https://i.imgur.com/ryUKILo.png 「玉山語言學沙龍」講座來了 講題：The asymmetry of implicit arguments 講者：銘傳大學王昱勻教授 時間：2月22日（六）上午10點 地點：Google Meet 線上會議 主持人：臺灣師範大學吳曉虹教授 與談人：高雄師範大學魏廷冀教授 報名連結：https://forms.gle/NnXzozLsza7NBgNu5 Abstract Bruening's (2021) research on the English double object construction (DOC) reveals a critical asymmetry between indirect and direct objects that challenges previous theoretical frameworks. In sluicing constructions, Bruening discovers that the second (direct) object can license sluicing when implicit, while the first (indirect) object cannot. This finding suggests that the direct object is a genuine argument of the lexical verb, whereas the indirect object is projected by a functional Applicative head, diverging from analyses by Larson (1988), Pesetsky (1995), and Pylkkänen (2008). Extending this investigation to Chinese DOCs uncovers both parallels and complexities. Chinese DOCs can be categorized into two types based on the presence or absence of the morpheme gei. Despite this structural diversity, the asymmetrical patterns of implicit arguments in (pseudo-)sluicing remain consistent across both languages. Furthermore, the mechanisms for handling implicit arguments in (pseudo-)sluicing differ between English and Chinese. English primarily employs the sprouting analysis (Chung et al. 1995), while Chinese relies on topicalization and variable binding strategies (Li and Wei 2017). However, neither approach fully explains the observed asymmetries in argument behavior. In this respect, adopting Rudin's (2019) identity condition helps explain why the implicit indirect object cannot license the sluiced wh- phrase. Extending Bruening's proposal to Chinese DOCs further supports the hypothesis that direct and indirect objects are projected by distinct syntactic heads. The overt marking of the High Applicative head by gei in Chinese provides empirical support for this structural differentiation. This study demonstrates that core arguments maintain their interpretability even when implicit, whereas non-core arguments lack this capacity. Notably, in ( pseudo-)sluicing, the occurrence of the indirect object in an antecedent clause entails the existence of the direct object, but not vice versa. --

※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 111.255.121.91 (臺灣) ※ 文章網址: https://webptt.com/m.aspx?n=bbs/Linguistics/M.1739364708.A.CC5.html