International Journal of Recent Innovations in Academic Research Open Access, Peer Reviewed, Abstracted and Indexed Journal E-ISSN: 2635-3040; P-ISSN: 2659-1561 Homepage: https://www.ijriar.com/ Volume-5, Issue-10, Oct-2021: 8-18 8 Research Article The Theory of Universals and the Problem of Double Object Constructions Kparou, Hanoukoume Cyril 1 , Ph.D. and Kalejaye, Abiola 2 , Ph.D. Babcock University, Nigeria Corresponding Author Email: kparouh@babcock.edu.ng Received: September 17, 2021 Accepted: September 29, 2021 Published: October 6, 2021 Abstract: The SVOO prototype structures (Subject-Verb-Object-Object) present different features across languages. The first researchers to address the subject proposed five postulates to determine the double object constructions. These principles have been considered as part of syntactic universals, and later, as principles of Universal Grammar. The principles are scrutinized in this paper, drawing data from two languages, French (Roman language) and Lama (Gur language). The data clearly show that two of these principles can be reconsidered because of their questionable status. Just like French which has a DOC (Double Object Construction) marked by the presence of a dative morpheme, Lama illustrates a type of DOC with a morphological marker, intermediate between the two objects. However, Lama has a specificity, because the order of the two objects is interchangeable without changing the meaning. In light of this analysis, it appears that the principles of rigid order and the presence of an intermediate formal marker (or linked to an object as in French), do not have the legitimacy of universals. Keywords: Double Object Construction, Prepositional Object Construction, Minimalist Program, Syntactic Order, Universals. 1. Introduction The determination of a Double Object Construction has traditionally been based on five restrictive postulates, which can be summarized as follows: (a) both objects are required, (b) both objects have uniform and universal semantic roles, (c) the syntactic category of both objects is DP (Determiner Phrase), (d) the order of the objects is fixed, (e) there is no formal marker for either object. According to Michaelis and Hapselmath (2003), these principles are universals because they believe they apply to all languages. If any of the principles fails, the DOC becomes a POC (Prepositional Object Construction). These postulates are formulated after studies in European languages, especially English (cf. Jaeggli, 1982, Michaelis and Hapselmath, 2003). In comparison with English, all other languages that do not manifest such postulates are said to be without Double Object Construction, and French was said to be a non-DOC language considering the following data. 1) a. Henry sent Obama a stamp; b. *Henry a envoyé Obama un timbre 2) a. Henry sent a stamp to Obama; b. Henry a envoyé un timbre à Obama These data mean that French does not have a direct equivalent of sentence (1a). Since one cannot construct an SVOO structure in French without the preposition “à” (to) (which justifies the ungrammaticality of the sentence (1b), it was classified as a non-DOC language. Many linguists wrote to rebuke that assumption, and tried to show that French is a DOC language, starting with Kayne (1975) who questions the prepositional status of “à” (to) in French, then Fournier (2010:120) who states: “Jean a donné le livre à Marie est une CDO” (Jean gave the book to Marie is a DOC).