Would you say you ‘...gave a stranger your phone number’ or does ‘...gave your phone number to a stranger’ sound better? In essence, this termpaper is trying to analyse this question. The grammatical phenomenon underlying which decribes those two constructions – the double object dative [a stranger] [your phone number] and the prepositional object dative [your phone number] [to a stranger] – is the so-called dative alternation. The term dative alternation has the ability to express the same event of giving with two specific structures, as shown above.
The following paper will focus on the approaches of Krifka and Rappaport Hovav and Levin. At first, a definition of dative alternation will be given. Important facts, examples and a list of verbs, which allow or do not allow dative alternation, will be provided to give an overview of the topic. This term paper will also respond to the differences between the dative alternation and the benefactive alternation and will afterwards compare the two approaches on dative alternation. The main ideas of Krifka's “Semantic and Pragmatic Conditions for the Dative Alternation” (2003) and Rappaport Hovav's and Levin's “The English dative alternation: The case for verb sensitivity” (2008) will be presented and compared. Last but not least, I am going to introduce brief thoughts of dative alternation in the German language and how it is connected to the English dative alternation.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. The English dative alternation
2.1. The Distribution of verbs
2.2. The main views on dative alternation
2.2.1. The monosemy view
2.2.2. The HAVE-GOAL approach
2.2.3. The information structure view
2.2.4. Animacy
2.2.5. The benefactive alternation
3. Krifka's HAVE-GOAL approach and the verb sensitive approach by Rappaport Hovav and Levin
3.1. The verb sensitive approach by Rappaport Hovav and Levin
3.2. Krifka's HAVE-GOAL approach
3.3. Comparison of the two approaches
4. The dative in German
5. Conclusion
Research Objectives & Key Themes
The paper aims to analyze the grammatical phenomenon of dative alternation in English by examining and comparing two major theoretical frameworks: Krifka's HAVE-GOAL approach and the verb-sensitive approach proposed by Rappaport Hovav and Levin. Additionally, it investigates whether these principles are reflected in the German language.
- Theoretical analysis of the dative alternation (Double Object Construction vs. to-construction).
- Evaluation of Krifka's HAVE-GOAL approach versus the verb-sensitive approach.
- Classification and distribution of verb types in dative structures.
- Cross-linguistic comparison between English dative syntax and German constructions.
Excerpt from the Book
2. The English dative alternation
The term 'dative alternation' is known from the studies of argument structure and tries to explain two options for realising dative verbs (Levin 2008). In English these variants are called double object construction (DOC) and to-construction.
Those two possible ways of expressing the dative in English, can be seen in examples (1a) and (1b). While (1a) exemplifies the DOC, (1b) demonstrates an example for the to-construction.
(1) a. Ann sent Mary a letter.
b. Ann sent a letter to Mary.
In the two examples above it is possible to express that Mary was sent a book by Ann in both construction-variants. However, this won’t work for all dative realisations.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Outlines the scope of the term paper, defining the dative alternation and identifying the core theoretical approaches to be compared.
2. The English dative alternation: Provides foundational knowledge on the distribution of verbs in dative constructions and reviews major theoretical views like monosemy, HAVE-GOAL, information structure, and animacy.
3. Krifka's HAVE-GOAL approach and the verb sensitive approach by Rappaport Hovav and Levin: Presents a comparative analysis of the two main frameworks, detailing their treatment of verb classes and semantic implications.
4. The dative in German: Investigates the manifestation of dative alternation patterns in the German language and compares them with English findings.
5. Conclusion: Summarizes the key findings of the research and the theoretical comparisons made throughout the paper.
Keywords
dative alternation, argument structure, double object construction, to-construction, Krifka, HAVE-GOAL approach, Rappaport Hovav, Levin, verb-sensitive approach, semantics, syntax, German language, linguistic comparison, caused motion, caused possession
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this paper?
The paper examines the English dative alternation, focusing on the differences between the Double Object Construction (DOC) and the to-construction.
What are the central theoretical frameworks discussed?
The research primarily evaluates Manfred Krifka's HAVE-GOAL approach against the verb-sensitive approach championed by Malka Rappaport Hovav and Beth Levin.
What is the main goal of the research?
The objective is to determine which theoretical approach better explains the restrictions and semantic differences associated with dative verbs, and to explore if these patterns hold true for the German language.
Which methodology is employed in this study?
The study utilizes a comparative theoretical analysis based on existing linguistic literature and examines specific verb classes and examples to test the validity of the competing theories.
What does the main body of the text cover?
The main body covers verb distribution, the major theoretical views on dative alternation, a detailed comparison of Krifka's and Rappaport Hovav & Levin's frameworks, and a cross-linguistic analysis involving German.
Which key concepts characterize this work?
Key concepts include "caused possession," "caused motion," "verb-sensitive classification," "information structure," and "argument structure."
How does Krifka define the difference between the two constructions?
Krifka argues that the Double Object Construction denotes possession, whereas the to-construction implies movement towards a goal.
What is the core argument of Rappaport Hovav and Levin against the HAVE-GOAL approach?
They argue that the availability of a specific construction is determined by the core meaning encoded in the verb root, rather than just the construction-based semantic labels of possession or motion.
Does the author find evidence for dative alternation in German?
Yes, the author concludes that there is a form of dative alternation in German that shares similarities with English, partially supporting the verb-sensitive theory.
- Citar trabajo
- Susa Schnuck (Autor), 2014, The English Dative Alternation, Múnich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/293719
