Object Shift and Scrambling

Yuji Takano, in Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, Vol. 16 No. 4, 1998

Central claims
• In English DP-PP frames, the accusative theme DP undergoes overt partial object shift
• This movement is better analyzed as a form of short scrambling to VP than as Case-checking
movement to the specifier of AgrO.
• Draws evidence from cross-linguistic comparison with Japanese double-complements.
• This movement is not inherently obligatory, but is made so by Attract-F and convergence.
• Necessarily also argues for short scrambling occurring in English at all.

The DP-PP frame

• A double-complement construction involving a theme DP and a goal PP
• For example: (54) a. John gave a book to Mary
• Structure described in Carnie (2007) pp. 387: theme DP generated in VP specifier, goal PP
in complement (a “Theme > Goal” hierarchy)
• Presents problems with pronouns in constructions with two PPs:
(36) a. I talked (quickly) to the boys about each other’s mothers.
(37) a.*I talked (quickly) to each other’s mothers about the boys.
• Contrast demonstrates that “In goal-theme order, the goal is structurally higher than the
theme.”

DP-PP frames in Japanese

• Japanese has very productive scrambling
• (6) a. John-ga Mary-ni hon-o ageta. b. John-ga hon-o Mary-ni ageta.
• Both translate as “John gave a book to Mary”; only difference is surface order.
• Evidence for default order given by pronouns: (7)
a. Mary-ga [subete-no gakusei]i -ni [soitui -no sensei]-o syookaisita.
b.*Mary-ga [soitui -no sensei]-ni [subete-no gakusei]i -o syookaisita.
• A goal phrase can bind a pronoun in the theme; a theme phrase cannot bind a pronoun in the
goal.
• Implies the goal is generated above the theme (a “Goal > Theme” hierarchy)
• “UG cannot attain explanatory adequacy unless the theory of parameters is sufficiently re-
stricted.”
• Functional Parametrization Hypothesis: “only functional elements in the lexicon are subject
to parametric variation”

An alternative description for English

• Double PP frames have slightly free movement: (43)
a. I talked to John about Mary.
b. I talked to Mary about John.
• Both are PPs, so the movement is not Case checking.
• Takano proposes short scrambling, and suggests that this also accounts for DP-PP frames.
• This accounts for (54)a: “a book” is scrambled to its final position, not generated there.
• However: (54) b. *John gave to Mary a book
• Short scrambling is optional in most cases; why is it obligatory here?

Attract-F
• Chomsky (1995) “argues that all feature-checking movement operations be ‘target-driven,’ in
the sense that a given head attracts the formal features of an element. Such operations are
called attract-f”.
• Attract-F can only occur between the attracting target and its closest element.
• “a book” must be adjacent to “gave” before case checking occurs, or “(to) Mary” pre-empts
its ability to check Case.
• Short scrambling can account for “a book” moving closer to “gave” before Case is checked.
• The scrambling movement itself is not obligatory, but the unscrambled form will crash at LF.

Chomsky, Noam. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1995.