On the Asymmetric Behavior of Movementsin the Double Object Construction
Tomonori OTSUKA
Kyushu University
It is generally agreed that in the Double Object Construction (=DOC) IndirectObjects (IOs) cannot move in terms of A-bar movement (1) and that A-bar extraction
from within IOs (2) is impossible. By contrast, DOs can undergo A-bar movement.
(1) a. *Who did you give t a book? (Wh question)(Oba (2005:61))
b. What did you give John t.
(ibid.)(2) a. *Who did you say John sent a friend of t a book?
(Oba (2005:57))
b. Who did you say John sent me a picture of t ?
(Runner (2001: 40))
Asymmetrically, IOs can undergo A movement, while DOs cannot.
(3) a. Tom was given the book.
b.*The book was given Tom.
This asymmetry can be shown in the table below.
IOsDOsA movement

OK*

A-bar movement*

OKIn this presentation, I will demonstrate that these facts can be naturally
accounted for in the framework of the phase theory based on Chomsky (2008). Richards(2010) argues that elements belonging to the same category cannot occupy the samephase. If we take this position, the DOC, which has three arguments requires threephases. The fact that the DOC shares three propositional contents (Bruening (2010b))
also suggests the need to posit three phases in the construction. Thus I assume that theAppl(icative) head suggested by Baker (1988) and Marantz (1993) constitutes a phasehead in addition to the C and v*. This layer of phases explicates the ungrammaticalityof (2) based on the ban on extraction from phase edge elements proposed by Chomsky(2008).
CP phase
SubjectAppl-v*P phaseIOv*P phase
DOBruening (2010a), introducing an operation called R-dative shift in order toexplain the phenomenon in (1), speculates that, when A-bar movement is applied to IOs,“to” appears phonetically. He claims that A-bar movement of IOs “disguises” the DOC
as the DC. Based on this basic idea, I propose a new analysis in which (1) is naturallyaccommodated in the minimalist framework without R-dative shift. There actuallyexists “to” in the DOC, but usually this “to” is φ. In certain situations, however, “to”
appears phonetically.
As for A movement, I assume that the Appl does not constitute a phase head,
when the DOC is passivized. Thus, IOs can move to the Subject position in the passive
DOC. DOs, nevertheless, cannot move because they are within v*P, which constitutes aphase.
Some speakers allow sentences like (1). In addition, when IOs are pronouns,
DOs’ passivization becomes more acceptable.
(4) ?The book was given him.
The analysis presented here explains this diversity as well. For such speakers,sentences like (2) are still unacceptable and this discrepancy can be accounted for if we
assume that there is no “to” in such varieties. Also, when it comes to (4), there is apossibility that not only Appl, but also v* becomes a non-phase head. This allows DOs
to move over IOs.
In addition, this analysis can be extended to the DOC’s problems ofasymmetrical c-commanding relation, nominalization and interpretation of possession.
References
Baker, Mark C. (1988) Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing,
University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Bruenning, Benjamin (2010a) “Double Object Constructions Disguised as PrepositionalDatives,” Linguistic Inquiry 41, 287-305
Bruenning, Benjamin (2010b) “Ditransitive Asymmetries and a Theory of IdiomFormation,” Linguistic Inquiry41, 519-562
Chomsky, Noam (2008) “On Phases,” Fundational Issues in Linguistic Theory, ed. byFreidin et al, 133-166, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Marrantz Alec (1993) “Implications of Asymmetries in Double Object Constructions,” In
Theoretical Aspects of Bantu Grammer, ed. by Sam A. Mchombo, 113-150, CSLI
Publications, Stanford, California.
Oba, Yukio (2005) “The Double Object Construction and Thematization/Extraction,”
English Linguistics 22, 56-81.
Richards, Norvin (2010) Uttering Trees MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Runner, Jeffrey T. (2001) ”The Double Object Construction at the Interfaces,”
http://www.ling.rochester.edu/people/runner/older_pubs.html