SOME PRELIMINARY NOTES ON THE WANT-DP CONSTRUCTION
IN BE-LANGUAGES*
Vineet Chaturvedia, Tomohiro Fujiib, Atushi Itob,
Tomoko Kawamurab and Paroma Sanyala
English and Foreign Languages Universitya and Nanzan Universityb

1.

Introduction

It has been a popular claim that WANT-DP constructions, such as (1a), have a concealed
possessive clause. As can be seen in an analysis of the type given in (1b), the claim is thatwant may take a clausal complement containing a phonetically null predicate, which issemantically equivalent to have.
(1)

a.
b.

I want a car.
I want [∅HAVE a car]

There is ample empirical evidence, mainly from English, for the existence of such a concealedclause with null HAVE (Montague 1969, McCawley 1974, Ross 1976, den Dikken, Larsonand Ludlow 1996, Larson, den Dikken, Ludlow 2006, Harley 2004, and references in them).
The analysis presented in (1b) consists of two components. (I) the WANT-DP construction isbiclausal; and (II) the unpronounced predicate in the embedded clause is possessive HAVE.
One initial motivation for the first claim comes from intensionality phenomena, which are
typically found with clausal complement constructions (Frege 1892, Montague 1969, Larson
and Segel 1995, among others). Consider the examples in (2). Suppose that Bill is a dancer
and singer and that Mary met him. (2ai) is true under this scenario. When a singer issubstituted for a dancer, the truth value of the new sentence remains the same: (2aii) cannot
be false. However, when such substitution applies within a sentential complement, the twosentences could have different truth values. Take the “WANT-S construction,” exemplified by(2b). Observe that (2bii) does not have to be true under a situation that makes (2bi) true. We
can imagine a situation in which Mary wants to meet Bill, while she has a wrong belief that
he is a dancer but not a singer. In this particular scenario, (2bi) can be uttered truthfully
whereas (2bii) could be false.

*

Earlier versions of this paper came out of the discussion that the authors had during the CambridgeEFL-Nanzan Workshop, which was held at Nanzan University, September 19-20, 2007. We are
grateful to those who helped to organize the discussion at the workshop and those with whom we(independently) discussed material related to the topic of the paper in other occasions, in particular,
Hiroshi Aoyagi, K.A. Jayaseelan, Mamoru Saito, and Kensuke Takita. We also thank Pritha Chandra
for her help with data collection. The names of the authors appear alphabetically.
Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 5, 43-54© 2008 Vineet Chaturvedi, Tomohiro Fujii, Atushi Ito, Tomoko Kawamura and Paroma Sanyal

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 5

(2)

a.

i. Mary met a dancer.
ii. Mary met a singer.

b.

i. Mary wants [to meet a dancer].
ii. Mary wants [to meet a singer].

Thus sentential complement constructions like the WANT-S construction behave differently
from simple transitive constructions with respect to substitution tests of these kinds.
Now turn to the WANT-DP construction. Consider the following pair of sentences:(3)a.

Mary wants a dancer (in the movie).

b.

Mary wants a singer (in the movie).

Suppose that Mary wants it to be true to have Bill as a dancer in the movie while believingthat he is not singer. Under this scenario, (3a) is accepted as a true statement while (3b) does
not have to be. Namely, preservation of the truth value is not observed with the WANT-DP
construction. Based on intentionality phenomena like this, Quine (1960) and Montague(1969) suggest that this construction, despite its appearance, has a clausal complement
structure.
There is also evidence that the predicate in the concealed clause is possessive HAVE.
Ross (1976) observes that have and want have the same selection restrictions, as shown in (4)(cited from Larson, den Dikken, Ludlow 2006):(4)a.

a colda sister
I havefreedoma driveway# sentencehoodb.
I wanta colda sisterfreedoma driveway# sentencehood

The selection restrictions of have are carried over to the WANT-DP construction. This fact is
explained if the possessive HAVE is covertly present in the WANT-DP construction.1
The present squib is concerned with such a null predicate-based analysis of a WANT-DP
construction found in so-called “BE-languages,” where possession is productively expressedby copula BE, rather than HAVE. In particular, we discuss data from Hindi and Japanese,both of which are well-known BE-languages.
In Hindi, the copula hona is found in a possessive construction, as shown in (5):1

See den Dikken, Larson and Ludlow 1996, Larson, den Dikken and Ludlow 2006, and Endo,
Kitagawa and Yoon 1999 for further arguments. See also Harley 2004 for a wider range of data
concerning selection and a treatment of them.

