Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||Object Functions and Double Object Constructions in Lexical Functional Grammar|
|Authors:||Lam, Olivia Shi-Ching|
|Publisher:||University of Oxford|
|Abstract:||It has long been observed that, in a double object constructions (DOC), the two objects exhibit different syntactic behaviour. In Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG), these two objects are characterized as two distinct grammatical functions. The object that syntactically patterns with the monotransitive object is the unrestricted object OBJ. The one that does not is the restricted object OBJθ. The goals of this dissertation are to investigate the syntax of DOCs, and to explore the two object functions in LFG. When thinking about DOCs, the verb that almost invariably comes to mind is GIVE. This verb, however, may not be as prototypical as is commonly assumed. In Cantonese, it is the only verb whose objects are in an anomalous order, with the object that bears the theme role preceding the object which expresses the recipient role. Cantonese as a language does not uniformly have the direct (theme) object preceding the indirect (recipient) object. Other than the difference in their linear order, the objects in the GIVE-construction pattern with those in all other DOCs in the language. In some languages, there is a possibility of having more objects than is required by the underived form of a verb. An additional object can be licensed by the affixation of an applicative morpheme to the verb root. The syntax of the objects in an applicative construction is directly related to the type of semantic role that is applied. This has posed challenges for previous accounts of applicative constructions, as a change in the morphological structure of a verb is accompanied by a change in its argument structure. A new proposal is offered to account for this. A study of the syntax of DOCs involves much more than merely acknowledging the presence of two object functions in the construction. The morphology of the verb, the semantic roles that are required by the verb and the linear order of the arguments that express these roles are all relevant. Assuming various parallel but inter-related levels of representation, the theory of LFG has the suitable tools to take all these into consideration. Reference can be made straight-forwardly to the information at the different levels of representation, including the a structure, the c-structure, the f-structure and the m-structure.|
|Appears in Collections:||Dissertations (restricted access)|
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.