Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
In this article, we reply to the objections raised against a connection between double object constructions (DOCs) and to-constructions and present new arguments showing the empirical and theoretical advantages of derivational analyses over nonderivational ones. We argue that to-constructions and DOCs share a common substructure—where the theme is higher than the goal—that construction-based analyses fail to capture, both crosslinguistically and English-internally. We also argue that variation in the lexical properties of verbs and adpositions is the right tool to account for the alternation.
Ormazabal et al. (Tue,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: