Abstract
This paper delves into some properties of double object constructions (DOCs) cross-linguistically in English and Uzbek, centering around the passivization of an indirect object (IO) and a direct object (DO). The two objects of DOCs exhibit a cross-linguistic asymmetry in terms of passivization. That is, DO is freely passivized, but IO is somewhat restricted or prohibited in passivization across languages. Uzbek likewise allows DO to be freely passivized but prohibits IO from being passivized. This intuitive L1 knowledge of Uzbek EFL learners has a great impact on their perception of English DOCs, as demonstrated in the survey among 50 Uzbek EFL learners, who perceive IO-passivization as ungrammatical (51.0%) and weird (11.0%). We attribute the illicitness of IO-passivization in Uzbek to our proposal that IO is a postpositional phrase (PP) per se, not an NP, headed by the suffix -ga attached to IO. We argue that the suffix -ga is actually a postposition (P), not incorporated into V in the sense of Baker (1988), which thereby hinders IO from being passivized as instantiated in pseudo-passives in English.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: The Journal of Mirae English Language and Literature
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
