo un piso.

  3. c. * Juan buscó un amigo una mascota.

  4. d. * Juan aconsejó un libro una amiga.

  5. e. * Juan sugerió un amigo un médico.

  6. f. * Juan propuso un amigo un empleado.

The specific interpretation of the indefinite NP acting as an indirect object is not associated to the presence of the clitic.

  1. a. Juan pidió a un amigo un libro.

  2. ‘Juan asked a friend for a book’.

  3. b. Juan prometió a un amigo un piso.

  4. ‘Juan promised an apartment to a friend’.

  5. c. Juan buscó a un amigo una mascota.

  6. ‘Juan looked for a pet to a friend’.

  7. d. Juan aconsejó a un amigo un libro.

  8. ‘Juan suggested a book to a friend’.

  9. e. Juan sugerió a un amigo un médico.

  10. ‘Juan suggested a physcian to a doctor’.

  11. f. Juan propuso a un amigo un empleado.

‘Juan proposed an employee to a friend’.

The indirect objects in (26) y (48) are incompatibles with restrictive relative clauses in the subjunctive mood, one of the test that signals the existence of a nonspecific interpretation in Spanish (Quine 1956, Fernández Ramírez 1986, Leonetti 1990, Bosque in press).



  1. a.Juan le pidió a un amigo (que estudiaba física / * que estudiara física) un libro.

  2. ‘Juan asked a friend who was studying Physics for a book’.

  3. b. Juan le prometió a un amigo (que buscaba apartamento/ * que buscara

  4. apartamento) un piso.

  5. ‘Juan promised an apartment to friend that was looking for one’

  6. c. Juan le buscó a un amigo (que estaba solo/ * que estuviera solo) una mascota.

  7. ‘Juan look for a pet to a friend that was alone’.

  8. d. Juan le aconsejó a un amigo (que quería leer / * que quisiera leer) un libro.

  9. ‘Juan suggested a book to a friend that wanted to read one’.

  10. e. Juan le sugirió a un amigo (que tenía dolor de cabeza/ * que tuviera dolor de

  11. cabeza) un médico.

  12. ‘Juan suggested a physician to a friend that had a headache’.

  13. f. Juan le propuso a un amigo (que trabajaba en la empresa/ * que trabajara en la

  14. empresa) un empleado.

‘Juan suggested a employee to a friend that worked in the company’

  1. a. Juan pidió a un amigo (que estudiaba física / * que estudiara física) un libro.

  2. b. Juan prometió a un amigo (que buscaba apartamento/ * que buscara apartamento)

  3. un piso.

  4. c. Juan buscó a un amigo (que estaba solo/ * que estuviera solo) una mascota.

  5. d. Juan aconsejó a un amigo (que quería leer/ * que quisiera leer) un libro.

  6. e. Juan sugirió a un amigo (que tenía dolor de cabeza / * que tuviera dolor de cabeza)

  7. un médico.

  8. f. Juan propuso a un amigo (que trabajaba en la empresa/ * que trabajara en la

  9. empresa) un empleado.

The corresponding direct objects of these intensional verbs are compatible with relative clauses in the subjunctive mood.

Moreover, the nonspecific interpretation of the directs objects is predominant.



  1. a. Juan le pidió a un amigo un libro que expusiese la teoría cuántica.

  2. ‘Juan asked a friend for a book that explained quantum theory’.

  3. b. Juan le prometió a un amigo un piso que tuviera vistas al mar.

  4. ‘Juan promised a friend an apartment that had a nice view to the seashore’.

  5. c. Juan le buscó a un amigo una mascota que diera problemas.

  6. ‘Juan looked for a pet that did not cause much trouble to a friend’.

  7. d. Juan le aconsejó a un amigo un libro que entretuviera.

  8. ‘Juan suggested a book that was funny to a friend’.

The preposition a associated with accusative case does not force a specific interpretation.

  1. a. Juan buscó a una secretaria que hablara francés.

  2. ‘Juan looked for a secretary that spoke French’

  3. b. Juan sugirió a un empleado que fuera de la empresa.

  4. ‘Juan suggested an employee that already was in the company’.

  5. c. Juan propuso a un metalúrgico que tuviera experiencia en manifestaciones.

‘Juan proposed a metalworker that had experience in demostrations’

The indefinite NPs that appear in (90) are interpreted nonspecifically, although they are introduce by the preposition a.


  1. Specificity and Thematic Structure


Leonetti (1990: 376): The generalization suggested in (24) applies also to derived nominals of intensional verbs with two arguments

  1. a. La petición [a un amigo]GOAL [de un libro]THEME

  2. ‘The request of a book to a friend’

  3. b. La promesa [a un amigo] GOAL [de un piso] THEME

  4. ‘The promise of an apartment to a friend

  5. c. La búsqueda [a un amigo] GOAL [de una mascota] THEME

‘The search of a pet for a friend’

The indefinite NPs that act as the Theme argument of the derived nominal can be interpreted nonspecifically.



