English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

In this article, focusing on the dative alternation with the Give Verbs and Verbs of Future Having, we propose (i) that the V NP-PP construction and the double object construction (DOC) share the same underlying structure, which involves a small clause CP headed by the invisible verb HAVE, which is an amalgamation of the invisible copula BE and the invisible adposition TO, and (ii) that the former is derived from the latter, by the excorporation of TO out of HAVE, the C-to-V incorporation, and the A-movement of the Theme NP across the CP boundary. We argue that every movement across a CP-boundary is constrained by the Phase Impenetrability Condition (PIC), from which a syntactic solution is given to the question why certain double object verbs lack the V NP-PP variant. It is argued that the legitimate derivation of the V NP-PP variant from the DOC is subject to the PIC, since the C-to-V incorporation, which is independently constrained by the temporal equivalence condition, enables movement to the matrix Spec of the matrix non-phase head V, which is otherwise inapplicable.*

THE DATIVE ALTERNATION AS A-MOVEMENT OUT OF A SMALL CLAUSE CP