The syntax and semantics of dative DPs in Russian ditransitives

In this paper we propose a syntactic analysis of dative DPs in ditransitive constructions in Russian, answering three questions: (I) what semantic roles the indirect object realizes; (II) how it is syntactically ordered with respect to the direct object realizing the theme argument, and (III) how the first two issues are related to the morphological encoding of the indirect object, as a PP or as a morphologically case-marked DP. Addressing first question (II), we show that two kinds of syntactic hierarchies between the two internal arguments of a ditransitive configuration coexist, and that there are two sorts of datives that are hierarchically higher than the theme: those that can reconstruct and those that cannot. We then establish an interpretative correlation between these two types of dative DP, showing that the former is locational and the latter is not, providing the answer to question (I) and elucidating what underlies the morphological similarity, question (III). The interpretative and syntactic differences between scrambled and base generated high datives lead us to claim that in Russian, dative ditransitives have two distinct underlying structures that are not derivationally related. A scalar approach to event structure enables us to pinpoint the interpretative correlate of each type of dative (locational vs. non-locational) and provides a conceptual argument in favour of a non-synonymy non-derivational approach we pursue here: a path scale encoding event schema cannot be transformed into a different scale based event schema due to movement of the dative DP. Finally, the scalar approach allows us to identify the lexical correlates of a possessive interpretation of the high dative vs. a more beneficiary-like interpretation. Extent scales allow the former whereas property and path scales facilitate the other.

[1]  Artemis Alexiadou,et al.  Functional structure in nominals , 2001 .

[2]  Danny Fox,et al.  On Logical Form , 2008 .

[3]  C. Heycock.  Asymmetries in reconstruction , 1995 .

[4]  S. J. Keyser,et al.  Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure , 2002 .

[5]  A. Pereltsvaig.  On the nature of intra-clausal relations : a study of copular sentences in Russian and Italian , 2001 .

[6]  Mark C. Baker,et al.  On the Structural Positions of Themes and Goals , 1996 .

[7]  D. Fox,et al.  Condition A and Scope Reconstruction , 2004, Linguistic Inquiry.

[8]  K. Kiyosawa,et al.  Chapter Eight. Discourse Functions Of Salish Applicatives , 2011 .

[9]  John Frederick Bailyn,et al.  The Syntax of Russian , 2011 .

[10]  Peter Svenonius,et al.  Projections of P , 2008 .

[11]  Leonard Talmy,et al.  Figure and Ground in Complex Sentences , 1975 .

[12]  Richard S. Kayne.  Connectedness and binary branching , 1984 .

[13]  Svitlana Antonyuk-Yudina.  Long-Distance Scrambling, VP Ellipsis, and Scope Economy in Russian , 2009 .

[14]  David Lebeaux,et al.  Relative Clauses, Licensing, and the Nature of the Derivation , 1991 .

[15]  Richard Thomas Oehrle,et al.  The grammatical status of the English dative alternation , 1976 .

[16]  M. Rivero.  Intensionality, high applicatives, and aspect: involuntary state constructions in Bulgarian and Slovenian , 2009 .

[17]  A. Barss,et al.  A note on anaphora and double objects , 1986 .

[18]  Daiko Takahashi,et al.  Scrambling and Last Resort , 1998, Linguistic Inquiry.

[19]  Berit Gehrke,et al.  Ps in Motion : On the semantics and syntax of P elements and motion events , 2008 .

[20]  Peter Hallman.  Syntactic Neutralization in Double Object Constructions , 2015, Linguistic Inquiry.

[21]  J. Bresnan,et al.  The Gradience of the Dative Alternation , 2008 .

[22]  Malka Rappaport Hovav,et al.  The English dative alternation: The case for verb sensitivity1 , 2008, Journal of Linguistics.

[23]  John Frederick Bailyn,et al.  On Scrambling: A Reply to Bokovi and Takahashi , 2001, Linguistic Inquiry.

[24]  John Beavers,et al.  An Aspectual Analysis of Ditransitive Verbs of Caused Possession in English , 2011, J. Semant..

[25]  Svitlana Antonyuk,et al.  Quantifier Scope and Scope Freezing in Russian , 2015 .

[26]  Beth Levin,et al.  Dative verbs: A crosslinguistic perspective , 2008 .

[27]  N. Richards.  An Idiomatic Argument for Lexical Decomposition , 2001, Linguistic Inquiry.

