{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03761755485893417, 'fraction_numerical': 0.023510971786833857, 'mean_word_length': 5.259803921568627, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Phases and the syntax of applicatives

Until recently, cross-linguistic differences in the syntax of applicative constructions have been attributed to arbitrary variation (e.g. Baker 1988, Bresnan & Moshi 1990, Marantz 1993, Ura 1996). For example, it has been argued (McGinnis 1998a, 1998b) that Amovement, like A-bar movement, respects relativized minimality, and that crosslinguistic variations in the formation of the double-object construction arise from the presence or absence of an “escape hatch,” which allows the lower object to leapfrog over the higher one to the subject position. Like other accounts that assume arbitrary variation, this account raises a serious learnability question: how could a child learn whether such an escape hatch is available? The present paper offers the beginnings of an answer to this question. The central proposal is that a substantial amount of the cross-linguistic variation in properties of “applicative” constructions (such as the double-object construction) is reducible to a lexical parameter. The lexicon contains one or more applicative (Appl) heads, which may denote a relation between an event and an individual, or a relation between two individuals (Pylkkänen 2000). (1a) shows the first type, and (1b) shows the second.