Would you say you ‘...gave a good friend a scarf’ or would you rather say you ‘...gave a scarf to a good friend’? The grammatical phenomenon underlying the two syntactic variants – the double object dative [a good friend] [a scarf] and the prepositional object dative [a scarf] [to a good friend] – is the so-called 'dative alternation' (DA). The latter term captures this general ability in English to express the same event of giving with two distinct syntactic structures.
DA has been researched extensively for native speakers of English. Most of the scientific attention was directed at identifying the semantic and informational variables that give rise to the respective variants. Also, a number of corpus studies have revealed an interesting phenomenon commonly referred to as “lexical bias” (e.g. Wasow 2002). More precisely, researchers have found some dative verbs to occur more frequently in a prepositional dative variant (POD), whereas other dative verbs seem to favor the double object variant (DOD) (e.g. Davidse 1996; Stallings et al. 1998; Wasow 2002; Arnoldet al. 2003; Bresnan & Nikitina 2003). For example, Wasow (2002) found 'give' to occur in a DOD shape in 85% of his data, while Davidse (1996) found the verb 'throw' to occur in a POD shape in 90% of her data.
While DA has been widely explored for native speakers of English, relatively little is known about it in contexts of SLA. This study investigates how DA is reflected in the IL of German learners of English and, additionally, whether German learners exhibit similar lexical biases in their choice of dative syntax.
Raw data of early research on the acquisition of English DA by French native speakers (Mazurkevich 1984; Hawkins 1987) show similar lexical biases as observed for native speakers. This trend suggests that lexical biases are acquired by L2 learners of English. The latter is tested empirically in the present paper by means of a questionnaire study with 33 German-speaking learners of English. 16 American undergraduate students of the University of Montana serve as a control group.
The data obtained from the experiment show a significant influence of verbal lexis on dative argument choice (p<0.001) for the L2 learners. Additionally, L2 informants’ dative choices adhere to the same hierarchy as those of the native speakers. The fact that lexical biases are indeed reflected in informants’ ILs suggests that they are acquired by learners together with the dative alternation.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction
2 Phenomenon of inquiry: the English dative alternation
2.1 Basic terms and terminology
2.2 State of research
2.2.1 Semantic approaches to the dative alternation
2.2.2 Informational approaches to the dative alternation
2.2.3 Predicting the dative alternation
2.2.4 Lexical biases
3 The present study
4 Method
4.1 Material design
4.1.1 Test sets
4.2 Participants
4.2.2 American participants (group L1)
4.2.1 German participants (group L2)
4.3 Procedure
4.4 Score
5 Results
6 Discussion
7 Conclusion
Research Objectives and Themes
This study aims to investigate the grammatical phenomenon of the dative alternation in English, specifically examining how it is reflected in the interlanguages of German learners of English. A primary goal is to determine whether these learners exhibit lexical biases in their choice of dative syntax—the preference for either the double object dative (DOD) or the prepositional object dative (POD)—similar to those observed in native speakers of English.
- The grammatical mechanisms of the English dative alternation (DA).
- Theoretical approaches, including semantic and informational variables.
- Lexical biases associated with specific dative verbs (give, sell, throw).
- Language transfer effects in second language acquisition for German speakers.
Excerpt from the Book
2.1 Basic terms and terminology
Generally, two alternative dative structures can be used to express the same event of transfer of possession in the English language: (3) a. Cameron gave NP[a good friend] NP[a scarf]. b. Cameron gave NP[a scarf] PP[to a good friend].
The first variant (3a) of the structure [V NP NP] is usually called double object dative (henceforth shortened to DOD). The second variant (3b) of the structure [V NP PP] is called prepositional dative in the literature (henceforth referred to as POD, prepositional object dative). The association between sentences of these patterns has commonly been referred to as the dative alternation.
Transitive dative verbs like give generally take two object arguments in the DOD variant. One of the two objects is the direct object (henceforth Od) and the other is the indirect object (henceforth Oi). Normally, the Oi precedes the Od in linear order in that it occurs immediately postverbally (Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech and Svartvik 1994:54). The Oi typically expresses an “animate being that is passively implicated by the happening or state” denoted by the verb (ibid:741) – it expresses a recipient. The Od, on the other hand, is typically inanimate and refers to an entity directly affected by the verb, the theme (ibid:727). According to Quirk et al.’s (1994) definition, the NP [a good friend] in (3a) can be classified as Oi and thus, the recipient of the entity a scarf. The NP [a scarf] in (3a) can be identified as the Od of the verb give and thus, the theme which is being given to a recipient in this case.
Summary of Chapters
1 Introduction: Introduces the English dative alternation, defining the double object and prepositional object structures and outlining the study's focus on lexical biases and learner interlanguage.
2 Phenomenon of inquiry: the English dative alternation: Provides a comprehensive literature review of semantic and informational approaches, as well as the phenomenon of lexical bias in native speaker performance.
3 The present study: Details the research objectives, the hypothesis concerning lexical bias, and the rationale for comparing American and German speakers.
4 Method: Explains the design of the decision-task questionnaire, the selection of test items including the give idiom and verbs such as give, sell, and throw, and the participant demographics.
5 Results: Presents the quantitative findings from both the American (L1) and German (L2) groups, illustrating the skew toward POD usage and the hierarchical bias observed.
6 Discussion: Interprets the findings regarding lexical bias, refuting certain hypotheses about L1 transfer and confirming the sensitivity of learners to lexical cues.
7 Conclusion: Summarizes the key findings, noting that lexical biases are acquired by learners alongside the dative alternation and proposing directions for future research.
Keywords
Dative alternation, double object dative, prepositional object dative, lexical bias, second language acquisition, language transfer, semantic approaches, informational approaches, principle of end-weight, English syntax, interlanguage, German learners, verb semantics, constituent ordering, empirical linguistics.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core subject of this research?
The research focuses on the "dative alternation" in English, which refers to the speakers' ability to express the same "giving" event using either a double object construction or a prepositional object construction.
What are the primary themes investigated?
The study examines the influence of verb semantics (lexical bias), informational structure, and syntactic constraints on the choice between the two dative variants, comparing native English speakers with German learners.
What is the primary research question?
The study seeks to answer whether German learners of English exhibit the same lexical biases in their dative syntax choices as native speakers, and if their native language influences their preference for a specific construction.
Which scientific methods were employed?
The researcher conducted a decision-task questionnaire study with 16 native American English speakers and 33 German learners, utilizing statistical analysis (including chi-square tests) to evaluate the participants' preferences.
What does the main body of the work cover?
It provides a theoretical framework regarding semantic and informational factors (like end-weight and discourse accessibility) and presents empirical data from two experiments analyzing these variables across different dative verbs.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
Key terms include dative alternation, lexical bias, second language acquisition, syntactic choice, and language transfer.
Did the results confirm the hypothesis about German learners?
No, the hypothesis that German learners would prefer the double object structure due to transfer from German was falsified; instead, these learners showed a strong preference for the prepositional object structure.
What is "lexical bias" in the context of this study?
Lexical bias refers to the finding that certain verbs inherently favor one dative construction over the other, regardless of other variable settings, such as give preferring the double object construction and throw preferring the prepositional variant.
How does the "principle of end-weight" influence dative choices?
The principle of end-weight describes the tendency to place longer, more complex constituents at the end of a sentence, which significantly affects whether speakers choose a DOD or POD structure to ensure balanced information flow.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Miriam Fuehrer (Autor:in), 2009, The Dative Alternation in the Interlanguage of German Learners of English, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/128427
