Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 9, Issue 4, pp 577–636 | Cite as

Object positions

  • Kyle Johnson

Nominals precede other verbal complements in English. This paper argues against accounts of this fact based on an adjacency requirement on Case assignment, and proposes instead that (1) main verbs in English move out of the VP they head, and (2) nominal complements are forced by the Case Filter to “Object Shift” either to Specifier of VP or to the Specifier of a functional projection that contains VP.


Artificial Intelligence Object Position Functional Projection Case Assignment Main Verb 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abney, Steven: 1987, The English Noun Phrase in Its Sentential Aspect. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  2. Babby, Leonard: 1980, ‘The Syntax of Surface Case Marking’, in Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics, Number 1, 1–32.Google Scholar
  3. Baker, Mark: 1985, ‘Syntactic Affixation and English Gerunds’, in Jeffrey Goldberg et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, pp. 1–11. Stanford Linguistics Association.Google Scholar
  4. —: 1988a, ‘Against Reanalysis of Heads’, in McGill Working Papers in Linguistics, Special Issue on Comparative Germanic Syntax, Denise Fekete et al. (eds.), pp. 35–60, Montréal: McGill University.Google Scholar
  5. —: 1988b, Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  6. Baker, Mark, Kyle Johnson, and Ian Roberts: 1989, ‘Passive Arguments Raised’, Linguistic Inquiry 20, 219–251.Google Scholar
  7. Baltin, Mark: 1982, ‘A Landing Site Theory of Movement Rules’, Linguistic Inquiry 13, 1–38.Google Scholar
  8. Barss, Andrew and Howard Lasnik: 1986, ‘A Note on Anaphora and Double Objects’, Linguistic Inquiry 17, 347–354.Google Scholar
  9. Belletti, Adriana: 1990, ‘Generalized Verb-Movement’, ms., Université de Genève.Google Scholar
  10. Besten, Hans den: 1983, ‘On the Interaction of Root Transformations and Lexical Deletive Rules’, in W. Abraham (ed.), On the Formal Syntax of the Westgermania, John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  11. Bolinger, Dwight: 1971, The Phrasal Verb in English, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  12. Carlson, Greg and Tom Roeper: 1980, ‘Morphology and Sub-categorization: Case and the Unmarked Complex Verb’, in Teun Hoekstra et al. (eds.), Lexical Grammar, pp. 123–64, Foris Publications, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  13. Chomsky, Noam: 1981, Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris Publications, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  14. —: 1986a, Barriers, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  15. —: 1986b, Knowledge of Language, Praeger Publishers, New York.Google Scholar
  16. —: 1989, ‘Some Notes on Economy of Derivation and Representation’, in MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 10, MIT, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  17. Culicover, Peter W. and Michael Rochemont: 1990, English Focus Constructions and the Theory of Grammar, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  18. Dikken, Marcel den: 1990a, ‘The Structure of English Complex Particle Constructions’, in R. Bok-Bennema et al. (eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands, pp. 23–32, Foris Publications, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  19. --: 1990b, ‘Particles and the Dative Alternation’, ms., University of Leiden.Google Scholar
  20. Dikken, Marcel den and René Mulder: 1991, ‘Double Object Scrambling’, in Jonathan David Bobaljik et al. (ed.), Papers from the Third Student Conference in Linguistics, pp. 67–82, MIT, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  21. Emonds, Joseph E.: 1972, ‘Evidence That Indirect Object Movement is a Structure Preserving Rule’, Foundations of Language 8, 546–561.Google Scholar
  22. —: 1976, A Transformational Approach to English Syntax, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  23. —: 1985, A Unified Theory of Syntactic Categories, Foris Publications, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  24. Epstein, Samuel: 1990, ‘Differentiation and Reduction in Syntactic Theory: A Case Study’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8, 313–324.Google Scholar
  25. --: 1991, Traces and Their Antecedents, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Evers, A.: 1975, The Transformational Cycle in Dutch and German, Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington.Google Scholar
