scholarly journals Double object constructions and dative / accusative alternations in Spanish and Catalan: A unified account

2013 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 57 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Pineda
Keyword(s):  
Font Size ◽  
Double Object ◽  
Clitic Doubling ◽  
Indirect Object ◽  
Dative Alternation ◽  
Transitivity Alternations ◽  
Object Marking ◽  
Ditransitive Constructions

<span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" lang="EN-US">This paper has a twofold aim: to present a unified analysis of ditransitive constructions and transitivity alternations (dative/accusative alternations) in Spanish. As for the first phenomenon, and more concretely the purported existence in Spanish of something comparable to the English dative alternation, we will show the weaknesses of what we consider an analysis fruit of the tendency consisting of finding in the Romance area an exact reflex of English facts. Therefore, we will refute the hypothesis defended by several authors (Masullo 1992, Demonte 1995, Romero 1997, Cuervo 2003a,b) according to which Spanish ditransitive constructions with dative clitic doubling correspond to double object constructions (DOC), whereas non-doubled constructions correspond to the so-called prepositional constructions (PC), or <em>to-</em>dative, in English. After a careful and exhaustive examination of the data, we will argue that Spanish (and Catalan) ditransitive constructions instantiate DOC, whether they bear clitic doubling or not. &nbsp;Pronominalization facts in Catalan, a language which preserves prepositional clitics, will support this analysis, based on the postulation of an affectedness/possession restriction with gradual implementation. As for the second phenomenon of study, the existence of true case alternations in Spanish, we will argue that we are dealing with a kind of variation constrained by the same restriction (or a version of it) which acts in the realm of ditransitive predicates. Here, also, Catalan data will reveal crucial for our analysis. Crucially, we will show that what lies behind Spanish and Catalan dative/accusative alternation is an instance of Differential Indirect Object Marking (DIOM</span>

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.

A multivariate analysis of the Old English ACC+DAT double object alternation

2015 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ludovic De Cuypere
Keyword(s):  
Logistic Regression ◽  
Multivariate Analysis ◽  
Regression Analysis ◽  
Old English ◽  
Mixed Effects ◽  
Cognitive Mechanisms ◽  
Double Object ◽  
British English ◽  
Indirect Object ◽  
Dative Alternation

AbstractIn Old English, the ditransitive construction with an accusative (direct) object and a dative (indirect) object occurred with two alternating object orders: ACC-DAT vs. DAT-ACC. This study examines the motivations behind the OE speakers’ choice for one of both orders. The effect of 16 factors was evaluated based on a corpus sample of N = 2409 sentences drawn from the York-Toronto-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Old English Prose (Taylor et al. 2003). The data was analysed by means of a mixed-effects logistic regression analysis. The results indicate that the ACC+DAT alternation was largely driven by the same factors that motivate the dative alternation in later stages of British English. However, no evidence was found for specific verb preferences in Old English, which suggests that the OE object alternation was less driven by semantics than the dative alternation in PDE. It is argued that the results further substantiate Wolk et al.’s (2012) claim that the cognitive mechanisms underlying present-day probabilistic patterns also underlie past variation.

Information structure in canonical and scrambled dative orders in L2 Korean

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (s1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kyae-Sung Park
Keyword(s):  
Information Structure ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
Syntactic Complexity ◽  
Double Object ◽  
Indirect Object ◽  
Null Arguments ◽  
Dative Alternation ◽  
New Information ◽  
The Given ◽  
L1 English

AbstractThe Given-before-New Principle holds in adult speech: Given information tends to precede new information. For instance, in the English dative alternation, the given-theme – i.e., the direct object [DO] – tends to precede the new-recipient – i.e., the indirect object [IO] – in the prepositional dative (e.g., John gave the books to some children), while the given-recipient tends to precede the new-theme in the double object dative (e.g., John gave the children some books). Likewise, in Korean datives, the given-recipient tends to occur earlier in the canonical [IO–DO] order, while the given-theme tends to occur earlier in the scrambled [DO–IO] order. This study investigates whether L1-English adult L2ers of Korean, who have knowledge of the Given-before-New Principle in their L1, automatically adhere to it in their interlanguage. L2ers’ choices between canonical and scrambled dative orders were tested using novel oral contextualized preference tasks. The native speakers of Korean overwhelmingly complied with the Given-before-New Principle. However, the intermediate-to-advanced L2ers exhibited a strong bias for the (default) canonical [IO–DO] order, which apparently overrode the Given-before-New Principle. The findings of analyses by group and by individual are discussed in terms of frequency, syntactic complexity, processing, and null arguments.

