The double object constructions in Archaic Chinese*

2008 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-84
Author(s):  
Chiew Pheng PHUA ◽  
PHUA Chiew Pheng
Keyword(s):  
Low Frequency ◽  
Direct Object ◽  
Semantic Role ◽  
Double Object ◽  
Double Object Construction ◽  
Indirect Object ◽  
Object Construction ◽  
Archaic Chinese ◽  
Object Marking

This article demonstrates that double object constructions in Archaic Chinese display both patterns of direct and indirect object marking (DO+IO) and primary and secondary object marking (PO+SO). We propose two constraints to account for the grammatical distribution of GIVE verbs in the double object construction with PO+SO marking in Archaic Chinese. The first constraint is syntactic and explains why verbs like xiàn ? 'offer' cannot occur in the double object construction with PO+SO marking, unless the semantic role of recipient is available for mapping onto direct object in a monotransitive clause. A second constraint on animacy is proposed to explain the low frequency of two animate, particularly two human NPs, in the postverbal position for verbs like qī ? 'marry'.

On the Double Object Construction and the Oblique Construction in Cantonese

1997 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 105-127 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xu Liejiong ◽  
Alain Peyraube
Keyword(s):  
Linguistic Theory ◽  
Controversial Issue ◽  
Direct Object ◽  
Reverse Order ◽  
Double Object ◽  
Double Object Construction ◽  
Indirect Object ◽  
Object Construction ◽  
To Come ◽  
Focus Information

The double-object construction has always been a controversial issue in linguistic theory. In Chinese we encounter an interesting and peculiar situation: both Mandarin and Cantonese have the dative construction with the indirect object (IO) introduced by a dative preposition (V + DO + Prep. + IO), but when the preposition is absent, the indirect object always precedes the direct object (DO)) in Mandarin (V + IO + DO), while the reverse order is predominant in Cantonese (V + DO + IO). What is the origin of the Cantonese form V + DO + IO? In many previous studies, V + DO + IO is said to come from V + IO + DO. In this paper we first show that neither synchronic nor diachronic evidence favors the Movement Hypothesis that V + DO + IO is derived from V + IO + DO. The former is not a free variant of the latter. We then argue, synchronically and diachronically, that V + DO + IO is derived from V + DO + Prep. + IO by Preposition Deletion. The two forms share the same constraints in relation to the semantic nature of the verbs and the focus information transmitted by the two objects (DO and IO).

scholarly journals The semantics of the aan-construction in 16th-century Dutch: A semasiological and onomasiological approach

Literator ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dario Rens
Keyword(s):  
Direct Object ◽  
16Th Century ◽  
Double Object ◽  
Double Object Construction ◽  
Indirect Object ◽  
Dative Alternation ◽  
Object Construction ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Ditransitive Verbs

This article focuses on the semantics of the Dutch aan-construction [NP V NP aan NP], for example, Jan geeft een boek aan Piet (‘Jan gives a book to Piet’) in the 16th-century. In modern Dutch the aan-construction is used as an alternative to the Dutch double object construction, but previous research suggests that the use of ditransitive verbs in the Dutch aan-construction is only a 16th-century innovation – this alternation is called the ‘dative alternation’. However, it is not clear which ditransitive verbs initiated the dative alternation. Colleman (2010) believes that the first instances of the ditransitive use of the aan-construction are concrete physical movements of the direct object from the subject to the indirect object; however, he argues there is no quantitative proof to support those claims. In a self-compiled corpus of 16th-century Dutch, this article tries to find the evidence which is needed to underpin Colleman’s hypothesis by making use of the distinctive collexeme analysis and its diachronic variant. The results show that the first ditransitive instances of the aan-construction are indeed concrete uses, but that there is also an increase in the metaphorical use of the construction.

scholarly journals Explaining Siewierska’s generalization

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Hallman
Keyword(s):  
Prepositional Phrase ◽  
Double Object ◽  
Double Object Construction ◽  
Accusative Case ◽  
Indirect Object ◽  
Case Marking ◽  
Dative Case ◽  
Object Construction

AbstractThis article presents an explanation for a cross-linguistic gap observed by Anna Siewierska: morphologically unmarked indirect objects may alternate with prepositional marking in what is sometimes called a ‘dative’ or ‘prepositional-dative’ ditransitive frame, but never with actual dative case marking. ‘Dative’, to the extent it alternates with accusative, is always expressed as a preposition. I show firstly that German, which has a robust dative case paradigm, also displays a double object alternation in which the erstwhile dative DP occurs in a prepositional phrase, meaning both accusative (in English) and dative (in German) indirect objects alternate with prepositional encoding. I construct an analysis in which the the indirect object may be generated as either a DP (which receives dative in German and accusative in English) or a PP in the same theta position. This characterization of the double object alternation does not admit an alternation between dative and accusative case on the indirect object, capturing Siewierska’s generalization. The analysis also extends to ‘symmetric’ passive languages, in which either object in the double object construction can be raised to subject in the passive. Some current perspectives on this phenomenon make such languages exceptions to Siewierska’s generalization, but not the analysis proposed here.