-44-Preliminary Notes on the WANT-DP Construction in BE-Languages (V. Chaturvedi et al.)(5)

Mer-i ek gaaDii thii.
I-GEN one car
be.PST‘I had a car.’

The possessor argument occurring in possessive constructions of the relevant sort is generally
marked with genitive. 2 Note also that Hindi allows a WANT-DP construction. The
experiencer argument is realized as dative, as in (6a).3 One may ask whether the latter
construction can be analyzed in terms of a phonetically null BE in a way parallel to what ishappening in the English WANT-DP construction. Such an analysis would propose that (6a)be analyzed as in (6b), where the null possessive copula is referred to as ∅BE.
(6)a.

Mujh-ko ek gaaDii caahiye thii.
I-DAT one car
wantbe.PST‘I wanted/needed one car’b.

Mujh-ko [ek gaaDii ∅BE] caahiye thii.
I-DAT
one carwant
be.PST

The significance of the question of whether this type of analysis is empirically correct or
not becomes clearer when we consider a recent understanding of the relationship between
HAVE and BE. According to the influential Freeze-Kayne approach to possessives (Freeze
1992, Kayne 1993), HAVE is decomposed into BE and P(re- or postposition). HAVE being
allowed to be null entails that its subcomponents are allowed to be null. If this reasoning isvalid, it is expected that the WANT-DP construction in Hindi behaves as though it has acomplement clause whose main predicate is null BE. In what follows, we address one
empirical puzzle that may arise with this ‘null BE’ analysis of the Hindi WANT-DP
construction. The puzzle is concerned with object agreement. The facts that we will observein the following section make it look rather difficult to maintain the ‘null BE’ hypothesis.
Nevertheless, we will argue that there is a way to accommodate the relevant facts while
preserving the core insight of the hypothesis in question. The proposal relies on a recent viewof Hindi restructuring, proposed by Bhatt (2005) (cf. Boeckx 2004). It is argued that thecomplement in the WANT-DP construction, though it is clausal, is smaller than that in the
WANT-S construction. We will also discuss the Japanese WANT-DP construction, which
poses virtually the same theoretical issue as its Hindi counterpart does. We will show that the2This is an oversimplified picture. The possessor argument may be realized as a PP (see Freeze1992). We focus here on the genitive construction. For issues on the case of possessor or experiencer
arguments, see Sanyal (2007) (for Hindi, Bengali and English) and Menon (2007) (for Malayalam).
3

See Chaturvedi (2006) and Sanyal (2007) for discussions of experiencer (and possessor)
constructions in Indo-Aryan languages. Although we assume that the experiencer argument of the
WANT-DP construction, as well as the possessor argument of the possessive construction, is theexternal argument of a clause, this is not an uncontroversial assumption; see Jayaseelan 2004 andAmritavalli 2004 for relevant discussions based on Dravidian data.

-45-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 5

device that we introduce to account for the Hindi fact works for the Japanese fact, too.
This paper is structured as follows: Section 2 presents the data illustrating the puzzle
mentioned above. Section 3 proposes a possible solution to it. Section 4 examines thepossessive and WANT-DP constructions in Japanese. Section 4 concludes the paper.
2.

The Puzzle

Let us begin by looking at the following pair of sentences (cited from Bhatt 2005), whichshows that, in Hindi, when the underlying subject is marked with oblique and the object bears
no case marker, the predicate must agree with the object (7a). Default agreement (i.e.
[3MSG]) is simply not allowed (7b).
(7)

a.

