Non-core datives are merged high

Non‐core datives are merged high
Nora Boneh & Lea Nash
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem / Université Paris 8 – UMR 7023
bonehn@mscc.huji.ac.il / lea.nash@wanadoo.fr
BasDiSyn, Donostia/San‐Sebastián, June 21 2010

We argue that
• Non‐core datives are introduced by applicative
heads above VP.
• There are no “low” applicatives
• Non‐core datives may be introduced at
various heights above VP.
• Affectedness is the key feature of non‐core
datives, , and of the applicative pp head that
introduces them.
2

Outline
1. French non‐core datives are not introduced low
2. French non‐core datives attach above VP and below
vP
3. An even higher attachment site for the applicative
head, above vP
44. Analysis
5. Conclusions
6. Appendix: Ethical Datives/Attitude / holder datives
3

Outline
1. French non‐core datives are not introduced low
2. French non‐core datives attach above VP and below
vP
3. An even higher attachment site for the applicative
head, above vP
44. Analysis
5. Conclusions
6. Appendix: Ethical Datives/Attitude / holder datives
4

Starting point: Pylkkänen (2002/2008)
Two plausible sites within the extended skeleton of VP
can qualify as possible structural sources of the non‐
core argument:
( (1) ) a. High h non‐core ddatives bb. Low non‐core ddatives
5
(P (Pylkkänen lkkä 2008 2008, p. 14)

French non‐core datives are not introduced
low
(2) *Pierre travaille à ses parents.
Pierre work.PRES to his parents
Intended: ‘Pierre is working/works for (the sake
of) his parents.’ parents.
The unavailability na ailabilit of non non‐core core dati datives es with ith unmodified nmodified
unergative verbs suggests that French is like English:
(3) *John ran Mary (Pylkkänen 2008, p. 20)
6

French non‐core datives are not introduced
low
In French
• VP internal material is obligatory in the presence of non‐
core datives
(cf. Leclère 1976, Morin 1981, Rooryck 1988, Herslund 1988, Authier & Reed
1992 1992, Lamiroy & Delbeque 1998 1998, Juitteau & Rezac 2007 2007, Roberge & Troberg
2007, 2009)
• Non‐core datives are possible with stative verbs which do
not imply transfer, (unlike English, but like German, Hebrew
and Russian)
(cf. Landau 1999, Lee‐Schonfeld 2005, Grashchenkov & Markman 2008)
7

French non‐core datives are not introduced
low
(4) Je lui tiens les cartables de ses enfants,
I 3S.DAT hold the schoolbags of her children
pendant qu’elle fait les courses.
while that she doesthe shopping
*'I hold her the schoolbags of her children while
she shops.‘ shops ‘ (fPlkkä (cf. Pylkkänen 2008 2008, p. 20)
Pylkkänen's (2008) low‐applicative analysis cannot
account for French data.
8

French non‐core datives are not introduced
low
In French, there’s a clear syntactic distinction between
core and non‐core datives in the following contexts:
• Variable Binding
• Scope Freezing
9

Scope p Freezingg
Core datives: ∃ > ∀, ∀ > ∃
(5) ( ) Le directeur a envoyé y une offre à chacun de ses clients.
'The director sent an offer to each of his clients'
Non‐core datives: *∃ > ∀, ∀ > ∃
(6) Le syndic a installé un détecteur de fumée à chaque
locataire.
'The property p p ymanager g installed a smoke detector to
each tenant.'
(7) #Le syndic a installé un ascenseur a tous les locataires
'The property p p ymanager g installed a lift to everyy tenant'
10
Odd: each tenant gets a lift of his own.

Variable Binding
(8) La maîtresse a rendu son i cartable à chaque i élève élève.
The teacher gave‐back his schoolbag to every pupil
(9) La maîtresse a rendu chaque chaquei cartable à son soni propriétaire propriétaire.
'The teacher gave‐back every schoolbag to its owner.'
(10) Marie a peint sa i maison à chaque i locataire
Marie painted his house to each tenant
(11) *Mariea peint chaque i maison à son i locataire.
11
Marie painted every house to its tenant

Scope p freezing g in English g
(Aoun & Li 1993, Bruening 2001)
Prepositional constructions: ∀ > ∃, ∃ > ∀
(12) a. Mary presented every student to a professor.
b. Mary copied every poem (from this book) for a student.
DDouble bl object bj constructions: i ∃ > ∀ ∀, *∀ > ∃
(13) a. Mary presented a professor every student.
12
bb. Mary copied d a student d every poem (f (from this h bbook). k)

Interim summary
In the NP à‐NP order
• Core datives: NP ACC c‐commands NPDAT DAT
• Non‐core datives: NPDAT asymmetrically c‐commands NPACC Contrary to English, French distinguishes between core and
non‐core non core datives datives.
13

Interim summary
In English, the divide is not between core and non‐core
datives, but between the Double Object configuration
vs. the prepositional configuration.
Scope freezing facts in English Double Object
constructions co s uc o s are aeaan additional add o a argument agu e against aga s thee
low applicative head analysis proposed by Pylkkänen
(2008). ( )
Cf. also Nash 2006, Georgala et al. 2008, Bruening 2010, Bosse et al. 2010,
Larson to appear.
14

Outline
1. French non‐core datives are not introduced low
2. French non‐core datives attach above VP and below
vP
3. An even higher attachment site for the applicative
head, above vP
44. Analysis
5. Conclusions
6. Appendix: Ethical Datives/Attitude / holder datives
15

French non‐core datives
(14)a. Jeanne lui a marché sur les pieds
Jeanne 3S.DAT walked on the feet
‘Jeanne stepped on her/his feet (affecting her/him).'
b. Les joues j lui pendent p jusqu’aux j q genoux g
The cheeks 3S.DAT hang till knees
'His cheeks are hanging down to his knees (on her/him).'
16
c. Je vais lui peindre son portail
I go 3S.DAT paint 3.POSS gate
'I will paint her/him her/his gate.'
d. Jeanne lui a mangé g son goûter g
Jeanne 3S.DAT ate 3.POSS snack
'Jeanne ate her/his snack on him.'

In the literature
It has been noted that these constructions
belongg to different sub‐classes accordingg to
semantic meanings generated in each case
(cf (cf. in particular Leclère 1976 1976, Authier & Reed 1992 1992, Roberge &
Troberg 2009, Bosse et al. 2010)
Several readings were identified:
17

Intended recipient/extended dative
(15) Marie a écrit une lettre à Paul
Marie wrote a letter to Paul
‘Marie wrote a letter to Paul.’
(16) Paula fabriqué une table à Marie (Leclère 1976: 74)
Paul made a table to Marie
Possessor
‘Paul made a table for Marie.’
(17) L’infirmière scolaire a coupé les ongles à tous les élèves.
The nurse of‐school cut the nails to all the pupils p p
18
‘The school nurse cut the pupils’ nails.’

BBeneficiary fi i
(18) Marie a repeint un vieux portail à ses voisins
Marie painted an old gate to her neighbors
‘Marie painted and old gate for her neighbors.’
Maleficiary
(19) Marie a crevé deux pneus à ses voisins
19
Marie punctured two tires to her neighbors
‘Marie punctured two tires on her neighbors.’

Affected Experiencer (Bosse et al. 2010) /
Dative i (in)commodi (i ) di ( (Roberge b et Troberg b 2009)
(20) Elmer lui a dévalisé deux banques le mois dernier
20
Elmer 3S.DAT robbed two banks the month last
‘Elmer Robbed two banks for him last month.’
(Rouveret & Vergnaud 1980: 170)

However However…
These readings g cannot be trulyy distinguished g
from one another.
21
Affected
Datives
B Bene/mal / l
efactive
Datives
Possessive
Datives
Core Datives

Possessive reading always secondary to
beneficiary/maleficiary reading
(21) a. Jeanne lui a peint les sourcils en orange.
Jeanne 3S.DAT painted the eyebrows orange
22
'Jeanne painted her/his eyebrows orange (on/for
her/him).'
b. Jeanne lui a peint le portailen orange.
Jeanne 3S.DAT painted p the gate g orange g
'Jeanne painted her/his gate orange (on/for her/him).‘

French non‐core non core datives
We contend that the ‘role’ of anon‐coredative depends on
the relation it bears to ACC NPs. When the relation fails to
bbe established, tblihdth the non‐core dti dative iis iinterpreted t t d as
affected, rather than benefactive or possessive.
(22) Il nous a cassé trois voitures
He 1PL.DAT broke three cars
‘He broke three cars on us/for us.’
B/M The cars were ours and we are happy/sad that they got broke
AFF The cars are not ours and we are happy/sad that they got broke
23
(e.g. we got our revenge / we have to pay for the damage)

French non‐core non core datives
(23) a. Marie a repeint un vieux portail à ses voisins
Marie painted an old gate to her neighbors
24
b.
‘Marie painted and old gate to her neighbors.’

The non‐core dative scopes below the
Agent
Variable binding:
(24) a. Chaque proprietaire a peint le portail a son locataire.
‘Each landlord painted p the ggate
to his tenant.’
25
b. *Son proprietaire a peint le portail a chaque locataire.
‘His His landlord painted the gate to each tenant tenant. ’
(adapted from Bosse et al. al 2010)

The non‐core dative scopes below the
Agent
Scope of again
(25) Marie a peint le portail a tous les voisins de nouveau.
‘Marie painted the gate to all the neighbors again.’
Available readings:
i. The gate is painted again
ii. Someone painted the gate on the neighbors and now Marie did it on them
again.
iii. Marie has painted the gate for them and now she did it again.
iv. *Marie has painted the gate before, and she does it again but for the first
time for the neighbors.
26
(adapted from Bosse et al. 2010)

Interim summary
• French non‐core datives fall into one natural
•
syntactic class.
The structural site where they are introduced is
high, above VP.
IIn th thenexttsections: ti
• Refining the class of non‐core datives
• Non‐core datives in French have two distinct
sources above V
27

Outline
1. French non‐core datives are not introduced low
2. French non‐core datives attach above VP and below
vP
3. An even higher attachment site for the applicative
head, above vP
44. Analysis
5. Conclusions
6. Appendix: Ethical Datives/Attitude / holder datives
28

Coreferential datives
(26) a. Jeanne s' est couru *(trente km).
29
Jeanne 3.SE ran thirty km
'Jeanne ran her thirty y km.'
b. Jeanne s’ est fumé *(un cigare).
Jeanne 33.SE SE smoked a cigar
'Jeanne smoked her a cigar.'
c. Jeanne s’ est plié quelques tracts
Jeanne 3.SE folded several fliers
'Jeanne folded her some fliers.'

Coreferential datives
(27) Je viens de m'envoyer Gala, Questions de Femmes,
Voici, Femme Actuelle, je fais un break. Demain je me
fi fais BBe et t GGrazia, i mais i ce soir i pour me laver l la l tête têt jje
vais me finir avec Vogue.
30
‘I just j tgot t through th h GGala, l QQuestions ti dde FFemmes, Vii Voici,
Femme Actuelle, I take a break. Tomorrow I’m gonna
read me Be et Grazia Grazia, but this evening to clear my
mind, I am going to finish me with Vogue.’
( (a FFacebook b kstatus) tt )

Properties of Coreferential Dative
Constructions
(28)a (28)a. Jeanne s’ s est fumé un narguilé narguilé.
Jeanne3.SE smoked a narghile
'Jeanne smoked her a narghile.'
(29)a. ( ) Jeanne a fumé un narguilé. g
Jeanne smoked a narghile
‘Jeanne smoked a narghile.’
bb. Jeanne s' s est couru trente km km.
Jeanne 3.SE ran thirty km
'Jeanne ran her thirty km.'
b. Jeanne a couru trente km.
Jeanne ran thirty km
‘Jeanne ran thirty km.’
cc. Je me suis maté un film avec Isa Isa.
I 1.SE watched a movie with Isa
'I watched me a movie with Isa.'
c. J' J ai maté un film avec Isa.
I watched a movie with Isa
‘I watched a movie with Isa.’
31
CDCs are equivalent in their truth conditions to sentences without
reflexive SE.

