Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T03:14:44.131Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The English dative alternation: The case for verb sensitivity1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2008

MALKA RAPPAPORT HOVAV  and
BETH LEVIN
MALKA RAPPAPORT HOVAV*
Affiliation:
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
BETH LEVIN*
Affiliation:
Stanford University
*
Authors' addresses: (Rappaport Hovav) Department of English, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mount Scopus, 91905 Jerusalem, Israel. E-mail: mhovav@mscc.huji.ac.il
(Levin) Department of Linguistics, Stanford University, Margaret Jacks Hall, Stanford, CA 94305-2150, U.S.A. E-mail: beth.levin@stanford.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We challenge the predominant view of the English dative alternation, which takes all alternating verbs to have two meanings: a caused possession meaning realized by the double object variant and a caused motion meaning realized by the to variant. Instead, we argue that verbs like give and sell only have a caused possession meaning, while verbs like throw and send have both caused motion and caused possession meanings. We show that the caused possession meaning may be realized by both variants. Concomitantly, we argue that verbs like give, even in the to variant, lack a conceptual path constituent, and instead have a caused possession meaning which can be understood as the bringing about of a ‘have’ relation. We reassess evidence for alternative approaches adduced from inference patterns and verb–argument combinations and demonstrate how our verb-sensitive analysis, when combined with an account of variant choice, provides a more insightful explanation of this data, while having wider coverage. Our investigation affirms proposals that a verb's own meaning plays a key role in determining its argument realization options. To conclude, we consider the crosslinguistic implications of our study, attempting to explain why so many languages lack a true dative alternation.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 44 , Issue 1 , March 2008 , pp. 129 - 167
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

[1]

We have had many opportunities to present this material, and we are grateful to the audiences for their comments and questions. We thank all those who have discussed this paper with us or provided extensive comments on earlier versions, including John Beavers, Joan Bresnan, Erin Eaker, Itamar Francez, Adele Goldberg, Martin Haspelmath, Andrew McIntyre, Anita Mittwoch, John Moore, Tanya Nikitina, Steven Pinker, Maria Polinsky, Ivan Sag, Peter Sells, Ivy Sichel, Mandy Simons, and Steve Wechsler. We also thank the referees, whose comments led to significant improvements. This research was supported by Israel Science Foundation Grant 806-03 to Rappaport Hovav.

References

REFERENCES

Abusch, Dorit. 1986. Verbs of change, causation, and time (Report CSLI-86-50). Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Anderson, John M. 1971. The grammar of case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Allen, Cynthia L. 1995. Case marking and reanalysis: Grammatical relations from Old to Early Modern English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anttila, Arto. In press. Phonological constraints on constituent ordering. WCCFL 26. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Aoun, Joseph & Audrey Li, Yen-hui. 1989. Scope and constituency. Linguistic Inquiry 20, 141–172.Google Scholar
Aristar, Anthony R. 1996. The relationship between dative and locative: Kuryłowicz's argument from a typological perspective. Diachronica 13, 207–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnold, Jennifer E., Wasow, Thomas, Losongco, Anthony & Ginstrom, Ryan. 2000. Heaviness vs. newness: The effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering. Language 76, 28–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 1988. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 1997. Thematic roles and syntactic structure. In Liliane, Haegeman (ed.) Elements of grammar: Handbook of generative syntax, 73–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beavers, John. 2006. Argument/oblique alternations and the structure of lexical meaning. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Beck, Sigrid & Johnson, Kyle. 2004. Double objects again. Linguistic Inquiry 35, 97–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benveniste, Emile. 1960. Être et avoir dans leurs fonctions linguistiques. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 55, 113–134.Google Scholar
Bertinetto, Pier Marco & Squartini, Mario. 1995. An attempt at defining the class of ‘gradual completion’ verbs. In Pier, Bertinetto, Valentina, Bianchi, James, Higginbotham & Mario, Squartini (eds.) Temporal reference, aspect and actionality, vol. 1: Semantic and syntactic perspectives, 11–26. Turin: Rosenberg and Sellier.Google Scholar
Blansitt, Edward L. 1988. Datives and allatives. In Michael, Hammond, Edith, Moravcsik & Jessica, Wirth (eds.) Studies in syntactic typology, 173–191. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 2003. Exo-skeletal vs. endo-skeletal explanations: Syntactic projections and the lexicon. In John, Moore & Maria, Polinsky (eds.) The nature of explanation in linguistic theory, 31–67. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1982. The passive in lexical theory. In Joan, Bresnan (ed.) The mental representation of grammatical relations, 3–86. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, Cueni, Anna, Nikitina, Tatiana & Baayen, Harald. 2007. Predicting the dative alternation. In Gerlof, Bouma, Irene, Krämer & Joost, Zwarts (eds.) Cognitive foundations of interpretation, 69–94. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan & Nikitina, Tatiana. In press. Categoricity and gradience in the dative alternation. In Lian, Wee & Linda, Uyechi (eds.) Reality exploration and discovery: Pattern interaction in language and life. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Brown, Cheryl. 1983. Topic continuity in written English narrative. In Talmy, Givón (ed.) Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-linguistic study, 313–342. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butt, Miriam, Dalrymple, Mary & Frank, Anette. 1997. An architecture for Linking Theory in LFG. The LFG 97 Conference.Google Scholar
Clark, Eve V. & Carpenter, Kathie L.. 1989. The notion of source in language acquisition. Language 65, 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language universals and linguistic typology, 2nd edn. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 1991. Syntactic categories and grammatical relations. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 1998. Event structure in argument linking. In Miriam, Butt & Wilhelm, Geuder (eds.) The projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional factors, 21–63. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2003a. Lexical rules vs. constructions: A false dichotomy. In Hubert, Cuyckens, Thomas, Berg, René, Dirven & Klaus-Uwe, Panther (eds.) Motivation in language: Studies in honor of Günter Radden, 49–68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 2003b. Typology and universals, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William, BarÐdal, Jóhanna, Hollmann, Willem, Nielsen, Maike, Sotirova, Violeta & Taoka, Chiaki. 2001. Discriminating verb meanings: The case of transfer verbs. Handout, LAGB Autumn Meeting, Reading.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen & Fraurud, Kari. 1996. Animacy in grammar and discourse. In Thorstein, Fretheim & Jeanette, Gundel (eds.) Reference and referent accessibility, 47–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidse, Kristin. 1996. Functional dimensions of the dative in English. In William Van, Belle & Willy, Van Langendonck (eds.) The dative, vol. 1: Descriptive studies, 289–338. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel. 1995. Particles: On the syntax of verb–particle, triadic, and causative constructions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David R. 1979. Word meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David R. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67, 547–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 1986. On primary objects, secondary objects, and antidative. Language 62, 808–845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emonds, Joseph. 1972. Evidence that indirect-object movement is a structure-preserving rule. Foundations of Language 8, 546–561.Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 1979. Discourse constraints on dative movement. In Talmy, Givón (ed.) Discourse and syntax (Syntax and Semantics 12), 441–467. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Filip, Hana & Rothstein, Susan. 2006. Telicity as a semantic parameter. In James, Lavine, Steven, Franks, Mila, Tasseva-Kurktchieva & Hana, Filip (eds.) Formal approaches to Slavic linguistics: The Princeton Meeting 2005, 139–156. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Fodor, Jerry A. 1970. Three reasons for not deriving kill from cause to die. Linguistic Inquiry 1, 429–438.Google Scholar
Freeze, Ray. 1992. Existentials and other locatives. Language 68, 553–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1984a. Direct object and dative shifting: Semantic and pragmatic case. In Frans, Plank (ed.) Objects: Towards a theory of grammatical relations, 151–182. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1984b. Syntax: A functional-typological introduction, vol. I. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1992. The inherent semantics of argument structure: The case of the English ditransitive construction. Cognitive Linguistics 3, 37–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1997. The relationships between verbs and constructions. In Marjolijn, Verspoor, Kee, Lee & Eve, Sweetser (eds.) Lexical and syntactical constructions and the construction of meaning, 383–398. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldsmith, John. 1980. Meaning and mechanism in grammar. In Susumu, Kuno (ed.) Harvard studies in syntax and semantics, 423–449. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.Google Scholar