Rahul-nekitaab parh-ii
thii.
Rahul-ERG book.F read-PFV.F be.PST.F(object agreement)‘Rahul read the book.’b. * Rahul-ne
kitaab parh-aa
thaa.
Rahul-ERG book.F read-PFV.MSG be.PST.MSG(default agreement)

Let us add examples of a simple possessive construction.
(8)a.

Mer-i do gaaRiyaan thiin.
I-GEN two cars
be.PST.PL(object agreement)‘I had two cars.’b. * Mer-i do gaaRiyaan thii.
I-GEN two cars
be.PST.SG(default agreement)

Again, object-verb agreement (for number in this particular instance) is obligatory.
Default agreement becomes possible when the matrix verb takes a clausal complement,
as Bhatt (2005) observes.
(9)a.

Ram-ne [kitaab parh-nii]chaah-ii.
Ram-ERG book.F read-INF.F want-PFV.FSG(LDA)‘Ram wanted to read a book.’b.

Ram-ne [kitaab parh-naa] chaah-aa.
Ram-ERG book.F read-INF.M want-PFV.MSG(default agreement)

In (9a), chaah ‘want’ occurs with a clause headed by an infinitive marker and agrees long
distance with the object in the embedded clause with respect to gender and number. Note thatlong distance agreement (LDA) of this kind is optional, i.e. it does not have to take place, as-46-

Preliminary Notes on the WANT-DP Construction in BE-Languages (V. Chaturvedi et al.)in (9b) (Bhatt 2005).
All things being equal, the ‘null BE’ hypothesis predicts that default agreement isallowed as an option in the WANT-DP construction because under the analysis, there is ahidden clause embedded under WANT. 4 In reality, however, default agreement is notpossible in this environment. The pair given in (10) illustrates the fact:(10) a.

Mujh-ko ek gaaDii caahiye thii.
I-DAT one car.F
want
be.PST.F‘I wanted a car.’b. * Mujh-ko ek gaaDii caahiye thaa.
I-DAT one car.F want
be.PST.MSG
Obviously, the attested pattern of agreement is something we may expect if the Hindi WANTDP construction, unlike the English counterpart, does not have a concealed clausal
complement. For this reason, the data given above may pose a problem for the ‘null BE’
hypothesis. Namely, the data point may suggest that the ‘null BE’ analysis of the WANT-DP
construction does not apply to BE-languages like Hindi, a surprising conclusion from a
Freeze-Kayne perspective.
3.

A Preliminary Solution

This section aims to propose a solution to the puzzle discussed above, though we will not
attempt to provide a full analysis of the possessive construction or the WANT-DP
construction. Accepting the core proposal of Bhatt 2005, we make the following assumptions
about object agreement (cf. Boeckx 2004):(11) (i)Object agreement takes place when the local T successfully enters into a checking
relation with an object DP for φ-features. (The exact mechanism of checking is left
open: it may be via a long distance agreement operation like Agree or via covert or
overt phrasal movement of the object to the local domain of the agreeing head5);(ii) Default agreement arises when such feature checking fails;(iii) PRO blocks feature checking when it intervenes between the agreeing head and a
DP; and(iv) NP-traces do not count as interveners.

With these assumptions made, the unacceptability of the simple ergative sentence in (7),4

All things may not be equal here. Notice that the form of WANT used in (6)/(10), namely caahiye,
is different from the one used in (9). We eventually claim that a certain difference between caahiye
and caah causes the puzzle under discussion.
5

See Chandra 2006 for relevant discussion.

-47-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 5

repeated as (12), can be accounted for. There is no PRO and therefore the association of T and
the embedded object DP does not fail. Hence, default agreement is not allowed:6(12) *Rahul-ne
kitaab parh-aa
thaa.
Rahul-ERG book.F read-PFV.MSG be-PST.MSG
In this analysis, the ergative subject raises to Spec TP from a predicate-internal position,
which makes it possible for the object DP to enter into a φ-feature checking relation with T
under the assumption about the invisibility of NP-traces.
The remarkable difference between local and long distance agreement with respect totheir optionality is accounted for in the following manner: According to Bhatt, the optionalityof LDA is reduced to the optionality of restructuring. He proposes that in the WANT-S
construction, the PRO subject of the embedded nonfinite clause in sentences like those in (9),repeated as (13), may or may not show up:(13) a.

Ram-ne [kitaab parh-nii]chaah-ii.
Ram-ERG book.F read-INF.F want-PFV.FSG(LDA)‘Ram wanted to read a book.’b.

Ram-ne[kitaab parh-naa] chaah-aa.
Ram-ERG book.F read-INF.M want-PFV.MSG(default agreement)

Chaah ‘want,’ like other potentially restructuring predicates, may take a restructuring
complement or a non-restructuring complement. For Bhatt, a vP with a PRO subject occurs in
Hindi non-restructuring complements while a vP without it occurs in their restructuring
counterparts (cf. Wurmbrand 2001). Due to the optionality of restructuring, i.e. the optionalityof PRO, default agreement is possible in the WANT-S construction. (13a) and (13b) are
assigned the structures in (14a) and (14b), respectively:(14) a.

b.

Ram-ne[[vP kitaab parh]-nii]chaah-ii.
Ram-ERG
book.F read-INF.F want-PFV.FSG(LDA)

Ram-ne[[vP PRO kitaab parh]-naa] chaah-aa.
(default agreement)
Ram-ERG
book.F read-INF.M want-PFV.MSG

In (14b), PRO prevents the matrix T from agreeing with ‘book’.
Now let us turn to the absence of default agreement in the WANT-DP construction. We
assume that the clause structure of the possessive construction contains v on top of BE and6

See Bhatt 2005 for more details of the system, which departs from Chomsky’s (2000) in several
respects; e.g. dissociation of case licensing and agreement licensing, the elimination of the activity
condition for Agree, and so on.

-48-Preliminary Notes on the WANT-DP Construction in BE-Languages (V. Chaturvedi et al.)that the possessor argument is introduced in the specifier of v: [vP possessor [VP possessee BE]v].7 Notice that we cannot apply Bhatt’s analysis of the WANT-S construction to the WANTDP construction as it stands. This is because “LDA” in the latter construction is not optional,
i.e. default agreement is barred. If caahiye ‘want,’ which occurs in the WANT-DP
construction, is no different from chaah regarding the complement structure, the present
analysis would predict that object agreement should be optional, contrary to fact. (10b) is
repeated below as (15).
(15) *Mujh-ko ek gaaDii caahiye thaa.
I-DAT one car.F want
be.PST.MSG(default agreement)‘I wanted a car.’
To avoid this, we propose that caahiye, unlike regular potential restructuring predicates,
selects VP, not a complement containing vP. In other words, we claim that the predicate’s
complement is the projection of the null BE. The ban on default agreement in the WANT-DP
construction then is reduced to VP-complementation of caahiye. This selectional property ofcaahiye eliminates the possibility of a PRO subject appearing in the complement, because it
lacks the specifier of vP in which the PRO subject would be introduced. Hence there is nochance for PRO to block the T-DP dependency. If Bhatt’s analysis of the optionality ofrestructuring is correct, it makes sense that the WANT-DP construction always undergoes“restructuring”; it always lacks PRO in its complement. The proposed analysis needs to beconsidered preliminary, though, because quite a few issues on the syntax of the constructions
discussed above are left unsettled, e.g. how case is assigned to argument DPs in the WANTDP construction as well as in the possessive construction. The only point we are making hereis that the absence of default agreement in the WANT-DP construction ceases to be a problem
for its null BE analysis, if we hypothesize that the hidden complement clause of caahiye‘want’ is always VP, smaller than what regular restructuring complements are in Bhatt’s(2005) theory.
4.

A Short Note on the Null BE under WANT in Japanese

Having examined the WANT-DP construction in Hindi, let us discuss the same
construction from another BE-language, namely Japanese. According to Kishimoto (2000),the Japanese possessive construction with an overt copula displays definiteness restrictions ofsome sort.8 Kishimoto’s observation can be illustrated by the examples in (16) and (17):7

Cf. Harley 2002 for a different approach.

8

Possessive BE in Japanese displays animacy agreement with object noun phrases. Since WANT
does not display such agreement overtly, we are not able to compare Japanese animacy restrictions
with Hindi object agreement facts. See Kishimoto (2000) and references cited therein.

-49-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 5(16) a.

watasi-ni ( takusan-no) bessoo-ga
aru.
I-DAT
many-GEN second.house-NOM be.PRS‘I have {a second house/ (many) second houses}.’b. * watasi-ni
I-DAT

hotondo-no/ subete-no bessoo-ga
aru.
most-GEN/ all-GEN second.house-NOM be.PRS‘I have {most of, all} the second houses.’(17) a.

* Taro-wa [[ watasi-ni aru]
bessoo]-osagasita.
Taro-TOP I-DAT
be.PRS second.house-ACC looked.for‘Taro looked for the second house that I have.’b.

Taro-wa [[ bessoo-ga
Taro-TOP second.house-NOMaru]hito]-osagasita.
be.PRS person-ACC looked.for‘Taro looked for the person who has a second house.’cf.

c.

Taro-wa
Taro-TOP

watasi-no
I-GEN

besso-osagasita.
second.house-ACC looked.for‘Taro looked for the second house that I have.’
All the versions of (16b) have definite noun phrases in the object position. The intended
meaning is: most (or all) of the members of the set of second houses that is prominent in
discourse are owned by the speaker. They are all worse than the versions of (16a), where theobject is indefinite. The examples in (17a-b) both contain a relative clause. While (17b) is
acceptable, (17a), which is intended to mean what the acceptable example in (17c) means, isnot. Kishimoto observes that examples like (17a) are unacceptable because the gap in therelative clause, which is interpreted as an individual variable and therefore definite, is in theobject position of the possessive construction. Such an effect does not show up in (17b),
where the gap is in the subject position. Thus, the possessive construction imposes
definiteness restrictions on noun phrases appearing in its object position.
Now observe that the Japanese WANT-DP construction does not display definitenesseffects. Hosii ‘want’ is a transitive adjective that takes an experiencer subject and(superficially) a theme object.
(18) a.

watasi-wa bessoo-ga
hosii.
I-TOP
second.house-NOM want.PRS‘I want a second house.’-50-

Preliminary Notes on the WANT-DP Construction in BE-Languages (V. Chaturvedi et al.)b.

watasi-wa hotondo-no/ subete-no bessoo-ga
hosii.
I-TOP
most-GEN/ all-GEN second.house-NOM want.PRS‘I want {most of, all} the second houses.’(18a) is a straightforward WANT-DP construction with a bare object noun phrase. (18b), witha definite noun phrase in object position, is acceptable under the interpretation: the speakerwants it to be the case for most (or all) of the members of the set of second houses prominent
in discourse to be owned by him or her. Thus, the WANT-DP construction is contrasted withthe possessive construction with respect to the definiteness effect. The same holds for theeffect with relativization. Compare the following example with the unacceptable example
given in (17a):(19) Taro-wa [[watasi-ga hosii] bessoo]-osagasita.
Taro-TOP I-NOM
be.PRS second.house-ACC looked.for‘Taro looked for the second house that I wanted.’
Among the interpretations that the example has, the one relevant to the current discussion is:there is a particular second house x such that the speaker wanted to own x and Taro looked forx. Thus the surface object of WANT is allowed to be definite while that of BE is not.
It should be noted here that the discrepancy between the simple possessive construction
and the WANT-DP construction with respect to definiteness restrictions poses virtually thesame issue as the one we have seen with Hindi object agreement. That is, why is it the casethat the WANT-DP construction does not behave in the same way as the possessive
construction? We will show that we can use the ‘bare VP complementation’ analysis proposed
for the Hindi data to answer this question.
Belletti (1988) proposes an analysis of the definiteness effect, which has been influential
in the literature. She argues that noun phrases assigned what she calls “partitive case” musthave an indefinite interpretation. Extending Belletti’s idea, Lasnik (1995) proposes that theassociate NP of there-existential constructions receives partitive case by being in a spec-headrelation with the Agr to which be moves into. These processes take place in covert syntax,
Lasnik assumes. Proposing that the copula is a partitive case assigner, he analyzes there is aunicorn in the garden as in (20):(20) [TP there … [AgrP a unicorn BE-Agr [tBE [SC ta unicorn [PP in the garden]]]]]
It is not implausible to apply the Belletti-Lasnik type analysis to the Japanese case by
assuming that v in the possessive clause plays the same role as Agr in Lasnik’s system. If BE
raises to v to license its possessee argument, the derivation of a simple possessive sentence
like the one given in (16a) proceeds in the way illustrated in (21).

-51-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 5

(21)

vP
NP
(takusan-no) bessoo-gav’DPwatasi-ni

partitive casev’

VPt(takusan-no) bessoo-ga

v-V
aru
taru

(We adopt the hypothesis that dative case is assigned by v; see Ura 2000 and references citedtherein.) The possessive BE aru covertly adjoins to the local v and assigns partitive case to theouter specifier of v occupied by the possessee (takusan-no) bessoo-ga ‘(many) second houseNOM,’ which has been raised out of the VP.
One consequence of the Belletti-Lasnik style analysis of the possessive construction isthat when v is absent from the structure, the case of the possessee DP would not be licensed
by partitive case checking. Recall now that our analysis of the lack of the default agreement
pattern in the Hindi WANT-DP construction claims that caahiye ‘want’ always take a VP
complement. If this option is at least allowed for the Japanese WANT hosii as well, the lackof definiteness restrictions in the Japanese construction can be understood as a consequence of
the interaction of the structure without v and the system of partitive case checking. No vprojection entails no partitive case assignment. That is, we propose a structure of thefollowing kind for the Japanese WANT-DP construction:(22) [TP [AP watasi-ga [VP subete-no bessoo-ga∅BE] hosii] T]
I-NOM
all
second houses-NOM wantA remaining question is how the nominative noun phrase can have its case licensed. Here wecan assume that the adjective hosii assigns nominative case to the embedded object long
distance (cf. Tada 1992, among others) or that T can assign nominative case to it (cf.
Takezawa 1987, among others).9 The choice between them does not directly concern us here.
5.

Conclusion

This paper examined a ‘biclausal structure’ approach to the WANT-DP construction anddiscussed agreement facts in Hindi and facts pertaining to definiteness restrictions in Japanese.
These properties of the WANT-DP construction are unexpected under its biclausal analysis
9Endo, Kitagawa and Yoon (1999), who propose to analyze the WANT-DP construction in terms ofa null possessive predicate, observe that the dative possessor may occur with a null BE under the hosii
construction. If this is correct, it means that the desiderative adjective allows its complement to be a vP
as well as VP under the current analysis. What should be noted is that this possibility does notundermine the proposed explanation of the lack of definiteness restrictions, since all the present
analysis has to say is that hosii may take a VP-complement.

-52-

Preliminary Notes on the WANT-DP Construction in BE-Languages (V. Chaturvedi et al.)and therefore pose a potential problem for the Freeze-Kayne type approach to HAVE and BE;
there is no a priori reason to believe that while null HAVE can occur in the complement of
WANT in HAVE-languages, null BE cannot in BE-languages. We suggested one possible
way to maintain the ‘null BE’ analysis of the WANT-DP construction.

References
Amritavalli, R. (2004) “Experiencer Datives in Kannada,” in P. Bhaskararao and K.V. Subbarao, eds.,
Non-nominative Subjects Volume 1, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, 1-24.
Belletti, Adriana (1988) “The Case of Unaccusatives,” Linguistic Inquiry 19, 1-39.
Bhatt, Rajesh (2005) “Long Distance Agreement in Hindi-Urdu,” Natural Language and Linguistic
Theory 23, 757-807.
Boeckx, Cedric (2004) “Long-distance Agreement in Hindi: Some Theoretical Implications,” Studia
Linguistica 58, 23-36.
Chandra, Pritha (2006) “Defective Intervention Effects: Comparing Hindi-Urdu with Tsez,” paper
presented at the 42nd Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society.
Chaturvedi, Vineet (2006) “Experiencer and Possessor Constructions in Hindi: A Lexical Relational
Account,” talk given at the Hyderabad-Nanzan Joint Workshop on the Syntax-Semantics
Interface, held at Nanzan University, October 21, 2006.
Chomsky, Noam (2000) “Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework,” in R. Martin, D. Michaels, and J.
Uriagereka, eds., Step by Step, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 89-155.
den Dikken, Marcel, Richard K. Larson, and Peter Ludlow (1996) “Intensional Transitive Verbs andConcealed Complement Clause,” Rivista di Linguistica 8, 29-46.
Endo, Yoshio, Yoshihisa Kitagawa, and Jiyoung Yoon (1999) “Smaller Clause,” Proceedings of the
Nanzan GLOW, 73-95.
Freeze, Ray (1992) “Existentials and Other Locatives,” Language 68, 553-595.
Frege, Gottlob (1892) “Über Sinn und Bedeutung,” Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Philosophische
Kritik 100, 25-50. Translated as “On Sense and Reference,” in P. Geach and M. Black, eds.,
1980, Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege, Blackwell, Oxford,
56-78.
Harley, Heidi (2002) “Possession and the Double Object Construction,” Yearbook of Linguistic
Variation 2, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, 29-68.
Harley, Heidi (2004) “Wanting, Having and Getting: A Note on Fodor and Lepore 1998,” Linguistic
Inquiry 35, 255-267.
Jayaseelan, K.A. (2004) “The Possessor-Experiencer Dative in Malayalam,” in P. Bhaskararao and
K.V. Subbarao, eds., Non-nominative Subjects Volume 1, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, 227244.
Kishimoto, Hideki (2000) “Locational Verbs, Agreement, and Object Shift in Japanese,” Linguistic
Review 17, 53-109.
Larson, Richard K., Marcel den Dikken, and Peter Ludlow (2006) “Intensional Transitive Verbs andAbstract Clausal Complementation,” in T. Kawamura, Y. Suh, and R. K. Larson, eds., Stony
Brook Occasional Papers in Linguistics 1, Stony Brook University, 57-105.

-53-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 5

Larson, Richard K. and Gabriel Segel (1995) Knowledge of Meaning, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Lasnik, Howard (1995) “Case and Expletives Revisited: On Greed and Other Human Failings,”
Linguistic Inquiry 26, 615-633.
McCawley, James (1974) “On Identifying the Remains of Deceased Clause,” in J. McCawley, ed.,Adverbs, Vowels, and Other Objects of Wonder, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 7485.
Montague, Richard (1969) “On the Nature of Certain Philosophical Entities,” The Monist 53, 159-194.
Quine, Willard Van Orman (1960) Word and Object, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Ross, John Robert (1976) “To Have Have and to Not to Have Have,” in M. Jazayery, E. Polom, and W.
Winter, eds., Linguistics and Literary Studies in Honor of Archibald Hill, Lisse, Holland,263-270.
Snyal, Paroma (2007) “Dislocated Directions to Stable Possessions: The Realization of Case,” talkgiven at the Cambridge-Hyderabad-Nanzan Joint Workshop on Interface Conditions, held at
Nanzan University, September 19-20, 2007.
Tada, Hiroaki (1992) “Nominative Objects in Japanese,” Journal of Japanese Linguistics 14, 91-108.
Takezawa, Koichi (1987) A Configurational Approach to Case-marking in Japanese, Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Washington.
Ura, Hiroyuki (2000) Checking Theory and Grammatical Functions in Universal Grammar, Oxford
University Press, New York.
Wurmbrand, Susi (2001) Infinitives: Restructuring and Clause Structure, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.

-54-