Fall 2015, Vol. 46, No. 4, Pages 703-730
Pylkkänen (2002, 2008) and Bruening (2010a) present several arguments against the ‘‘small clause’’ approach to the double object construction in English, building on the predictions that that proposal makes with respect to the transfer-of-possession entailment, Goal-oriented depictives, nominalizations, subextraction, quantifier scope, and idioms. We argue that the small clause analysis proposed by Harley (1995, 2002) in fact makes correct predictions in all these cases. In addition, we point out the existence of previously overlooked parallels between double object structures and have-sentences with respect to depictives, eventive DP complements, and quantifier scope. This motivates an analysis that links these different behaviors to the properties of a single PHAVE element common to both.