Indirect Objects - Reconsidered

The existence of a universal syntactic category of indirect O (IO) displaying a cluster of coherent morphological & syntactic properties is challenged by L. M. Faltz (see LLBA 15/1, 8100480). Faltz argues that IO is a semantic category with three major morphological manifestations: "direct O," (DO) "oblique," & "dative." English is claimed to have no syntactically relevant IO category. This claim is refuted. It is shown that: (1) the NP immediately following the ditransitive V in the unmarked case in Eng - the IO - does not behave like a DO with respect to processes such as tough movement, nominalization with, of, relative clause formation, & topicalization; & (2) that the IO is distinct from its oblique counterpart with respect to the accessibility to passivization, quantifier postposing, tough movement, relative clause formation, & topicalization. Establishment of DO, IO, & oblique NP as separate categories for English has implications for the existing "universal" hierarchies of NP accessibility & for grammatical relations in general. Modified AA