[28]  S. Wechsler,et al.  Possession of a Controlled Substantive: Light ‘have’ and Other Verbs of Possession , 2008 .

[30]  On Pylkknen's Semantics for Low Applicatives , 2010, Linguistic Inquiry.

[31]  John Frederick Bailyn,et al.  A configurational approach to Russian "free" word order , 1995 .

[32]  Shigeru Miyagawa,et al.  Argument Structure and Ditransitive Verbs in Japanese , 2004 .

[33]  M. R. Manzini,et al.  Goal and DOM datives , 2016 .

[34]  Christopher Kennedy.  The Syntax and Semantics of Gradability and Comparison , 1999 .

[35]  D. Fox.  Economy and scope , 1995 .

[36]  A. Marantz,et al.  The interpretation of external arguments , 2016 .

[37]  M. Krifka.  The Origins of Telicity , 1998 .

[38]  Yves Roberge,et al.  The high applicative syntax of the dativus commodi/incommodi in Romance , 2009 .

[39]  Michelle A. Hollander,et al.  The learnability and acquisition of the dative alternation , 1989 .

[40]  R. Larson.  Double Objects Revisited: Reply to Jackendoff , 1990 .

[41]  Florian Schäfer,et al.  The Syntax of (Anti-)Causatives: External Arguments in Change-Of-State Contexts , 2008 .

[42]  Danny Fox,et al.  Economy and Semantic Interpretation , 1999 .

[43]  Shigeru Miyagawa.  Against optinonal scrambling , 1997 .

[44]  Daniel Hole.  Extra argumentality — affectees, landmarks, and voice , 2006 .

[45]  Michigan Slavic Publications,et al.  Against the Scrambling anti-Movement Movement * , 2006 .

[46]  Marina Dyakonova,et al.  UvA-DARE ( Digital Academic Repository ) A phase-based approach to Russian free word order , 2009 .

[47]  Heidi Harley,et al.  Applicative constructions and suppletive verbs in Hiaki , 2009 .

[48]  Nora Boneh,et al.  When the benefit is on the fringe , 2011 .

[49]  Heidi Harley,et al.  Possession and the double object construction , 2002 .

[50]  Joseph Aoun,et al.  The Syntax of Scope , 1995 .

[51]  David Pesetsky,et al.  Zero Syntax: Experiencers and Cascades , 1994 .

[52]  R. Larson.  On Shell Structure , 2014 .

[53]  Joseph E. Aoun,et al.  Scope and constituency , 1989 .

[54]  Anoop Mahajan,et al.  The A/A-bar distinction and movement theory , 1990 .

[55]  Maria Cristina Cuervo,et al.  Datives at large , 2003 .

[56]  Dalina Kallulli.  Unaccusatives with dative causers and experiencers: A unified account , 2006 .

[57]  Ken Hale,et al.  On Argument Structure and the Lexical Expression of Syntactic Relations , 1993 .

[58]  Tania Ionin,et al.  The effect of prosody on availability of inverse scope in Russian , 2015 .

[59]  M. Zubizarreta.  Prosody, Focus, and Word Order , 1998 .

[60]  Daniel Hole.  Reconciling “possessor” datives and “beneficiary” datives – Towards a unified voice account of dative binding in German , 2006 .

[61]  Marcel den Dikken,et al.  On the functional structure of locative and directional PPs , 2010 .

[62]  Kylie Richardson.  Case and aspect in Slavic , 2007 .

[63]  Richard S. Kayne.  Expletives, datives, and the tension between morphology and syntax , 2008 .

[64]  Owen Rambow,et al.  Scrambling, reconstruction and subject binding , 1996 .

[65]  Benjamin Bruening.  QR Obeys Superiority: Frozen Scope and ACD , 2001, Linguistic Inquiry.

[66]  Natalia Slioussar,et al.  Russian and the EPP requirement in the Tense domain , 2011 .

[67]  R. Larson.  On the double object construction , 1988 .

[68]  Manfred Krifka,et al.  Thematic Relations as Links between Nominal Reference and Temporal Constitution , 1992 .

[69]  F. Schäfer,et al.  Reflexively marked anticausatives are not semantically reflexive , 2015 .

[70]  B. Levin,et al.  Scalar Structure Underlies Telicity in "Degree Achievements" , 1999 .

[71]  Benjamin Bruening.  Ditransitive Asymmetries and a Theory of Idiom Formation , 2010, Linguistic Inquiry.