Properties of Coreferential Dative Constructions
The h diff difference b between (28) and d (29) iis pragmatic. i
CDCs express how the subject experiences the event in question.
The implicature: the subject experiences enjoyment and easy‐goingness.
This effect depends on the volitional involvement of the agent in the event:
(30) aa. Je me suis cassé quelques bagnoles de riches (quel kif!)
I 1.SE broke a few cars of rich people (what fun)
'I went and smashed me some rich folks' cars (that was fun!)'
32
b b.#Je #Je me suis cassé quelques verres verres, sans le faire exprès… exprès (quel kif!)
I 1.SE broke a few glasses, unintentionally (what fun)
'#I went and smashed me some glasses, unintentionally (that was fun!)'

CDCs in other languages: g g Spanish p
Superficially identical forms in Spanish have radically different properties (e.g.
Fernández Lagunilla & de Miguel 2000).
(31) a. Juan se comió la manzana / *se comió manzanas.
Juan 3.SE ate the apple / 3.SE ate apples
b. Juan comió manzanas / *se comió la manzana.
Juan ate apples / 3.SE ate the apple
'Juan ate the apple / apples.'
In French, the presence or absence of the reflexive clitic does not affect
grammaticality.
(32) Jeanne (s' )est mangé des pomme / la pomme.
Jeanne 3.SE ate
'Jeanne Jeanne ate apples. apples '
apples / the apple
In Spanish, a different pragmatic effect: the event happened somewhat
counter to the expectation of the speaker (Strauss 2003) 2003).
33

Coreferential datives vs. non‐core datives
(NCD)
How do the two superficially similar constructions
differ?
(33) a. Elle se peint un portail. NCDC
She 3.SE paints a gate
'She S epa paints s a gate ga e for o herself.' ese
34
b. Elle se fume un cigare. CDC
She 33.SE SE smokes a cigar
'She smokes her a cigar.'

Non‐core datives and CDCs differ
di distributionally t ib ti ll
(34) a. Elle se / me / lui peint un portail.
She 3.SE / 1S.DAT / 3S.DAT paints a gate
'She She paints a gate (on/for her / me / him) him). '
b. Elle se / *me / *lui court un marathon
She 3.SE /1S.DAT / 3S.DAT run a marathon
'She runs a marathon.‘
34a ‐ SE alternates with non‐reflexive clitics and is
interpreted as the beneficiary.
34b ‐ SE cannot t alternate lt t in i the th same fashion f hi
35

The syntax of French CDCs
(35)
36

Outline
1. French non‐core datives are not introduced low
2. French non‐core datives attach above VP and below
vP
3. An even higher attachment site for the applicative
head, above vP
44. Analysis
5. Conclusions
6. Appendix: Ethical Datives/Attitude / holder datives
37

Preliminaries
SE iis adefective df ti argument‐introducing t i t d i hhead: d v
or Appl (Labelle 2008, a.o.)
It is defective because it has no specifier.
Referential f l DP arguments cannot bbe projectedd
as the specifier of a SE head (Embick 2004, a.o.).
38

SE in CDCs
SE ddoes nott iindicate di t th the presence off anewargument. t
SE contributes tibt ttopragmatically ti ll enrich ihth theagent. t
‐ DuetoSE,theagentisnotjustanagentbutan
“affected affected agent” agent .
App(licative) is added after the agent has been
introduced by v.
Appl cannot introduce an extra argument, because it is
merged after all event participants have been
projected. That is why it always surfaces as SE.
39

SE in non‐core dative constructions
Appl between v and V adds an extra argument in the extended
vP.
Appl spelled‐out as SE => DP‐agent is co‐indexed with SE ; the
missing argument is interpreted as a non‐core argument co‐
referential with the agent.
40

The most important data distinguishing between
NCDCs and CDCs comes from the behavior of SE in
embedding under faire environment.
This further confirms the differential analysis of the
types of non‐core datives.
41

Embedding g under causative‐faire f
(38) a. [embedded structure: Paul se peint un portail ‐ ‘Paul paints a gate for himself’]
Elle a fait se peindre un portail à Paul Paul.
She made 3.SE paint a gate to Paul
'She made Paul paint the gate for himself.'
b b. [ [embedded b dd dstucture: Paul l se f fume un cigare – ‘ ‘Paul lsmokes k him h a cigar’] ’]
*Elle a fait se fumer un cigare à Paul.
She made 3.SE smoke a cigar g to Paul
intended: 'She made Paul smoke a cigar.'
(39) aa. Elle a fait peindre un portail à Paul Paul.
She made paint a gate to Paul
'She made Paul paint the gate.‘
42
bb. Elle a fait fumer un cigare à Paul Paul.
She made smoke a cigar to Paul
'She made Paul smoke a cigar.'

(38b) can bbe ''saved' d' if th the causee i is “d “delocalized” l li d” andd
realized either as a dative clitic e.g. “lui” or a dislocated wh‐
phrase: p
(40) a. Elle lui a fait se fumer un cigare.
Sh She 3S 3S.DAT DATmade d 33.SE SE smokea k cigar i
'She made him smoke a cigar.'
bb. A qui elle a fait se fumer un cigare?
To who she made 3.SE smokea cigar?
'Who did she make smoke a cigar?'
43

Additional dd t o a set of o examples ea pes
(41) a. Elle a fait repasser sa chemise à Paul.
She made iron 3.POSS shirt to Paul
'She made Paul iron his shirt.'
b. Elle a fait se repasser sa chemise à Paul.
She made 3.SE iron 3.POSS shirt to Paul
'She made Paul iron his shirt for himself.'
(42) a. Ça a fait mater des films débiles à mes voisins.
This made watch movies dumb to my neighbors
'This This made my neighbors watch dumb movies. movies.'
b.*Ça a fait se mater des films débiles à mes voisins.
This made 3.SE watch movies dumb to my neighbors
intended: 'This This made my neighbors watch dumb movies. movies '
c. Ça leur a fait se mater des films débiles.
This 3PL.DAT made 3.SE watch movies dumb
'This This made them watch dumb movies. movies '
44

The syntax of embedded causatives
In faire‐à constructions internal arguments of the embedded verb
must precede the dative embedded agent:
(43) a. Isa a fait fumer une cigarette à Béa.
Isa made smoke a cigarette to Béa
'Isa made Béa smoke a cigarette.'
b b. *Isa Isa a fait fumer
Isa made smoke
Béa
Béa
une cigarette cigarette.
a cigarette
TTwo types of f solutions: l i
•The embedded agent is in an ad hoc right hand specifier where
dative case is licensed (Landau ( 2005, , Folli & Harley y 2007); );
•The embedded agent is in situ, in the base‐generated left‐hand
specifier,VP is preposed (Burzio 1986, Kayne 2004).
45

(44)
The reanalyzed unit assigns dative case to the embedded agent (Rouveret & Vergnaud 1980) 1980).
REMARKS:
I The grammaticality of (45) is not predicted by the type of analyses where the embedded agent
iis ffound d iin ahigh hi h right‐hand ih h d specifier. ifi If this hi wereindeed i d d the h case,the h pronoun iin the h àà‐DP DP
could not have been bound.
(45) Marie a fait décrire chaque livre à son auteur.
Marie made describe every y book to its author
II An incorporation analysis would fail to explain the possibility for an adverb to intervene: faire
souvent venir 'make often come', faire rarement travailler 'makerarelywork',faire de nouveau
reparer 'make again repair' (the last example is inspired by Ippolito 2000, and found on Google)
46

Back to the contrast in embeddability
(38) a. [embedded: Paul se peint un portail ‐ ‘Paul paints a gate for himself’]
47
Elle a fait se peindre un portail à Paul.
She made 3.SE paint a gate to Paul
'She made Paul paint p the ggate
for himself.'
b. [embedded: Paul se fume un cigare – ‘Paul smokes him a cigar’]
* Ell Elle a fi fait se ffumer un cigare i à PPaul. l
She made 3.SE smoke a cigar to Paul
intended: 'She made Paul smoke a cigar.'

(46)
SE (head of Appl) cliticizes to the preposed embedded verb peindre 'paint' and, illicitly
c‐commands the embedded coreferential agent “à Paul”.
The structure is well‐formed ‐ the correct c‐command relation AGENT‐BENEFACTIVE
has been established prior to all movement and can be reconstructed.
48

Back to the contrast in embeddability
(38) a. [embedded: Paul se peint un portail ‐ ‘Paul paints a gate for himself’]
49
Elle a fait se peindre un portail à Paul.
She made 3.SE paint a gate to Paul
'She made Paul paint p the ggate
for himself.'
b. [embedded: Paul se fume un cigare – ‘Paul smokes him a cigar’]
*Ell *Elle a fi fait se ffumer un cigare i à PPaul. l
She made 3.SE smoke a cigar to Paul
intended: 'She made Paul smoke a cigar.'

(47)
The embedded VP moves to the left of ApplP; SE (=Appl) cliticizes to the fronted
embedded verb fumer 'smoke'.
If the embedded DP agent stays in situ, therightc‐command relation between SE and
the embedded agent “à Paul” cannot be established at any level of the derivation: SE
c‐commands the embedded agent before and after VP‐preposing.
50

Saving by movement
( (40) ) a. Elle ll llui a ffait se ffumer
un cigare.
She 3S.DAT made 3.SE smoke a cigar
'She made him smoke a cigar.'
51
b. A qui elle a fait se fumer un cigare?
To who she made 3.SE smoke a cigar?
'Who Who did she make smoke a cigar?' cigar?

This situation can be salvaged if the embedded agent moves even higher than the faire‐V
reanalyzed unit containing SE SE, either as a clitic lui or as a wh wh‐constituent. constituent
(48)
the embedded agent “à qui” wh‐movestotheleftofthemainclauseandcomestoc‐
command the reflexive clitic SE.
52

Summary
53
Affectedness Obligatorily a Non truth truth‐
weak pronominal Conditional
Non‐core below vP yes no ?
Non‐core above vP yes yes yes
Core datives no no no

Conclusion
• NNon‐core dti datives are iintroduced t d d bby hi high h applicative li ti hheads, d
above VP.
• The applicative pp head takes the event as a complement p and a
DP as specifier, and endows it with affectedness.
• An applicative head below vP introduces an argument and
affects the truth conditions conditions.
• Anapplicativeheadabovethethematicdomain–vP –does
not introduce an argument, only adds an affectedness feature
to the highest argument within vP vP, yielding the described
flavor of pragmatic enrichment of the agent.
Its contribution is non‐truth conditional.
• CDCs result from a syntactic operation that has purely
pragmatic and non truth conditional effects on the sentence.
• CDCs constitute a syntactic environment where affectedness
can be teased apart from argument introduction.
54

Appendix: Ethical Datives
Or: Attitude holder datives (Bosse et al. 2010)
Additional constructions involving non‐core datives are those called Ethical
Datives (EDs) (EDs).
Here too, obligatoriness of VP‐material is evident.
(i) a. Au Mont St. Michel, la mer te monte *(à une de ces vitesses).
At Mont St. Michel the sea 2S.DATrises at one of these speeds
'You You won won’t t believe how quickly the sea rises at Mont St. Michel! Michel!'
b. Je te lui ai donné un de ces gifles!
I 2S.DAT 3S.DAT gave one of these smacks
'(I’ '(I’m tlli telling you) ) I smacked kdhi him good!‘ d!‘
55
c. Tu me ranges ce bazar tout de suite!
You 1S.DAT tidy this mess at once
‘Tidy up this mess at once, I tell you!’

Appendix: Ethical Datives
Contrary to other non‐core datives, ED's allow only 1 st and 2 nd person clitics
(ii) a. Au Mont St. Michel, la mer te /*lui monte à une de ces vitesses.
At Mont St. Michel the sea 2S.DAT /3S.DAT rises at one of these speeds
'You won’t believe how quickly the sea rises at Mont St. Michel!'
b. Paul te/me/*lui bois dix pastis en trois minutes!
Paul 2S.DAT/1S.DAT /3S.DAT drinks ten Pastis in three minutes
'Paul drinks 10 Pastis in three minutes! (it's unbelievable)'
(Leclère 1976, p. 86)
56

Appendix: Ethical Datives
Unlike other non‐core datives, ED's co‐occur with other dative clitics (Leclère 1976, Juitteau & Rezac
2007):
(iii) a. Paul te/me lui
Paul 2S.DAT/1S.DAT 3S.DAT
'Paul smacked him good!'
a donné une de ces gifles!
gave one of these smacks
(Leclère 1976: p. 93)
b. Paul te/me lui fabrique une table en vingt minutes!
Paul 2S.DAT/1S.DAT / 3S.DAT make a table in twenty y minutes
'Paul makes a table in twenty minutes!' (Leclère 1976: p. 85)
c. Tu me rend tout de suite ce pull à son propriétaire!
you 1S.DAT give‐back at once this sweatshirt to its owner
‘Give back this sweatshirt to its owner at once, I tell you!’
(iv) a. *Paul lui leur a donné trop de sucreries (aux enfants).
Paul 3S.DAT 3P.DAT gave too.many sweets (to.the children)
Intended: Paul gave them too many sweets (affecting her/him).
b. *Paul nous lui a acheté une voiture.
Paul 1P.DAT 3S.DAT bought a car
Intended: Paul bought her/him a car for/on us
c. *Paul se lui donne un bonbon.
Paul 3.SE 3S.DAT give a candy
Intended: Paul gave g him a candy y to her/him /
These properties, coupled with EDs interpretative contribution at the speech act level, leads us to
conjecture that the underlying syntactic structure involves an even higher applicative head selecting TP
as its complement and introducing discourse participants.
57

References
Aoun, J. & Y. A. Li. 1993. The Syntax of Scope. MIT Press.
Authier, J‐M., & L. Reed. 1992. Case Theory, theta theory, and the distribution of French affected clitics. WCCFL
10, 27‐39.
Bosse, S. et al. 2010. Affected Experiencers. to appear in NLLT.
Bruening, B. 2001. QR obeys superiority: Frozen scope and ACD. Linguistic Inquiry 32(2): 233–273.
Burzio, L. 1986. Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Conroy Conroy, AA. 2007 2007. The Personal Dative in Appalachian English as a Reflexive Pronoun Pronoun. University of Maryland
Working Papers in Linguistics 16, ed.A.Omaki,I.Ortega‐Santos, J. Sprouse and M. Wagers, pp. 63‐88.
College Park, MD: UMWPiL.
Cuervo, M. C. 2003. Datives at Large. PhD Dissertation. MIT.
Embick, David. 2004. Unaccusative syntax and verbal alternations. In Artemis Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopoulou
and Martin Everaert (eds.) The unaccusativity Puzzle, 137‐158. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fernández Lagunilla, M. & E. de Miguel. 2000. La interfaz léxico‐sintaxis: el clítico culminativo. E. de Miguel, M.
Fernández Lagunilla g & F. Cartoni (eds.), Sobre el lenguaje: g j Miradas plurales p y singulares, g Madrid,UAM/
Arrecife.
Folli, R & H. Harely. 2006. Benefacitves aren’t Goals in Italian, in Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2004,
J. Doetjes and P. Gonzalez (eds.), pp. 121‐142. Amsterdam, Benjamins.
Folli Folli, RR. & HH. Harley Harley. 2007 2007. Causation Causation, obligation and argument structure: on the nature of little vv, Linguistic
Inquiry 38.2: 97‐238.
58

References
Georgala, E. et al. 2008. Expletive and Thematic Applicatives. Proceedings of the 26th West Coast Conference
on Formal Linguistics, ed. Charles B. Chang & Hannah J. Haynie, 181‐189. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla
Proceedings Project.
Grashchenkov, P. & V. G. Markman. 2008. Non‐Core Arguments in Verbal and Nominal Predication: High and
Low Applicatives and Possessor Raising. Proceedings of the 27th West Coast Conference on Formal
Linguistics, ed. Natasha Abner and Jason Bishop, 185‐193. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Herslund, M. 1988. Le datif en français.Paris:Louvain.
Horn, L. R. 2008. “I love me some him”: Thelandscapeofnon‐argument datives. Empirical Issues in Syntax and
Semantics 7. O. Bonami & P. Cabredo Hofherr (eds.) 2008, pp. 169–192.
IIppolito, lit MM. 2000 2000. RRemarksontheargument k th t structure t t off RRomance causatives. ti MMs., MIT MIT, CCambridge, b id MMass.
Juitteau, M. & M. Rezac 2007. The French ethical dative, 13 syntactic tests, Bucharest Working Papers in
Linguistics,IX(1):97‐108.
Kayne, R. S. 2004. Prepositions as probes. In The cartography of syntactic structures. Vol.3,Structuresand
beyond, ed. by Adriana Belletti, 192–212. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Labelle, M. 2008. The French Reflexive and Reciprocal se. Ms. Université du Québec à Montréal.
Landau, I. 1999. Possessor raising and the structure of VP. Lingua 107: 1‐37.
Landau Landau, II. 2005 2005. The Locative Syntax of Experiencers Experiencers. Ms Ms. Ben Gurion University University.
Leclère, C. 1976. Datifs syntaxiques et datifs éthiques. In Méthodes en grammaire française, ed.J.‐C. Chevalier
and M. Gross, 73‐96. Klincksieck: Paris.
Lee‐Schoenfeld, V. 2005. Introducing Possessor Datives – High or Low? LSA Annual Meeting, Oakland, CA.
59

References
MMorin, i YY‐C. C 1981 1981. SSome mythsabout th b tpronominal i lclitics liti iin FFrench. h Li Linguistic i ti AAnalysis l i 88: 95 95‐109. 109
Nash, L. 2006. Structuring VP: Goals, EALING lectures, Paris.
Pylkkänen, L. 2002/2008. Introducing Arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Roberge, Y. & M. Troberg. 2007. Les objets indirects non thématiques en français. Actes du congrès annuel de
l’Association canadienne de linguistique 2007. Proceedings of the 2007 annual conference of the
Canadian Linguistic Association.
Roberge, Y. & M. Troberg. 2009. The high applicative syntax of the datives commode/incomnodi in Romance.
Probus 21: 249‐289 249‐289.
Rooryck, J. 1988. Formal aspects of French nonlexical datives. Folia Linguistica 22: 373‐386.
Rouveret, A. & J.‐R. Vergnaud. 1980. Specifying reference to the subject. French causatives and conditions on
representations. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 97‐202.
Strauss, S. 2003. Completive aspect, emotion, and the dynamic eventive: the case of Korean V‐a/e pelita,
Japanese V‐te shimau, and Spanish se. Linguistics 41–4 2003), pp. 653–679.
Vergnaud, J.‐R. & M.‐L. Zubizarreta. 1992. The definite determiner and the inalienable constructions in French
and English. g Linguistic g Inquiry q y23:
595‐652.
60