Spanish Passivized Datives: The Relevance of Misanalysis
According to XVIIth century puritan thought (cf. Taylor 1989), God doesn’t care much for Direct Objects, meaning: what you do is not as important as how you do it. Thus, Joseph Hall’s famous line: “God loveth adverbs”. Humoring the puritan’s grammatical metaphor we can speculate that God’s second love falls on Indirect Objects, the dative beneficiaries of one’s actions. And it is of God’s second love that I’ll write here; in particular about certain seemingly ill-behaved Spanish Indirect Objects that undergo Passivization. Towards the end, I will be recommending a treatment that has the unfortunate consequence of removing them altogether from God’s affection.
KeywordsRelative Clause Direct Object Indirect Object Complement Clause PASSIVIZED Dative
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Barwise, J.: 1981, ‘Scenes and Other Situations’, The Journal of Philosophy, LXXVIII.Google Scholar
- Bresnan, J.: 1982, ‘Control and complementation’, Linguistic Inquiry, 13.3.Google Scholar
- Higginbotham, J.: 1983, ‘The Logic of Perceptual Reports: An Extensional Alternative to Situation Semantics’, The Journal of Philosophy, LXXX.Google Scholar
- Plann, S.: 1986, ‘Case-Marking Clauses in Spanish: Evidence against the Case Resistance Principle’, Linguistic Inquiry, 17, 336–346.Google Scholar
- Taylor, C: 1989, Sources of the Self, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar