What's up with DOC?

What’s up with DOC? Double Object Constructions and Prepositional Datives in South Saami David Kroik, Ph.D. Student [email protected]

Introduction This study investigates the structural properties of ditransitive predicates in South Saami. In a number of languages ditransitives exhibit variation in the order of the internal argument and their grammatical function as illustrated by (1) and (2) for English and (3) and (4) for Swedish.

Analysis (8) Manne vedtim maanidei sijjeni I give:1sg prt child:ILL PL refl:GEN cap:PL tjohph. ‘I gave the children their own caps.’

(1) The teacher gave the child a ball. (2) The teacher gave a ball to the child. (3) Karl gav Lena en boll. Karl give:3pst Lena a ball ‘Karl give:3pst Lena a ball’ (4) Karl gav en boll till Lena. Karl gave a ball to Lena ‘Karl gave a ball to Lena.’ (1) and (3) are Double Object Constructions, whereas (2) and (4) are Prepositional Datives. (5) Maarja Maria ‘Marie (6)Maarja

vïenese gærjam vedti. friend:ILL book:ACC give:pst 3sg gave the book to a friend.’ gærjam vïenese vedti.

Background Ditransitives have had a prominent position on the research agent in generative grammar for nearly three decades (Barss & Lasnik, 1986; Larson, 1988; among several others). Over the years, a general consensus has emerged, that DOCs and PDs are non-trivially structurally distinct (Marantz, 1993; Bruening, 2010). (7) a. I showed John himself (in the mirror). b.*I showed himself John (in the mirror).

(9)

Eejteghi tjoerigan iktesth altesei parent:PL have to:prt 3d always refl maanamj sovj seangkose guedtedh. child:ACC refl:GEN bed:ILL carry:INF ‘The parents always had to carry the child to its bed.’

Summary In this study I have shown that South Saami ditransitives are realized as Prepositional Dative Constructions as well as Double Object Constructions and accounted for them in South Saami. We have seen evidence from anaphoric binding that there are restrictions on the internal arguments' position in relation to each other. An anaphor, contained within a Direct Object and anteceded by the Indirect Object, must be c-commanded by the antecedent within the Indirect Object. This supports the presence of the Double Object Construction. On the other hand, an anaphor contained within an Indirect Object and anteceded by the Direct Object, must be c-commanded by its antecedent in the Direct Object. This supports the presence of the Prepositional Dative structure. The movement of an anaphor, contained within one of the Objects, into the Infl-domain makes the sentence ill-formed regardless of which of the two structures that underlies it. The structural relations suggest that there are structural asymmetries in ditransitives are in South Saami as well as in other languages, e.g. English and Swedish. The data I have provided clearly tells the structures apart in South Saami. References Aoun, J., & Li, Y. A. (1989). Scope and Constituency. Linguistic Inquiry, 20(2), 141–172. Aoun, J., & Li, Y. A. (1993). Syntax of scope. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Baker, M. C., & Collins, C. (2006). Linkers and the Internal Structure of vP. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 24(2), 307–354. Bruening, B. (2010). Ditransitive Asymmetries and a Theory of Idiom Formation. Linguistic Inquiry, 41(4), 519–562. Huang, C.-T. J. (1993). Reconstruction and the structure of VP: Some theoretical consequences. Linguistic Inquiry, 103–138. Larson, R. K. (1988). On the Double Object Construction. Linguistic Inquiry, 19(3), 335–391. Marantz, A. (1993). Implications of Asymmetries in Double Object Constructions. In S. Mchombo (Ed.), Theoretical Aspect of Bantu Grammar (pp. 113–150). CSLI Publications. Vinka, M. (2012). No Case for Rich Agreement: Verb Raising Asymmetries in Saami.