Minimality Effects in Syntax · The MLC and Derivational Economy ...

116 Gisbert Fanselow
be attracted to the subject position in the passive version of double object
constructions in Norwegian:
(75) Passive formation in Norwegian double object constructions
a. det ble gitt ham en gave
there was given him a present
b. han ble gitt en gave
he was given a present
c. en gave ble gitt ham
The standard assumption concerning English is that the direct object must
not cross the indirect one in the passive of a double object construction, but
this does not characterize all dialects of the language. After all, McCawley
(1988: 79) observes that (76) sounds acceptable to speakers of British
English.
(76) a car was sold my brother __ for $200 by Honest Oscar
Phrasal A-movement thus seems to have properties comparable to the one
of operator movement with respecr to the MLC. One needs to identify the
interpretive conditions that license (75c) or (76), and offer an account as to
why information structure does not seem to modulate MLC-effects in certain
languages or dialects of languages (such as American English).
German shows that additional formal aspects comes into play that do not
figure in operator movement: both objects may be promoted to subject status
in a passive construction, but different auxiliaries are used for the promotion
of direct and indirect objects:
(77) Passive formation in German double object constructions
a. jemand stiehlt dem Kind einen Schlüssel
someone.nom steals the.dat child a.acc key
b. ein Schlüssel wird dem Kind gestohlen
a.nom key is the.dat child stolen
c. das Kind bekam einen Schlüssel gestohlen
the.nom child got a.acc key stolen
“someone stole a key from the child”