So-Called ‘Double Objects’ and Grammatical Relations

Abstract

In a ‘double-object’ construction, which of the NPs after the verb is the real object? Contrary to standard assumptions, I shall show that it is the second NP, so the first is the (traditional) ‘indirect object’. This finding is important because it challenges the hypothesis that grammatical relations can be shown configurationally and supports the competing claim that grammatical relations are basic. The paper also suggests why judgments on some constructions are so divided; the reason is that three different grammars are all compatible with the same basic data, and differ only on the relatively rare patterns where the variation appears.