  1. a. La petición [a un amigo] GOAL [de un libro que expusiese la teoría cuántica] THEME

  2. ‘The request to a friend of a book explaining quantum theory’.

  3. b. La promesa [a un amigo] GOAL [de un piso que tuviera vistas al mar] THEME

  4. ‘The promise to a friend of an apartment that has a nice view to the seashore’.

  5. c. La búsqueda [a un amigo] GOAL [de una mascota que no diera problemas] THEME

  6. ‘The search for a friend of a pet that did not cause much trouble’.

The indefinite NPs that act as the Goal argument of the derived nominal cannot be interpreted nonspecifically.

  1. a. * La petición [a un amigo que estudiase física]META [de un libro]TEMA

  2. b. * La promesa [a un amigo que buscase apartamento]META [de un piso]TEMA

  3. c. * La búsqueda [a un amigo que estuviese solo]META [de una mascota]TEMA

Derived nominals inherit the argument structure of the verbs they are derived from.

Passive sentences with intensional verbs of two arguments only allow the nonspecific interpretation in the derived subject (Leonetti 1990: 377)





  1. a. [Un libro que expusiese la teoría estándar] [le ha sido solicitado t a un amigo]

  2. ‘A book that explains standard theory has been requested to a friend’.

  3. b. [Un médico que fuera especialista en dolor de cabeza] [le ha sido sugerido t a una

  4. amiga]

‘A physician that is an specialist in headaches has been suggested to a friend’.

Sentence with intensional verbs of unaccusative natute like faltar (lack) o hacer falta (need) only allow the nonspecific interpretation in their internal argument (and derived subject)



  1. a. Le faltaron a una profesora [tres personas jóvenes que supiesen semántica para cerrar el programa]

  2. ‘A professor lacked three young people that knew Semantics in order to set

  3. the PhD. program’

  4. b. Le hizo falta a un amigo [un libro que expusiese la teoría cuántica]

‘A friend needed a book that explained quantum theory’.

  1. a. * Le faltaron a [una profesora que tuviese a su cargo el programa] [tres especialistas en semántica]

  2. ‘A professor that was in charge of the PhD. program lacked three specialists in

  3. Semantics’

  4. b. * Le hizo falta a [un amigo que desconociese la teoría estándar] [un libro sobre

  5. teoría cuántica]

‘A friend that knew nothing about quantum theory needed a book about it’.

The scope of an intensional predicate consists of the complement strictly subcategorized by the intensional predicate that is assigned the Theme q-role.


  1. Thematic Structure in the Minimalist Program

    1. q-roles and the architecture of the Computational System of Human Language (CHL)


In the work of Hale and Keyser, the idea is suggested that argument structure is not a primitive of the theory and that it may be derived from properties of the X-bar/bare phrase structure theory.

Under this approach, the representations that are interpretable at LF require of the arguments of a predicate to be hierarchically ordered.

External argument (Marantz 1984, 1993; Chomsky 1995, 1998).


  1. vP

2

NP v

2

v VP

Internal argument or Theme (Hale and Keyser 1993)



  1. VP

2

V NP


Thematic relations are then reduced to relations between categorires and configurations under the particular format of X-bar/Bare Phrase Structure theory.
  1. Merge of Indirect Objects and Specificity

    1. Merge of arguments in the VP




  1. vP

2

SUBJ. v

2

v pP



2

IO p

2

Clle,les p



2

p VP

2

V DO



Torrego (1998: 151).1

IO and DO do not share the minimal domain of a head (Chomsky 1995: 299).



  1. The minimal domain of head a, Min(a), is the set of categories distinct from a included in the maximal projection of a.

  2. a. Min(p) = {IO, CL, VP}

  3. b. Min(V) = {DO}

The intensional interpretation of an argument requires the argument to be dominated by the maximal projection of an intensional operator (Williams 1984: 151; Leonetti 1990: 372).

In a configuration such as (124), the IO is not dominated by the maximal projection of the intensional verb. Hence, if the only modality inducing element is the intensional verb, the interpretation of the NP acting as IO will not be dependent upon it.

The domain of the interpretation of the scope of the intensional predicate must be the vP. This claim is supported by the observation made by Jackendoff 1972: 301 that a NP can be passivized out of the object of an intensional verb and still retain its nonspecifity. The same point was noted in conection with passive sentences and inaccusative predicates in (109) and (113).


  1. [A unicorn] [is expected t to appear pretty soon]

The level in which the scope of the intensional predicate is read off must coincide with the level in which q-role configurations are interpreted. Since Deep Structure does not exist as an independent level of representation, our suggestion is that the scope of an intensional predicate must be read off at the vP phase or cycle.
    1. Locality of case assignment to arguments of VP


Object shift is triggered by EPP feature in v (Chomsky 1998: 23).

This feature requires of the second merge of an specifier in the domain of v.



  1. vP

  2. 2

  3. NP v

2

SUBJ. v’

2

v VP

2

V tNP



Object Shift is constrained by the Minimal Link Condition (MLC, Chomsky 1995: 294, 311, 356).

In a configuration such as (124), the DO cannot move to check the EPP feature in v.



  1. Defective Intervention Constraint (Chomsky 1998: 38)

  2. In a configuration such as a > b > t in which a c-commands b and b c-commands t, a may enter in a relation of Agree with t iff. b and t are within the same minimal domain.

Movement of the DO over the IO will induce an intervention effect like the one sanctioned in the abstract structure in (132).

  1. vP

  2. 2

  3. NPCL vP

2

SUBJ. v

2

v pP



2

IO p

2

tClle,les p



2

p VP

2

V DO



Let us assume that accusative marker a is the syntactic reflex of this Object Shift in Spanish. Then, by the Defective Intervention Constraint, intensional verbs will reject the presence of two arguments with accusative case realized by preposition a.

  1. a. * Le pedí a un amigo a un libro

  2. b. * Le prometí a un amigo a un piso

  3. c. * Le busqué a un amigo a una mascota

  4. d. * Le aconsejé a un amigo a una amiga

  5. e. * Le sugerí a un amigo a un médico

  6. f. * Le propuse a un amigo a un empleado

Conclusion: The IO and the DO are not in the minimal domain of the same head.
  1. Indirect Objects and Derived Nominals




  1. a. La petición [a un amigo]GOAL [de un libro]THEME

  2. ‘The request of a book to a friend’

  3. b. La promesa [a un amigo] GOAL [de un piso] THEME

  4. ‘The promise of an apartment to a friend

  5. c. La búsqueda [a un amigo] GOAL [de una mascota] THEME

  6. ‘The search of a pet for a friend’



  1. a. La petición a un amigo de un libro (‘The request of a book to a friend)

  2. b. ... NP

  3. 2

  4. N pP

2

NPGOAL p

2

p VP

2

V NPTHEME



Nominal head, N, lacks Case-assignment capabilities (it lacks noninterpretables f-features). Then it cannot license a clitic in the nominal projection



  1. a. * La peticiónle [ tle a un amigo] de un libro

  2. b. * La lepetición [tle a un amigo] de un libro

The case assigned by the dative preposition p in derived nominals of intensional predicates must be an inherent case (Chomsky 1986: 193). It is q-related.

The subject of a Small Clause can be assigned dative case.



  1. a. creía [SC a Juan en París ]

  2. ‘I believed you (to be) in Paris’

  3. b. le creía [SC tle en París ]

‘I believed him (to be) in Paris’

However, the corresponding nominal cannot license a Small Clause within the nomimal projection



  1. a. * La [NP creencia de [SC Juan en París ]]

  2. (cfr. *The belief of Juan to be in Paris)

  3. b. * La [NP creencia a [SC Juan en París]]

(cfr. *The belief to Juan in Paris)

The derived nominal may take propositional complements.



  1. La creencia de [SC que Juan estaba en París]

‘The belief that Juan was in paris’)

In derived nominals of intensional predicates, the Goal argument is not in the scope of the intensional predicate.

The scope of the intensional predicate in derived nominals of intensional verbs must be taken to be the verbal root present in (149).

  1. Conclusions


Leonetti’s generalization claims that if the only modal operator present in a sentence is an intensional predicate (either nominal or verbal), the scope of the intensional predicate consists of the NP that is assigned the Theme q-role.

If q-roles are understood as labels to make reference to particular configurations in which lexical items can enter, as in Hale and Keyser’s hypothesis, Leonetti’s generalization may be recast in configurational terms.

The DO and the IO are merged in the minimal domain of different heads.

The IO is merged in the mininal domain of a dative preposition, p (Torrego 1998).

The DO is merged in the domain of verbal head, V..

The IO is not in the scope of the intensional predicate. The scope of the intensional predicate only includes the DO.

If the only modal operator present in the represenation at LF is an intensional predicate, the option of the nonspecific interpretation cannot affect indefinite NPs that act as IOs.

  1. References


Bello, Andrés. 1988. Gramática de la lengua castellana. Madrid: Arco Libros.

Bosque, Ignacio. (in press). ‘Sobre la gramática de los entornos modales y expresiones inespecíficas en

español’. Actas del XI Congreso de Alfal, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria.

Carlson, Gregory. 1977. Reference to Kinds in English. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts,

Amherst. Published in 1980 byGarland Press, Nueva York.

Carlson, Gregory and Francis J. Pelletier (eds.): The Generic Book, 176-223. Chicago: Chicago University

Press.

Chierchia, Gennaro. 1995. ‘Individual Level Predicates as Inherent Generics’. In Gregory Carlson and Francis J.



Pelletier (eds.): The Generic Book, 176-223. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Chomsky, Noam. 1970. ‘Remarks on Nominalization’. In R. Jacobs y P. Rosenbaum, (eds.), Readings in



English Transformational Grammar. Massachusetts: Waltham.

Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin and Use. New York: Praeger.

Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Chomsky, Noam. 1998. ‘Minimalist Inquiries: the Framework’. MIT Occasional Working



Papers in Linguistics 15, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, MIT.

Collins, Chris. 1995. ‘Towards a Theory of Optimal Derivations’. In Rob Pensalfini and Hiroyuki Ura (eds.),



Papers on Minimalist Syntax MITWPL 27, MITWPL.

Fernández Ramírez, Salvador. 1984. Gramática española vol. 4: el verbo y la oración. Madrid: Arco Libros.

Fodor, Jane Dean. 1976. The Linguistics Descriptions of Opaque Contexts. Indiana University Linguistics Club.

Hale, Ken and Samuel Jay Keyser. 1992. ‘The Syntactic Character of Argument Structure’. In Iggy Roca (ed.), Thematic Structure: its Role in Grammar. New York Foris.

Hale, Ken y Samuel Jay Keyser. 1993. ‘On Argument Structure and the Lexical Representation of Syntactic Relations’. In K. Hale y S. J. Keyser (eds.), The View from Building 20. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press: 53-109.

Hale, Ken and Samuel Jay Keyser. 1997a. ‘On the Complex Nature of Simple Predicators’. In Alex Alsina, Joan Bresnan and Peter Sells (eds.), Complex Predicates. Stanford, CSLI: 13-65.

Hale, Ken and Samuel Jay Keyser. 1997b. ‘The Basic Elements of Argument Structure’. In Heidi Harley (ed.), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 32: 73-118.

Hale, Ken and Samuel Jay Keyser. 1997c. “On the Double Object Construction”, ms. MIT.

Hale, Ken y Samuel Jay Keyser. 2000. “Conflation”. In Ana Bravo, Carlos Luján e Isabel Pérez

(editors), Cuadernos de Lingüística IUOG VII, Madrid: Instituto Universitario Ortega y Gasset.

Heim, Irene and Angelika Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.

Jackendoff, Ray. 1971. ‘Modal Structure in Semantic Representation’. Linguistic Inquiry 2.4: 479-454.

Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Leonetti Jungl, Manuel. 1990. La especificidad en español. Doctoral dissertation, Universidad Complutense de

Madrid, Madrid.

Marantz, Alec. 1984. On the Nature of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Marantz, Alec. 1993. ‘Implications of Asymmetries in Double Object Constructions’. In S. Mchombo (ed.), Theoretical Implications of Bantu Grammar I, Standford: CSLI Publications.

Moltmann, Friederike. 1997. ‘Intensional Verbs and Quantifiers’. Natural Language Semantics 5.1: 1-52.

Montague, Richard. 1972. ‘The Proper Treatment of Quantification in Ordinary English’. In Jaakko Hintikka, J.

Moravcsik and P. Suppes (eds.), Approaches to Natural Language, Dordrecht: Reidel.

Partee, Barbara Hall. 1972. ‘Opacity, Coreference and Pronouns’. In Donald Davidson y G. Harman (eds.),

Semantics of Natural Language: 415-441. Dordrecht: Reidel.

Quine, W. V. 1956. ‘Quantifiers and Propostional Attitudes’. Journal of Philosophy 53.5: 177-187.

Romero, Juan. 1997. Construcciones de Doble Objeto y Gramática Universal. Doctoral dissertation, Universidad

Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid.

Torrego, Esther. 1998. The Dependencies of Objects. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Williams, Edwin. 1984. ‘There-insertion’. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 265-299.



* This paper would not have been possible without the help and support of Isabel Pérez Jiménez. I would like to thank comments to a previous version of this paper by Adolfo Ausin, Manuel Leonetti, Juan Romero, Esther Torrego and participants in the 10th Colloquium on Generative Grammar (Alcalá de Henares, April, 04/12/2000).

1 See Romero (1997) for a proposal for the basic ditransitive construction in which IO and DO are merged in the minimal domain of the same head, in particular, a predicative head P.


La base de datos está protegida por derechos de autor ©absta.info 2016
enviar mensaje

    Página principal