Double Objects Revisited: Reply to Jackendoff

Jackendoff (1990) discusses the analysis of double objects proposed in Larson (1988), taking issue with the general analysis and many of its specific claims. In this article I review Jackendoff’s points concerning linear order and binding (section 1), structure projection (section 2), complement alternations (section 3), Dative Shift (section 4), and modifiers and nonconstituent conjunction (section 5). I argue that the prospects of the analysis in Larson (1988) are not nearly so bleak as Jackendoff portrays them-that the questions he raises can be answered in natural ways, and that the counterproposals he makes are not superior to the views originally suggested.