Green, Georgia M. 1974. Semantics and syntactic regularity. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Thomas. 2003. Towards a corpus-based identification of prototypical instances of constructions. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 1, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gruber, Jeffrey S. 1965. Studies in lexical relations. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Reprinted in Jeffrey S. Gruber. 1976. Lexical structures in syntax and semantics. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Hale, Ken & Keyser, J. Samuel. 2002. Prolegomenon to a theory of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hameyer, Klaus. 1979. English and German constraints on dative movement. Word 30, 235–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2003. Possession and the double object construction. In Pierre, Pica & Johan, Rooryck (eds.) Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2, 31–70. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2003. The geometry of grammatical meaning: Semantic maps and cross-linguistic comparison. In Michael, Tomasello (ed.) The new psychology of language II, 211–242. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2005. Ditransitive constructions: The verb ‘give’. In Martin, Haspelmath, Matthew, Dryer, David, Gil & Bernard, Comrie (eds.) World atlas of language structures, 426–429. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hay, Jen, Kennedy, Christopher & Levin, Beth. 1999. Scalar structure underlies telicity in ‘degree achievements’. In Tanya, Matthews & Devon, Strolovitch (eds.) Semantics and Linguistic Theory 9, 127–144. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Linguistics Circle Publications, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 1997. Possession: Cognitive sources, forces, and grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoekstra, Eric. 1991. Binding, ditransitives and the structure of the VP. In Werner, Abraham, Wim, Kosmeijer & Eric, Reuland (eds.) Issues in Germanic syntax, 351–364. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1983. Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kay, Paul. 2005. Argument structure constructions and the argument–adjunct distinction. In Mirjam, Fried & Hans, Boas (eds.) Grammatical constructions: Back to the roots, 71–98. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koenig, Jean-Pierre & Davis, Anthony R.. 2001. Sublexical modality and the structure of lexical semantic representations. Linguistics and Philosophy 24, 71–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 2004. Telicity and the meaning of objective case. In Jacqueline, Guéron & Jacqueline, Lecarme (eds.) The syntax of time, 389–423. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1992. Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and temporal constitution. In Ivan, Sag & Anna, Szabolcsi (eds.) Lexical matters, 29–54. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1999. Manner in dative alternation. WCCFL 18, 260–271. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2004. Semantic and pragmatic conditions for the dative alternation. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics 4, 1–32.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George & Johnson, Mark. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard K. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19, 335–391.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth. 2004. Verbs and constructions: Where next? Handout, Western Conference on Linguistics, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth. 2007. Dative verbs: A crosslinguistic perspective. Ms., Stanford University.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Hovav, Rappaport Malka. 2005. Argument realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Lisa. 2005. ‘To’ in two places in the dative alternation. In Sudha, Arunachalam, Tatjana, Scheffler, Sandhya, Sundaresan & Joshua, Tauberer (eds.) The 28th Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium (Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 11.1), 155–168. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1967. A note on possessive, existential and locative sentences. Foundations of Language 3, 390–396.Google Scholar
Machonis, Peter A. 1985. Transformations of verb phrase idioms: Passivization, particle movement, dative shift. American Speech 60, 291–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1996. ‘Cat’ as a phrasal idiom: Consequences of late insertion in Distributed Morphology. Ms., MIT.Google Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1978. Conversational implicature and the lexicon. In Peter, Cole (ed.) Pragmatics (Syntax and Semantics 9), 245–259. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McFadden, Thomas. 2002. The rise of the to-dative in Middle English. In David, Lightfoot (ed.) Syntactic effects of morphological change, 107–123. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McIntyre, Andrew. 2006. The interpretation of German datives and English have. In Daniel, Hole, Andre, Meinunger & Werner, Abraham (eds.) Datives and other cases: Between argument structure and event structure, 185–211. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, George A. & Johnson-Laird, Philip N.. 1976. Language and perception. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, John. 1996. Give: A cognitive linguistic study. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunberg, Geoffrey, Sag, A. Ivan & Wasow, Thomas. 1994. Idioms. Language 70, 491–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oehrle, Richard T. 1976. The grammatical status of the English dative alternation. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Oehrle, Richard T. 1977. Review of Georgia M. Green: Semantics and syntactic regularity. Language 53, 198–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Grady, William. 1998. The syntax of idioms. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 16, 279–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 1989. Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Polinsky, Maria. 1996. A non-syntactic account of some asymmetries in the double object construction. In Jean-Pierre, Koenig (ed.) Discourse and cognition: Bridging the gap, 403–422. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Polo, Chiara. 2002. Double objects and morphological triggers for syntactic case. In David, Lightfoot (ed.) Syntactic effects of morphological change, 124–142. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian. To appear. Verb meaning and the lexicon: A first phase syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ransom, Evelyn N. 1979. Definiteness and animacy constraints on passive and double-object constructions in English. Glossa 13, 215–240.Google Scholar
Rappaport, Hovav Malka. In press. Lexicalized meaning and the internal temporal structure of events. In Susan, Rothstein (ed.) Crosslinguistic and theoretical approaches to the semantics of aspect. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rappaport, Hovav Malka & Levin, Beth. 2005. Change of state verbs: Implications for theories of argument projection. In Nomi, Erteschik-Shir & Tova, Rapoport (eds.) The syntax of aspect, 274–286. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Reddy, Michael. 1979. The conduit metaphor – A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In Andrew, Ortony (ed.) Metaphor and thought, 284–324. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Richards, Norvin. 2001. An idiomatic argument for lexical decomposition. Linguistic Inquiry 32, 183–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siewierska, Anna. 1998. Languages with and without objects: The Functional Grammar approach. Languages in Contrast 1, 173–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snyder, Kieran Margaret. 2003. The relationship between form and function in ditransitive constructions. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Taylor, John R. 1996. Possessives in English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tenny, Carol L. 1994. Aspectual roles and the syntax–semantics interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tham, Shiao Wei. 2004. Representing possessive predication: Semantic dimensions and pragmatic bases. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. 1990. Information flow and dative shift in English discourse. In Jerold, A.Edmondson, Feagin & Peter, Mühlhäusler (eds.) Development and diversity: Language variation across time and space, 239–253. Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. 1995. The iconicity of ‘dative shift’ in English: Considerations from information flow in discourse. In Landsberg, Marge E. (ed.) Syntactic iconicity and linguistic freezes, 155–175. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ura, Hiroyuki. 2000. Checking theory and grammatical functions in Universal Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Belle, William & Van Langendonck, Willy. 1992. The indirect object in Dutch. Leuvense Bijdragen 81, 17–43.Google Scholar
Wasow, Thomas. 1997. Remarks on grammatical weight. Language Variation and Change 9, 81–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wasow, Thomas. 2002. Postverbal behavior. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Wechsler, Stephen. 1995. The semantic basis of argument structure. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Zwarts, Joost. 2005. Prepositional aspect and the algebra of paths. Linguistics and Philosophy 28, 739–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar