이중목적어 구조의 격자질 점검

Case Checking in Double Object Construction

This paper critically reviews Larson’s(1988) and Fujita’s(1996) analyses of double object construction, and proposes an alternative one that can effectively explain the asymmetries shown in dative and double object constructions. The major contents are summarized as follows: (a) In dative construction the argument assigned the role of Goal is not a complement of V but an argument merged with V’. (b) The thematic role of indirect object in double object construction is different from that of dative construction. The former assumes Benefactive or Affective, while the latter, Goal. (c) The verb in dative construction and the corresponding one in double object construction are separate lexical items that have the same phonological features but are different in their semantic and formal features. The former selects Theme and Goal as its internal arguments while the latter selects Theme and Benefactive, Experiencer or Affective. (d) The difference in thematic interpretation of the subjects in dative and double object constructions is not from the syntactic relation but from the difference in the properties of semantic selection of the verbs. (e) Indirect object of double object construction moves to the SPEC of V to satisfy the [+SPEC] feature of V. The movement is not for Case assignment or checking of Case feature.