earticle

영어

As noted by Simpson (1983), a resultative predicate can only be predicated of the underlying object. Levin and Rappaport Hovav (1995) generalized it as the Direct Object Restriction (DOR). Recently, Wechsler (1997, 2001) argues that the DOR is factually incorrect by citing some counter-examples to the DOR, and that this phenomenon turns out to be purely semantic after all. Despite Wechsler’s (1997, 2001) claims to the contrary, this paper aims to show the validity of syntactic approach to the DOR effects. Particularly, this paper concentrates on showing that Wechsler’s (1997, 2001) counter-examples are correctly explained under the DOR without relying on his semantic constraints. Rather, this paper argues that the DOR effects can be captured by proposing a proper syntactic structure. This paper proposes that a resultative is formed by a verb’s taking of a resultative SC complement, which is composed of a resultative predicate and its semantic subject DP. This proposal is based on another proposal that, in a resultative, the postverbal DP is a derived object just like an ECM object, and it is derived by movement from the resultative SC complement to the Spec of VP.