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'.

Differential Object Marking and the nature of dative Case in Basque varieties*

2014 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 289-317 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ane Odria
Keyword(s):  
Exceptional Case ◽  
Differential Object Marking ◽  
Functional Head ◽  
Indirect Object ◽  
Case Marking ◽  
Dative Case ◽  
Verbal Agreement ◽  
Object Marking ◽  
Secondary Predication ◽  
Ditransitive Constructions

This article analyzes the nature of Differential Object Marking (DOM) in Basque varieties. It demonstrates that, despite their identical dative morphology, DOM objects display a different syntax to goal indirect objects. Based on the licensing of depictive secondary predication and on the absolutive marking of non-human and indefinite objects, it argues that DOM objects are generated in a direct rather than indirect object configuration. Moreover, given the tight relation between case and agreement in ditransitive constructions and the possibility to check Case in Exceptional Case Marking (ECM) contexts, it proposes that dative Case in DOM is structurally checked in an Agree relation against a functional head of the verbal agreement complex. The article thus identifies a different dative argument which has not been previously characterized in this manner: one that does not originate within an applicative or postpositional phrase and checks Case structurally.

Revisiting the alignment typology of ditransitive constructions in Chinese dialects

2011 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 87-259 ◽  
Author(s):  
Min Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Strongly Correlated ◽  
Double Object ◽  
Dative Alternation ◽  
Southern Chinese ◽  
Archaic Chinese ◽  
Comprehensive Survey ◽  
Northern Chinese ◽  
Chinese Dialects ◽  
Internal And External Factors ◽  
Ditransitive Constructions

With data from over a thousand regional varieties of Chinese, the paper presents a comprehensive survey of ditransitive constructions in Chinese dialects and their alignment types, focusing in particular on delving in system-internal and external factors correlating with the observed typological distinctions. It starts with questioning the validity of one of Hashimoto’s (1976) well-known parameters for North-South typological classification of Chinese – i.e., the double object construction (DOC) takes the form of V-OR-OT in Northern Chinese and V-OT-OR in Southern Chinese, the latter also known as the ‘Inverted DOC’ (IDOC), – based on the fact that two distinct groups of Southern Chinese, i.e., Min and Southwestern Mandarin spoken in Southwestern China, tally unexpectedly with Northern Chinese and only allow the form of V-OR-OT. It is subsequently found that the distinction is strongly correlated with the typology of the generalpurpose verb of giving (the verb ‘to give’). All dialects with DOC possess an underived ditransitive verb ‘to give’, whereas those with IDOC in general lack such as verb, using instead the combination of a monotransitive handling verb and an allative preposition, i.e., the dative construction in the form of ‘take OT to OR’, to express the ‘give’-type ditransitive event. This finding naturally leads to the following conclusions: (1) it is the loss of the verb ‘to give’ that triggers the loss of DOC in the latter group of dialects, which consequently renders the dative construction as the only ‘give’-type ditransitive construction in such dialects; (2) the IDOC is in nature an indirective construction (dative construction) with merely the dative marker left out, and the driving force of the omission is nothing but a high usage frequency of the indirective construction. It is further observed that the English-like dative alternation between the DOC and the dative construction existing in Chinese for thousands of years since Archaic Chinese is only preserved in a small fraction of its modern varieties. The majority of Chinese dialects have undergone a typological shift from the mixed type to either the DOC-type (predominantly Northern Chinese) or the indirectivetype (predominantly Southern Chinese), motivated by the systerm-external factor (Altaization of Northern Chinese in the former case) and the systerm-internal factor (loss of the verb ‘to give’ in the latter case) respectively

This is not the Case of the Indirect Object: Linguistic and Sociolinguistic Factors in Double Object Marking Constructions in a Contact Variety of Spanish from Eastern North Carolina

2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 367-382
Author(s):  
Ricard Viñas-de-Puig
Keyword(s):  
North Carolina ◽  
Study Participant ◽  
Double Object ◽  
Nominal Phrase ◽  
Indirect Object ◽  
Initial Hypothesis ◽  
Object Marking ◽  
Eastern North Carolina ◽  
Pitt County ◽  
Significant Factors

This article presents the results of a sociolinguistic study focusing on the expression of double object marking constructions (DbOM) in the contact variety of Spanish spoken in Pitt County, North Carolina. For the purposes of this article, DbOM constructions are defined as those utterances in which an accusative or dative clitic co-occurs with a coreferential overt nominal phrase. The data resulting from study participant interviews were analyzed to contrast the availability and variation of DbOM constructions with respect to sociolinguistic and linguistic factors. Confirming the initial hypothesis stemming from the absence of any type of argument doubling in English, the study’s results reveal that extent of daily English use in Pitt County is a significant factor in the expression of DbOM constructions. Moreover, and in agreement with the third proposed hypothesis, the case assigned to the doubled argument as well as the type of predicate, rather than the contrast between direct and indirect objects, are significant factors in the type of object doubling observed.

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 Which comes first in the double object construction?

2015 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 247-268 ◽  
Author(s):  
NURIA YÁÑEZ-BOUZA ◽  
DAVID DENISON
Keyword(s):  
Direct Object ◽  
List Type ◽  
Type Number ◽  
Double Object ◽  
Dialectal Variation ◽  
Indirect Object ◽  
Dative Alternation ◽  
History Of ◽  
A Minor ◽  
Late Modern

Competition between two methods of marking recipient/beneficiary and theme has figured in much recent research:(1)Jim gave the driver £5.   (indirect object before direct object)(2)Jim gave £5 to the driver.   (direct object before prepositional phrase)A reverse double object variant is often ignored or treated as a minor and highly restricted variant:(3)(a)?Jim gave £5 the driver.   (direct object before indirect object)(b)Jim gave it him.However, pattern (3) was much more widespread even in late Modern English, while there is clear dialectal variation within present-day British English.In this article we investigate the pronominal pattern (3b), mainly in relation to pattern (1), tracking its progressive restriction in distribution. We mine three of the Penn parsed corpora for the general history in English of double object patterns with two pronoun objects. We then add a further nine dialect and/or historical English corpora selected for coverage and representativeness. A usage database of examples in these corpora allows more detailed description than has been possible hitherto. The analysis focuses on verb lemmas, objects and dialect variation and offers an important corrective to the bulk of research on the so-called Dative Alternation between patterns (1) and (2). We also examine works in the normative grammatical tradition, producing a precept database that reveals the changing status of variants as dialectal or preferred. In our conclusion we show the importance of prefabricated expressions (prefabs) in the later history of (3), sketching an analysis in Construction Grammar terms.

Alternating constructions with ditransitive geben in present-day German

2018 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hilde De Vaere ◽  
Ludovic De Cuypere ◽  
Klaas Willems
Keyword(s):  
Strongly Correlated ◽  
Passive Voice ◽  
Indirect Object ◽  
Dative Alternation ◽  
Dative Case ◽  
Object Construction ◽  
Main Verb ◽  
Prepositional Object ◽  
Verb Meaning ◽  
Ditransitive Constructions

AbstractThis paper reports on a corpus-based investigation of the verb geben in two alternating ditransitive constructions in present-day German with the Recipient either coded in the dative case (the indirect object construction, abbreviated: IOC) or by means of the PP an + accusative case (the prepositional object construction, POC). The study is based on a quantitative analysis of N=1,301 sentences (712 IOC and 589 POC) drawn from the Deutsche Referenzkorpus (IDS, Mannheim) which were annotated for 20 factors. Using a logistic regression analysis, we found evidence for the effect of 10 predictors (bootstrapped C-index=95%). We discuss our results in comparison to corpus-based research of the English dative alternation and point to some notable differences between both languages. In German, POC appears to be strongly correlated with collective recipients, collective agents, passive voice, and concrete and propositional transfer senses of the main verb geben. With regard to the semantics of geben, we argue that the quantitative findings are best accounted for on the basis of a general underspecified verb meaning ‘geben transfer’ that does not yet differentiate between the three possible verb senses (concrete, abstract, and propositional).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document