Arguing our way to the Direct Object Restriction on English resultatives

Abstract Drawing on Hoekstra’s (1988f) work on so-called ‘small clause results’ and Marantz’s (1992) work on the way-construction and its relation to resultative constructions, in this article I argue my way to the conclusion that the so-called ‘Direct Object Restriction’ (DOR) on English resultatives must be reinstated, despite Rappaport Hovav and Levin’s (2001) claims to the contrary. First, I review some of the main properties of resultative constructions that appear to motivate the syntactic approach, whose main descriptive tenet is the DOR. In particular, I show that the present analysis... Mehr ...

Verfasser: Mateu, Jaume
Dokumenttyp: Artikel
Reihe/Periodikum: The journal of comparative Germanic linguistics
Sprache: Englisch
Anmerkungen: © Kluwer Academic Publishers 2005
ISSN: 1383-4924
Weitere Identifikatoren: doi: 10.1007/s10828-004-0294-z
Permalink: https://search.fid-benelux.de/Record/olc-benelux-2042971642
URL: NULL
NULL
Datenquelle: Online Contents Benelux; Originalkatalog
Powered By: Verbundzentrale des GBV (VZG)
Link(s) : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10828-004-0294-z
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10828-004-0294-z

Abstract Drawing on Hoekstra’s (1988f) work on so-called ‘small clause results’ and Marantz’s (1992) work on the way-construction and its relation to resultative constructions, in this article I argue my way to the conclusion that the so-called ‘Direct Object Restriction’ (DOR) on English resultatives must be reinstated, despite Rappaport Hovav and Levin’s (2001) claims to the contrary. First, I review some of the main properties of resultative constructions that appear to motivate the syntactic approach, whose main descriptive tenet is the DOR. In particular, I show that the present analysis of the conflation process involved in the formation of complex resultatives allows us to offer an adequate explanation of their syntactic properties. Second, I put forward a relational syntactic analysis of the so-called ‘way-construction’. In particular, I show that the present analysis helps us understand why the DOR holds for this idiomatic resultative-like construction as well. Finally, I deal with some exceptional cases put forward by Verspoor (1997) and Wechsler (1997), reviewed by Rappaport Hovav and Levin (2001), which appear to contradict the DOR.