Most speakers of English are unconsciously proficient in combining all kinds of information in order to form the grammatical structure they use for language production.
In this essay I attempt to describe one of these complex structures linguistically, namely the nature of dative verbs. Understanding the syntactic patterns of the verb is a challenging task – not only for the acquisition of English as a second language, but for linguistic research just as much.
We're occupied with transitive verbs that take more than one internal argument.There is a great number of alternations in English grammar which do not involve a change in the transitivity of the verb (Levin 1993), one of them being the Dative Alternation, which will be the topic of this essay.
I will begin by introducing some general findings of research in this field whereupon a list of verbs will follow which presents groups of verbs that do or do not perform the alternation.
At the core of my dissertation I will compare two different approaches on the subject, namely the works of Manfred Krifka and Rappaport Hovav & Levin. They represent two sites of the debate concerning the semantics of the dative alternation. Whilst the former defends the so-called polysemy view, the latter are enthusiastic for the single meaning approach. I will go into more detail in section 4.
In the final analysis I'm going to introduce a brief study of the dative alternation in different variants of English, namely British, Australian and American English.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. The Dative Alternation
3. Distribution of verbs
4. Comparison between
4.1 Krifka, M. 2004 and
4.2 Rappaport Hovav, M. & Levin, B. 2008
5. Distributional differences between the Dative Alternation in different variants of the same language
6. Conclusion
Objectives and Topics
This academic paper aims to provide a linguistic description and analysis of the "Dative Alternation" in English, examining how transitive verbs distribute their arguments in different syntactic structures. The research evaluates conflicting semantic and pragmatic theories regarding why certain verbs allow for multiple construction patterns while others do not.
- The distinction between double object constructions (DOC) and to-constructions.
- Comparative analysis of the polysemy view versus the single meaning (monosemy) approach.
- Lexical restrictions and verb categorization according to Levin's classifications.
- The role of information structure and heaviness in syntactic preference.
- Cross-varietal studies comparing British, American, and Australian English usage.
Excerpt from the Book
4.COMPARING KRIFKA AND RAPPAPORT HOVAV & LEVIN
The two linguistic works I'm going to present now provide perfect representations for the polysemy and – respectively – monosemy view, which I have mentioned and briefly introduced before (see section two).
4.1. Manfred Krifka (2004)
Krifka's dissertation principally centres on the lexical restrictions which are known for the dative alternation and, evolving from that, intends to supply an explanation for why there are certain verbs that dis-prefer or do not allow either one of the alternations.
His approach is basically construed from the general idea of the double object variant expressing a caused possession meaning and the to-variant realizing a caused motion meaning, in which NP1 is the recipient or goal of a possessional path (→ example (1)). At present this is the position most works on the topic take.
In order to explicate why certain verbs don't allow the DOC he proposes a so-called event semantics introduced by Davidson (1976) stating that certain predicates take an implicit variable over events as an argument. Thematic roles support the theory. He illustrates his examples as follows:
(6) Eric VERBed Marie the chocolate cupcake. DOC
∃e∃s[AGENT(e, Eric) ∧CAUSE(e, s) ∧s: HA VE(Marie, the_chocolate_cupcake))]
(7) Eric VERBed the chocolate cupcake to Marie. To-construction
∃e∃e′[AGENT(e, Eric) ∧CAUSE(e, e′) ∧ MOVE(e′) ∧THEME(e′, the_chocolate_cupcake) ∧GOAL(e′, Marie)]
Hence Krifka observes that the crucial difference between the two statements lies in the fact that in (6) the reference to state s (Marie having the cupcake) - which is caused by the event - is not relevant, whereas in (7) there's a second (movement) event e', which necessarily needs to be referred to.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: This chapter outlines the scope of the study, introducing the dative alternation as a complex syntactic structure and defining the primary objective of comparing different linguistic approaches to its semantics.
2. The Dative Alternation: This section defines the morphological realization of arguments in double object and to-constructions, while presenting three major theoretical views: monosemy, polysemy, and the information structure view.
3. Distribution of verbs: This chapter categorizes verbs into non-alternating DOC-only, non-alternating to-construction-only, and alternating groups, based on Levin’s established classifications.
4. Comparison between Krifka, M. 2004 and Rappaport Hovav, M. & Levin, B. 2008: A critical comparative analysis that contrasts Krifka’s event semantics and polysemy approach with the "verb sensitive analysis" proposed by Rappaport Hovav and Levin.
5. Distributional differences between the Dative Alternation in different variants of the same language: This section discusses empirical research by Theijssen, Bresnan, and Ford, highlighting how British, Australian, and American English differ in their syntactic preferences based on information-structural principles.
6. Conclusion: This final chapter synthesizes the main arguments, reaffirming the importance of understanding the dative alternation through both semantic constraints and pragmatic, information-structural factors.
Keywords
Dative Alternation, Argument Structure, Double Object Construction, To-construction, Polysemy View, Monosemy View, Event Semantics, Verb Sensitive Analysis, Information Structure, Syntactic Patterns, Lexical Restrictions, Linguistic Research, Animacy Effect, End Weight Principle, Language Variation.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core subject of this paper?
The paper examines the "Dative Alternation" in the English language, a syntactic phenomenon where verbs can appear in two different sentence structures (the double object construction and the to-construction) without changing their core meaning.
What are the primary theoretical frameworks discussed?
The work focuses on the debate between the polysemy view (which claims different constructions have distinct meanings) and the monosemy/single meaning approach, as well as the perspective offered by the information structure theory.
What is the main research goal?
The primary goal is to analyze why certain verbs allow the dative alternation while others do not, and to compare how scholars like Manfred Krifka and the team of Rappaport Hovav and Levin explain these lexical restrictions.
Which methodology is employed in this study?
The paper utilizes a qualitative literature-based research methodology, comparing formal linguistic theories and empirical evidence from various scholarly publications to explain syntactic behavior.
What topics are covered in the main body?
The main body covers definitions of dative alternation, classification of verb types based on Levin (1993), in-depth comparison of two major semantic approaches, and a study on distributional differences across English language variants.
Which key terms characterize this research?
Key terms include Argument Structure, Polysemy, Monosemy, Information Structure, and Verb Sensitivity.
How does the "halfway-test" function in Krifka’s theory?
The "halfway-test" is used by Krifka to determine if a verb describes a path of movement; if an adverb like "halfway" can be inserted naturally, it indicates a movement event is involved, thus separating verbs that allow the to-construction from those that do not.
Why do Rappaport Hovav and Levin suggest that "give-type" verbs behave differently?
They argue that "give-type" verbs inherently entail a change of possession rather than a spatial path, which distinguishes them from verbs that express simple ballistic or directed motion.
What role does information structure play in the dative alternation?
The study highlights that principles such as "heavy phrases come last" and "pre-mentioned material comes before new material" significantly influence whether a speaker prefers the double object construction over the to-construction.
How do different English variants affect the dative alternation?
Research mentioned in the paper shows that British, American, and Australian speakers have different preferences regarding the alternation, which are influenced by factors like age, definiteness, and the pronominal nature of the arguments used.
- Citation du texte
- Marie-Louise Häfner (Auteur), 2013, The English dative alternation, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/272007