scholarly journals Movement from the Double Object Construction Is Not Fully Symmetrical

2019 ◽  
Vol 50 (4) ◽  
pp. 677-722 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anders Holmberg ◽  
Michelle Sheehan ◽  
Jenneke van der Wal
Keyword(s):  
Double Object ◽  
Phase Theory ◽  
Double Object Construction ◽  
North West ◽  
Bantu Languages ◽  
Object Construction ◽  
Object Marking ◽  
Object Agreement ◽  
Phase Impenetrability Condition ◽  
Movement Asymmetry

A movement asymmetry arises in some languages that are otherwise symmetrical for both A- and Ā-movement in the double object construction, including Norwegian, North-West British English, and a range of Bantu languages including Zulu and Lubukusu: a Theme object can be Ā-moved out of a Recipient (Goal) passive, but not vice versa. Our explanation of this asymmetry is based on phase theory— more specifically, a stricter version of the Phase Impenetrability Condition proposed by Chomsky (2001) . The effect is that, in a Theme passive, a Recipient object destined for the C-domain gets trapped within the lower V-related phase by movement of the Theme. The same effect is observed in Italian, a language in which only Theme passives are possible. A similar effect is also found in some Bantu languages in connection with object marking/agreement: object agreement with the Theme in a Recipient passive is possible, but not vice versa. We show that this, too, can be understood within the theory that we articulate.

Indirect objects in Siswati

1987 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 309-326
Author(s):  
Videa P. De Guzman
Keyword(s):  
Object Relations ◽  
Word Order ◽  
Direct Object ◽  
Double Object ◽  
Bantu Languages ◽  
Indirect Object ◽  
Object Properties ◽  
Relational Grammar ◽  
Ditransitive Constructions

Contrary to the view that in Bantu languages the two unmarked nominals following the verb in ditransitive constructions need not be distinguished because both possess the same object properties, this paper shows the necessity of making a distinction between the direct object and the indirect object relations. Evidence comes from SiSwati, the language of Swaziland, and the analysis of the data is cast in the Relational Grammar framework. The arguments presented refer to word order, object concord (or pronominal copy) and the interaction between object concord and some syntactic phenomena such as passivization, topicalization, relativization, and clefting. By distinguishing the direct object from the indirect object in Siswati, the grammar is able to provide a more natural account for a number of related double object constructions.

scholarly journals Locating variation in the dative alternation

2016 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 151-182 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alison Biggs
Keyword(s):  
Double Object ◽  
British English ◽  
Double Object Construction ◽  
Dative Alternation ◽  
Object Construction ◽  
Main Variety ◽  
Syntactic Properties

This paper investigates the structure of the dative alternation in dialects of Northwest British English. This includes theme passivization of apparent Double Object Constructions (It was given her). Detailed investigation shows that different dialects use distinct licensing strategies to derive the Theme passive structure. The main variety discussed is Liverpool English, where Theme passivisation is shown to derive from a prepositional dative with a null preposition. In contrast, Manchester English, a neighbouring variety, derives Theme passives of the Double Object Construction, via an Applicative configuration (Haddican 2010, Haddican and Holmberg 2012). The study shows that a range of syntactic properties and restrictions on a structure can be traced back to variation in the functional lexicon.

scholarly journals Penggunaan Ungkapan Beri-Terima Bahasa Jepang dalam Novel Shiro no Naka no Hito Karya Hoshi Shin’ichi

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 167-197
Author(s):  
Ana Wuri Retnaningrum
Keyword(s):  
Data Analysis ◽  
Social Distance ◽  
Semantic Analysis ◽  
Direct Object ◽  
Indirect Object ◽  
Vertical Distance ◽  
Pragmatic Analysis ◽  
Data Source

This paper discusses the use of yari-morai phrase (jujuhyougen) found in a novel data source titled Shiro no Naka no Hito. The purpose of this study is to describe the use of expressions of acceptance using Natsuko Tsujimura's theory. The items analyzed in this study are the function, role, and social distance of each argument. From the data analysis, it is found that when analyzed in a syntactic way, each argument functions as a subject and is a direct object or an indirect object. In semantic analysis, from the use of his verb, every argument plays the role of agent and beneficiary. Whereas from the use of passive expressions, each argument acts as a source and a goal. If pragmatic analysis is used, the use of the expressions is influenced by the vertical distance. However, formal situations are more important than existing vertical distances. So that also affects the use of proper expressions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document