Johnson 2004 - CDLI - UCLA

in the English double object construction in (19) and low source applicatives as in the
following example from Korean (Pylkkänen 2002: 21, example [21] in contrast with
example [22]).
(21) totwuk-i Mary-hanthey panci-lul humchi-ess-ta
thief-Nom Mary-Dat ring-Acc steal-Past-Plain
The thief stole a ring from Mary (and it was in her possession when he stole it)
(22) totwuk-i Mary-ui panci-lul humchi-ess-ta
thief-Nom Mary-Gen ring-Acc steal-Past-Plain
The thief stole Mary’s ring (with no implication as to the presence of Mary at
the theft)
The basic criterion for differentiating a high applicative such as (20) from a low
applicative such as (21) is whether or not there is necessarily a possessive relation
between the direct object and the applied argument: high applicatives do not presuppose
any kind of possessive relation between direct object and the oblique argument, whereas
low applicatives require such a possessive relation. In (20), there is no reason to suspect
the existence of any kind of possessive relation between the knife and the waterpot, but in
(21) as well as the English example in (19), the oblique argument, Mary-Dat and Lou
respectively, must either start out (21) or end up (19) as the possessor of the direct object.
Although Pylkkänen does not make the connection explicit, readers familiar with either
48