Explaining Siewierska’s generalization

This 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.

A smuggling approach to the dative alternation

This chapter proposes a smuggling approach to the dative alternation. On the basis of traditional c-command tests, it is argued that the prepositional dative example in (ii) is derived from the structure underlying the double object construction in (i). i. John gave Mary the car (Double Object Construction). ii. John gave the car to Mary (Prepositional Dative). A smuggling analysis is motivated for the derivation of (ii). Once the VP containing the theme is moved over the goal, the theme then moves to a higher A position c-commanding the goal. Lastly, it is shown how the distribution of particles provides support for the smuggling analysis.

Twee vroege constructiegrammaticale studies in Nederlandse Taalkunde* : Een terugblik op Schermer-Vermeer (2001) en Verhagen (2003a)

Two early construction-grammatical studies in Dutch Linguistics. Looking back on Schermer-Vermeer (2001) and Verhagen (2003a)This article looks back on the articles by Schermer-Vermeer (2001) and Verhagen (2003a), on the double object construction and a Dutch equivalent of the English ‘way’-construction, respectively, which can be considered the first two articles to have appeared in Nederlandse Taalkunde that address problems of Dutch grammar from an explicitly constructionist perspective. I illustrate how, on the basis of data from a large web corpus such as NLCOW14, the formal and semantic analyses offered in the two articles can be refined in a number of ways, but I also show that they include hypotheses and ideas that are still most relevant and relate to topical discussions in construction grammar.

On the Derivation of the Double Object Construction in Mandarin Chinese

This paper adopts a Labeling approach to the analysis of the double object construction (DOC). In conformity with Chomsky’s (2013, 2014, 2015) Labeling Algorithm (LA), a unified account is proposed of the derivation of DOC in Mandarin Chinese. It is argued that the pair-Merged element in a complex verb in the DOC is invisible for labeling and the normal labeling procedure for the Head will apply.

Meaning construction and motivation in the English benefactive double object construction

This paper explores the interaction between verbal and constructional semantics in the benefactive double object construction in English. My main aim is to disentangle the semantics of the construction exploring the constructional potential of the main alternating verb classes, i.e., verbs of “obtaining”, “creation” and “preparing” (Levin, 1993), and spelling out the cognitive principles that motivate these and other extended uses as cases of lexical-constructional subsumption within the framework of the Lexical Constructional Model (cf. Galera Masegosa & Ruiz de Mendoza, 2012; Ruiz de Mendoza, 2013). Rather than advocating a polysemous analysis of the ditransitive, as proposed by Goldberg (1992, 1995), the position I take here is that ditransitives with beneficiary arguments and ditransitives with prototypical recipient arguments instantiate two different subconstructions which cannot be treated under the same general rubric, in spite of their “shared surface form” (Goldberg, 2002, p. 330).

Antisymmetry and word order in double object constructions in Zarma

Double Object Construction in Zarma sometimes allows alternations in the order of its internal arguments and the order in some cases may also be fixed. This tendency does not make predictions about a canonical order for the occurrence of Theme and Recipient objects within the VP simple. The same condition applies to monotransitive structures which vary between a complement-head and a head-complement order. It is the aim of this paper to present and analyse the most salient features of the kind of variations found in Zarma word order, particularly the ones associated with the verb that encodes three-participant events. The paper adopts the minimalist program proposed by Chomsky and is complemented with the Antisymmetry Hypothesis proposed by Kayne (1994). The study shows that the language has a uniform linear order where the recipient canonically precedes the theme on the basis of animacy factor. This is particularly common with the pronoun as the recipient in double object structures. Employing different diagnostics, the paper concludes that the recipient only follows the theme when the theme is associated with a more prominent discourse status. It is also argued that asymmetric C-command always occurs between the theme and the recipient. It implies that the language symmetry is altered by movement to designated positions for the purpose of feature checking.

NDTs in Non-native English: A Syntactic Analysis

Verb complementation in New Englishes perspective has attracted extensive scholarly attention (Nihalani et al., 2004). A valuable deviation due to emergence of locally characteristic linguistic patterns in Pakistani English can be captured in the domain of verb complementation called New Ditransitives(NDTs) (Bernaisch & Koch, 2015), on a broad syntactic level, NDTs are verbs used in double-object construction in new Englishes but not in standard British English. This paper is an attempt to find out NDTs in Pakistani English as compared to British English by using comparable corpora and as well as Predication phrase analysis of Larson (1988) compatible with Chomskys ideas about argumentsƒƒƒ interpretations in the area of vp is used for syntactic analysis. The theoretical significance shows that the main difference in producing NDTs is due to different parameters and system of lexicon.

How does ‘bring’ (not) change to ‘give’?

This paper investigates a semantic change from ‘bring’ to ‘give’, and the language-specific factors that determine when it may happen. Drawing on a corpus of blogs and an acceptability judgment experiment, we demonstrate an ongoing change in the meaning of the Hebrew verb hevi, usually glossed as ‘bring’: older speakers are more likely to use hevi for unambiguous bring events, whereas younger speakers are more likely to use it in contexts also compatible with give events, although not in the full range of ‘give’ contexts. We argue that this change is facilitated by the specific discourse profile associated with the verb hevi: (1) frequent uses of hevi in the Goal-theme construction, the Hebrew functional equivalent of the English double object construction, creating a “bridging context” for semantic change (2) frequent uses of hevi in which there is no real-world motion, facilitating the bleaching of the ‘agent motion’ component. We then examine the English verb bring, which is not undergoing a similar change, and demonstrate that it has a different discourse profile (namely, far fewer double object constructions and no-motion uses). Thus, while a ‘bring’>‘give’ change is well-motivated and potentially possible, the factors enabling it to actually happen are determined by the predominant discourse pattern characteristic of the verb.