Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-w5vf4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-24T10:46:48.097Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On ‘Generating indirect objects in English’: a reply to Allerton1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Roger Hawkins
Roger Hawkins
Affiliation:
Department of French, University of Sheffield
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

I. In a recent article in this journal, Allerton (1978) calls into question the status of a transformational rule - usually called Dative Movement - which relates sentences like: (1) (a) Jim gave a present to Margaret. (b) Jim bought a drink for Margaret. to sentences where the prepositions to/for are not present, and where Margaret immediately follows the verb: (2) (a) Jim gave Margaret a present. (b) Jim bought Margaret a drink.

His argument is based in particular on the observation of those construtions involving the preposition for.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , March 1981 , pp. 1 - 9
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Allerton, D. J. (1978). Generating indirect objects in English. JL 14, 21–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emonds, J. (1976). A transformational approach to English syntax. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1965). Indirect object constructions in English and the ordering of transformations. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Gruber, J. S. (1965). Studies in lexical relations. Doctoral dissertation, M.I.T.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. S. (1972). Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, Mass: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. S. (1975). French syntax: the transformational cycle. Cambridge, Mass: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1970). Irregularity in syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1972). The category squish: Endstation Hauptwort. PCLS 8.Google Scholar