Show Less
Restricted access

Applicative Arguments

A Syntactic and Semantic Investigation of German and English


Solveig Bosse

Applicative Arguments: A Syntactic and Semantic Investigation of German and English presents formal semantic and syntactic analyses of German and English applicative arguments. These arguments are nominal elements that are not obligatory parts of a sentence. Both German and English have several types of applicative arguments, including so-called benefactive and malefactive constructions. More specifically, the research relies on tests to differentiate the different types of applicative arguments based on this contribution to meaning: Some applicatives contribute only not-at-issue meaning, whereas others contribute only at-issue meaning, and still others contribute both types of meaning. These tests are applied to both German and English to uniquely identify the applicative arguments in each language. Formal analyses of the identified type of applicative arguments are presented that provide an account for each type of applicative identified for each language, explaining the applicatives’ differences and similarities.
Show Summary Details
Restricted access



Abraham, W. (1973). The Ethic Dative in German. In Kiefer, F. and Ruwet, N., editors, Generative Grammar in Europe, pages 1–19. D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht.

Abraham, W. (2006). Datives: structural vs. inherent - abstract vs. morphological - autonomous vs. combinatory - universally vs. language-specifically configured. In Hole, D., Meinunger, A., and Abraham, W., editors, Datives and other cases, pages 3 – 46. John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Authier, J.-M. and Reed, L. (1992). Case theory, theta theory, and the distribution of French affected datives. In Bates, D., editor, The Proceedings of the Tenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, pages 27–40, Stanford, California. Center for the Study of Language and Information.

Bale, A. (2007). Quantifiers and Verb Phrases: An exploration of propositional complexity. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 25:447–483.

Barss, A. and Lasnik, H. (1986). A note on anaphora and double objects. Linguistic Inquiry, 17:347–354.

Beck, S. and Johnson, K. (2004). Double objects again. Linguistic Inquiry, 35:97–123.

Beck, S. and Snyder, W. (2001). Complex predicates and goal PPs: Evidence for a semantic parameter. In Do, A., Dominguez, L., and Aimee, J., editors, BUCLD 25: Proceedings of the 25th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, volume 1, pages 114–122. Cascadilla Press.

Behagel, O. (1932). Deutsche Syntax, volume 4. Heidelberg.

Berman, R. (1982). Dative marking of the affectee role: Data from Modern Hebrew. Hebrew Annual...

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.

Do you have any questions? Contact us.

Or login to access all content.