https://i.imgur.com/ryUKILo.png
“玉山语言学沙龙”讲座来了
讲题：The asymmetry of implicit arguments
讲者：铭传大学王昱匀教授
时间：2月22日（六）上午10点
地点：Google Meet 线上会议
主持人：台湾师范大学吴晓虹教授
与谈人：高雄师范大学魏廷冀教授
报名连结：https://forms.gle/NnXzozLsza7NBgNu5
Abstract
Bruening's (2021) research on the English double object construction (DOC)
reveals a critical asymmetry between indirect and direct objects that
challenges previous theoretical frameworks. In sluicing constructions,
Bruening discovers that the second (direct) object can license sluicing when
implicit, while the first (indirect) object cannot. This finding suggests that
the direct object is a genuine argument of the lexical verb, whereas the
indirect object is projected by a functional Applicative head, diverging from
analyses by Larson (1988), Pesetsky (1995), and Pylkkänen (2008). Extending
this investigation to Chinese DOCs uncovers both parallels and complexities.
Chinese DOCs can be categorized into two types based on the presence or
absence of the morpheme gei. Despite this structural diversity, the
asymmetrical patterns of implicit arguments in (pseudo-)sluicing remain
consistent across both languages. Furthermore, the mechanisms for handling
implicit arguments in (pseudo-)sluicing differ between English and Chinese.
English primarily employs the sprouting analysis (Chung et al. 1995), while
Chinese relies on topicalization and variable binding strategies (Li and Wei
2017). However, neither approach fully explains the observed asymmetries in
argument behavior. In this respect, adopting Rudin's (2019) identity condition
helps explain why the implicit indirect object cannot license the sluiced wh-
phrase. Extending Bruening's proposal to Chinese DOCs further supports the
hypothesis that direct and indirect objects are projected by distinct
syntactic heads. The overt marking of the High Applicative head by gei in
Chinese provides empirical support for this structural differentiation. This
study demonstrates that core arguments maintain their interpretability even
when implicit, whereas non-core arguments lack this capacity. Notably, in (
pseudo-)sluicing, the occurrence of the indirect object in an antecedent
clause entails the existence of the direct object, but not vice versa.