In support of the PHAVE analysis of the double object construction

Heidi B Harley, Hyun Kyoung Jung

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

29 Scopus citations


Pylkkänen (2002, 2008) and Bruening (2010a) present several arguments against the “small clause” approach to the double object construction in English, building on the predictions that that proposal makes with respect to the transfer-of-possession entailment, Goaloriented depictives, nominalizations, subextraction, quantifier scope, and idioms. We argue that the small clause analysis proposed by Harley (1995, 2002) in fact makes correct predictions in all these cases. In addition, we point out the existence of previously overlooked parallels between double object structures and have-sentences with respect to depictives, eventive DP complements, and quantifier scope. This motivates an analysis that links these different behaviors to the properties of a single PHAVE element common to both.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)703-730
Number of pages28
JournalLinguistic Inquiry
Issue number4
StatePublished - Oct 1 2015


  • Applicatives
  • Depictives
  • Ditransitive constructions
  • Possession
  • Small clauses

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Language and Linguistics
  • Linguistics and Language


Dive into the research topics of 'In support of the PHAVE analysis of the double object construction'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this