  27. Fraser, Bruce: 1976, The Verb-particle Combination in English, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  28. Fukui, Naoki: 1986, A Theory of Category Projection and Its Application, Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  29. Green, Georgia M.: 1974, Semantics and Syntactic Regularity, Indiana University Press, Bloomington.Google Scholar
  30. Greenberg, Joseph: 1963, ‘Some Universals of Grammar with Particular Reference to the Order of Meaningful Elements’, in Joseph Greenberg (ed.), Universals of Language, pp. 73–113, MIT, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  31. Guéron, Jacqueline: 1987, ‘Clause Union and the Verb-particle Construction in English’, Paper Presented at NELS 17.Google Scholar
  32. —: 1990, ‘Particles, Prepositions, and Verbs’, in J. Mascaró et al. (eds.), Grammar in Progress, Foris Publications, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  33. Guéron, Jacqueline and Teun Hoekstra: 1990, ‘Tense, Particles and Causatives’, Paper Presented at Time Conference, MIT, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  34. Haegeman, Liliane: 1988, ‘Verb Projection Raising and the Multidimensional Analysis: Some Empirical Problems’, Linguistic Inquiry 19, 671–684.Google Scholar
  35. Haegeman, Liliane and Henk van Riemsdijk: 1986, ‘Verb Projection Raising, Scope, and the Typology of Verb Movement Rules’, Linguistic Inquiry 17, 417–466.Google Scholar
  36. Hankamer, Jorge: 1973, ‘Unacceptable Ambiguity’, Linguistic Inquiry 4, 17–68.Google Scholar
  37. Herslund, Michael: 1986, ‘The Double Object Construction in Danish’, in Lars Hellan et al. (eds.), Topics in Scandinavian Syntax, Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  38. Higginbotham, James: 1985, ‘On Semantics’, Linguistic Inquiry 16, 547–594.Google Scholar
  39. Holmberg, Anders: 1986, Word Order and Syntactic Features, Stockholm.Google Scholar
  40. Huang, James: 1982, Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar, Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  41. Jackendoff, Ray: 1972, Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  42. —: 1977, X' Syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  43. Jaeggli, Osvaldo and Nina Hyams: 1989, ‘On the Independence and Interdependence of Syntactic and Morphological Properties: English Aspectual come and go’, ms., USC and UCLA.Google Scholar
  44. Johnson, Kyle: 1988, ‘Clausal Gerunds, the ECP and Government’, Linguistic Inquiry 19, 583–609.Google Scholar
  45. Kayne, Richard: 1984a, Connectedness and Binary Branching, Foris Publications, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  46. —: 1984b, ‘Principles of Particle Constructions’, in Jacqueline Guéron et al. (eds.), Grammatical Representation, Foris Publications, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  47. —: 1989a, ‘Null Subjects and Clitic Climbing’, in Osvaldo Jaeggli et al. (eds.), The Null Subject Parameter, pp. 239–262, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  48. —: 1989b, ‘Facets of Romance Past Participle Agreement’, in Paolo Benincà (ed.), Dialect Variation and the Theory of Grammar, pp. 85–104, Foris Publications, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  49. Koopman, Hilda: 1989, ‘The Structure of VP in Dutch’, Paper Presented at the Summer Syntax Workshop, University of California, Irvine.Google Scholar
  50. --: 1990, ‘The Syntactic Structure of the Verb Particle Construction’, ms., UCLA.Google Scholar
  51. Koster, Jan: 1975, ‘Dutch as an SOV Language’, Linguistic Analysis 1, 111–136.Google Scholar
  52. —: 1978, ‘Why Subject Sentences Don't Exist’, in Samuel J. Keyser (ed.), Recent Transformational Studies in European Languages, Linguistic Inquiry Monograph, no. 3, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  53. Larson, Richard: 1988, ‘On the Double Object Construction’, Linguistic Inquiry 19, 335–392.Google Scholar
  54. Lasnik, Howard: 1981, ‘Restricting the Theory of Transformations’, in Nobert Hornstein et al. (eds.), Explanation in Linguistics, Longmans, London.Google Scholar
  55. Lasnik, Howard: forthcoming, ‘Case and Expletives: Notes Towards a Parametric Account’, Linguistic Inquiry.Google Scholar
  56. Lasnik, Howard and Mamoru Saito: 1984, ‘On the Nature of Proper Government’, Linguistic Inquiry 15, 235–290.Google Scholar
  57. le Roux, Cecile: 1988, On the Interface of Morphology and Syntax: Evidence from Verb-particle Combinations in Afrikaans, Ph.D. Dissertation, Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics, No. 18, University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch.Google Scholar
