Double Objects Again

By Sigrid Beck, Kyle B. Johnson. Linguistic Inquiry, 2004

244 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Language and Linguistics, Philosophy

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a0678132556a17e30b6ce4642e146cca32b5a283

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Artificial Intelligence

1. Beth Levin
2. Malka Rappaport Hovav
3. E. Anagnostopoulou
4. Benjamin Bruening
5. John Beavers
6. S. Miyagawa
7. Takae Tsujioka

In Language and Linguistics

1. Beth Levin
2. Malka Rappaport Hovav
3. E. Anagnostopoulou
4. Benjamin Bruening
5. John Beavers
6. David Embick
7. S. Miyagawa
8. Takae Tsujioka

In Philosophy

1. Beth Levin
2. Malka Rappaport Hovav
3. E. Anagnostopoulou
4. Benjamin Bruening

Citations in the corpus

• The English dative alternation: The case for verb sensitivity1 (2008, background): “…between the variants : each is associated with its own meaning, though these are not always truth-conditionally distinguishable, and each gives rise to its own realization of arguments (e.g., Beck & Johnson 2004; Goldberg 1992, 1995; Hale & Keyser 2002; Harley 2003; Krifka 1999, 2004; Pinker 1989).”
• Ditransitive Asymmetries and a Theory of Idiom Formation (2010, methodology): “Beck and Johnson (2004) capture this intention by including a progressive operator in the semantics (see their article for discussion).”
• Cross-linguistic and cross-categorial variation of datives* (2004, background): “As discussed in Kayne (1984), Pesetsky (1995), Marantz (1997), Beck and Johnson (2004), among others, nominalizations cannot have the double object construction as their input, while nominalizations based on the to-construction are well formed:”