Logo Lanfrica
  • Home
  • Atlas
  • Insights
  • Docs
  • Sign in

© 2026 Lanfrica. All rights reserved. All copyrights of the resources shown on the Lanfrica website belong to the original copyright holders, unless explicitly stated otherwise.

Dominance vs. Precedence in the Double Object Construction: New Facts from Fongbe

Domain:

natural language processing

Record type:

paper
Creator:
Cla
Publisher:
Cam
Host:
Since the paper by Barss and Lasnik (1986), the fact that the double object construction exhibits Theme/Goal asymmetries has been the object of an important debate in the literature. The central question of this discussion is whether these asymmetries should be accounted for in terms of dominance (e.g., Larson 1988, 1990; Aoun and Li 1989; den Dikken 1991) or precedence (e.g., Barss and Lasnik 1986; Jackendoff 1990; Tremblay 1991). On the dominance account, the Goal must asymmetrically c-command the Theme (e.g., Larson 1988, 1990). On Barss and Lasnik’s account, the Goal and the Theme of the construction may symmetrically c-command each other but the Goal must precede the Theme. This proposal is captured in their definition of domain of (1986:352).

Visit

doi.org

Languages

Fon

Licenses

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms

Similar

New facts from Fongbe on the double object constructionsMovement from the Double Object Construction Is Not Fully Symmetrical

New facts from Fongbe on the double object constructions

Movement from the Double Object Construction Is Not Fully Symmetrical

A movement asymmetry arises in some languages that are otherwise symmetrical for both A- and Ā-movem