  58. Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport: 1986, ‘The Formation of Adjectival Passives’, Linguistic Inquiry 17, 623–661.Google Scholar
  59. McConnell-Ginet, Sally: 1982, ‘Adverbs and Logical Form’, Language 58, 144–184.Google Scholar
  60. McNulty, Elaine: 1988, The Syntax of Adjunct Predicates, PhD Dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.Google Scholar
  61. Oehrle, Richard: 1976, The Grammatical Status of the English Dative Alternation, Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  62. Palmer, F. R.: 1968, A Linguistic Study of the English Verb, University of Miami Press.Google Scholar
  63. Pesetsky, David: 1989, ‘Language-particular Processes and the Earliness Principle’, ms., MIT, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  64. Pollock, Jean-Yves: 1989, ‘Verb Movement, UG and the Structure of IP’, Linguistic Inquiry 20, 365–424.Google Scholar
  65. Postal, Paul: 1974, On Raising, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  66. Poutsma, H.: 1928, A Grammar of Late Modern English. Part I, Groningen.Google Scholar
  67. Riemsdijk, Henk van: 1982, A Case Study in Syntactic Markedness, 2nd ed., Foris Publications, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  68. Rizzi, Luigi: 1981, ‘Nominative Marking in Italian Infinitives and the Nominative Island Constraint’, in Frank Heny (ed.), Binding and Filtering, pp. 129–158, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  69. —: 1990, Relativized Minimality, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  70. Roberts, Ian: 1987, The Representation of Implicit and Dethematized Subjects, Foris Publications, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  71. —: 1991, ‘Excorporation and Minimality’, Linguistic Inquiry 22, 209–218.Google Scholar
  72. Rochemont, Michael: 1978, A Theory of Stylistic Rules in English, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  73. Ross, John: 1967, Constraints on Variables in Syntax, Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  74. Safir, Kenneth: 1985, Syntactic Chains, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  75. Selkirk, Elisabeth O.: 1982, The Syntax of Words, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  76. Shlonsky, Ur: 1987, Null and Displaced Subjects, Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  77. Simpson, Jane: 1983, ‘Discontinuous Verbs and the Interaction of Morphology and Syntax’, in Michael Barlow et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 2, Stanford Linguistics Association.Google Scholar
  78. Speas, Margaret: 1986, Adjunctions and Projections in Syntax, Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  79. Sportiche, Dominique: 1988a, ‘A Theory of Floating Quantifiers and Its Corollaries for Constituent Structure’, Linguistic Inquiry 19, 425–449.Google Scholar
  80. --: 1988b, ‘Conditions on Silent Categories’, ms., UCLA.Google Scholar
  81. Stillings, Justine: 1975, ‘Gapping in English and Variable Types’, Linguistic Analysis 1, 247–274.Google Scholar
  82. Stowell, Timothy: 1981, Origins of Phrase Structure. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  83. —: 1983, ‘Subjects Across Categories’, The Linguistic Review 2, 285–312.Google Scholar
  84. --: forthcoming, ‘Small Clause Restructuring’, in Robert Freidin (ed.), Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar, Robert Freidin (ed.), MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  85. Taraldsen, Tarald: 1983, Parametric Variation in Phrase Structure: A Case Study, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
  86. Vikner, Sten: 1987, ‘Case Assignment Differences Between Danish and Swedish’, in R. Allan et al. (ed.), Proceedings of the Seventh Conference of Scandinavian Studies in Great Britain, pp. 262–81, University College, London.Google Scholar
  87. --: 1990, Verb Movement and the Licensing of NP-positions in the Germanic Languages, Ph.D. Dissertation, Université de Genève.Google Scholar
  88. Wasow, Tom: 1977, ‘Transformations and the Lexicon’, in Peter Culicover et al. (eds.), Formal Syntax, pp. 327–60, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  89. Wexler, Kenneth and Peter Culicover: 1981, Formal Principles of Language Acquisition, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  90. Zaenen, Annie, Joan Maling and Hoskuldur Thráinsson: 1985, ‘Case and Grammatical Functions: The Icelandic Passive’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3, 441–483.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kyle Johnson
    • 1
  1. 1.Linguistics DepartmentUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations