Prepositional Dative Construction Research Articles

Dative alternation in Chinese

Abstract This study investigates the factors significantly constraining dative alternation in Chinese by adopting mixed-effects logistic regression modelling. The analysis showed that such factors significantly affected the choice of dative variants in Chinese, including the animacy, pronominality, and definiteness of the recipient, the accessibility and concreteness of the theme, and the length difference between the theme and the recipient. Findings were compared with those for the English dative alternation discussed in the literature. When the theme was recoverable from context or shorter than the recipient, the prepositional dative construction was preferred in both English and Chinese. This can be explained by the principles of end-focus and end-weight. However, when the recipient was animate or definite, the double object construction was preferred in English, while the prepositional dative construction was more likely to be used in Chinese. This divergence is due to the different syntactic and semantic features of their recipient markers.

Bilingual processing of verbal and constructional information in English dative constructions: effects of cross-linguistic influence

AbstractThis study investigated the role of cross-linguistic influence in L2 learners’ integration of a verb and a construction during online English sentence processing. In a self-paced reading task, L1-English speakers and Chinese-L1 learners of English read the English double-object and prepositional dative constructions with verbs whose Chinese translation equivalents are either compatible or incompatible with each dative form. When including only a subset of trials for which participants provided expected translations for the target sentences (i.e., translating the English prepositional dative construction into a Chinese prepositional dative sentence and translating the English double-object construction into a Chinese double-object sentence), the effect of cross-linguistic influence emerged only in a certain type of verbs. When including all trials in the analysis, we found the effect of cross-linguistic influence for all verb types. These results provide some evidence that the cross-linguistic activation of verbs can influence verb-construction integration in L2 processing. The study highlights how bilingual co-activation of verbs extends beyond the lexical and structural levels to influence the integration of multiple sources of information.

Syntactic Representation of Dative and Double Object Structures

The aim of this study is to present a unified analysis of the dative structures. The study relies on data from English and Arabic that support “the single meaning approach”. According to this approach, both prepositional dative construction (PDC) and double object construction (DOC) are related semantically and syntactically. We propose a dative phrase “DATP” as a complement of the dative verb in both PDC and DOC. Our proposed analysis deals with the restrictions that scope and c-command bring on the order of the direct and indirect objects in PDC and DOC. We follow Bruening (2014, 2018) in his argument against c-command and show that “precede-and-command” (precede and phase command) that he proposes as a replacement for c-command fits neatly in our analysis.

Embodiment, Semantics and Social Action: The Case of Object-Transfer in L2 Classroom Interaction

Using conversation analysis and usage-based linguistics, I focus on a beginning L2 user in an ESL classroom and trace his use of a “family of expressions” which, from the perspective of linguistic theory, are instantiations of either the ditransitive dative construction (e.g., “he told me the story”) or a prepositional dative construction (e.g., “he told the story to me”). The semantics of both constructions denotes transfer of an object, physically or metaphorically, from one agent to another. Therefore, I investigate them as one type of object-transfer construction. The instances of the construction are found predominantly in instruction sequences, and I show how the L2 user co-employs talk and recycled embodied work that elaborates the deictic references of the talk and the relation of agent-object-recipient roles among them. Through my analyses, I will showcase the embodied nature of linguistic categorization (Langacker, 1987) but take the argument further and suggest that the semiotic resource known as “language” is a residual of embodied social sense-making practices (aus der Wieschen and Eskildsen, 2019). The study draws on the MAELC database at Portland State University, a longitudinal audio-visual corpus of American English L2 classroom interaction.

DAR ruim] AND [DAR bom]: two idiosyncratic idioms from brazilian portuguese

Dar is a Portuguese verb used prototypically in the prepositional dative construction, e.g.: ele deu um anel de diamantes para a noiva (in English, he gave a diamond ring to his bride ). According to Goldberg (1995), in this kind of construction, a transference meaning emerges from the interaction of the following semantic roles and syntactic functions: an agent as the subject, a patient as the direct object and a recipient as the indirect object. Although dar usually recruits NPs or PPs as arguments, likewise the English verb to give , it has been widely used in a very idiosyncratic and idiomatic construction in Brazilian Portuguese, where the verb is followed by the adjectives ruim or bom, e.g.: deu ruim , mas está tudo bem (in English, things went bad , but everything is fine ). In this paper, we aim to describe this construction, which we represent with the following notation: [DAR ADJ]. Our analysis is based on the theoretical assumptions of Usage-Based Linguistics (cf. ROSÁRIO & OLIVEIRA, 2016; BYBEE, 2010; TRAUGOTT & TROUSDALE, 2013; among others.), especially on the notion of construction as a symbolic form-meaning pairing and on the property of partial/non-compositionality. A total of 200 tokens of [DAR bom] and [DAR ruim] were selected from Corpus Now and analyzed through a quali-quantitative study. The results show that both constructions have been used in argumentative and intersubjective contexts (cf. TANTUCCI, 2018) for evaluative reasons. Moreover, [DAR ruim] is more productive than [DAR bom]: while the word string composed by verb + ruim always instantiate the construction [DAR ADJ] in the corpus, the string composed by verb + bom is more likely to instantiate a more compositional construction – [DAR][NP] –, where the adjective belongs to a NP: e.g., o padre deveria dar [ bom exemplo ] (in English, the priest could give a [ good example ]).

The Effects of Cross-linguistic Influence on the Use of English Dative Constructions in Second Language Written Production

This paper attempted to analyze the effectiveness of cross-linguistic influence on the EFL learners’ production of English dative constructions by using a written corpus. Dative constructions – double object (DO, e.g., Tom gave Mary the book) and prepositional dative (PD, e.g., Tom gave the book to Mary) construction – have attracted much attention in the domain of SLA and cross-linguistic influence due to their distinctions across many languages (Whong-Barr & Schwartz, 2002). In particular, Chinese, Korean, and Japanese EFL learners’ corpus were chosen in the present research because the syntactic and semantic perspectives on the dative structures of their L1s are varied. To reach the aims of this study, the frequency of English DO and PD structures in EFL learners’ and English native speakers’ written corpus (ICNALE) was compared. The results indicated that (ⅰ) Chinese group used significantly more DO constructions than Korean and Japanese groups; (ⅱ) Korean and Japanese groups showed no significant difference in using English dative structures, addressing their infrequent use of DO construction in L1s; (ⅲ) only Chinese group showed native-like use of English dative constructions. These findings suggested that cross-linguistic influence affects the acquisition and production of English dative structures of EFL learners and they involved the pedagogical implication.

INTEGRATION OF VERBAL AND CONSTRUCTIONAL INFORMATION IN THE SECOND LANGUAGE PROCESSING OF ENGLISH DATIVE CONSTRUCTIONS

AbstractThis study investigated the effects of construction types on Korean-L1 English-L2 learners’ verb–construction integration in online processing by presenting the ditransitive and prepositional dative constructions and manipulating the verb’s association strength within these constructions. Results of a self-paced reading experiment showed that the L2 group spent longer times in the verb–construction integration in the postverbal complement region when processing the ditransitive construction, which is less canonical and highly avoided in the learners’ L1, than when processing the prepositional dative construction, which is more canonical and shares similar structural features with the L1 counterpart. In the following spillover region, L2 learners showed faster reading times as proficiency increased when the verb was strongly associated with the prepositional dative construction. Our findings expand the scope of current models on L2 sentence processing by suggesting that construction types and L2 proficiency may affect the L2 integration of verbal and constructional information.

Double Object Constructions and Prepositional Dative Constructions Are Distinct: A Reply to Ormazabal and Romero 2012

Ormazabal and Romero (2012) take issue with the arguments in Bruening 2010b that certain instances of prepositional dative constructions are really double object constructions. I show that their criticisms, when examined closely, actually support this claim. I also show that their alternative explanation for the facts is not successful. I also expand on the arguments from Bruening 2010b , and further argue that double object constructions must be distinct syntactically and semantically from prepositional dative constructions. The two cannot be derived from the same source.

A case for a unified treatment of EFL and ESL

This multifactorial corpus-based study focuses on dative alternation constructions (Mark gave his daughter a giftversusMark gave a gift to his daughter) and contrasts 1,313giveoccurrences in ditransitive and prepositional dative constructions across native, learner (EFL) and world (ESL) Englishes. Using cluster analysis and regression modeling, I analyze how grammatical contexts constrain syntactic choices in EFL and ESL and how speakers with different instructional backgrounds develop different variation patterns in their own English variety. The regression model reveals that the English variety factor accounts significantly for syntactic variation. In addition, the study identifies a prototypical prepositional dative construction in non-native English, which serves as a default construction for learners in more complex grammatical contexts. This study stresses the importance of reaching beyond structural linguistic differences by investigating processing (dis)similarities between EFL and ESL and shows the usefulness of a cognitive theoretical framework as a unified approach to cross-varietal variation.

A cross dialectal view of the Arabic dative alternation

This paper is concerned with the syntax of ditransitive verbs in Arabic.We concentrate on the vernaculars, focussing in particular on three geographically spread dialects: Egyptian Cairene Arabic, the dominant vernacular in Egypt, Hijazi Arabic, spoken in Western Saudi Arabia and Maltese, a mixed language with a Magrebi/Siculo-Arabic stratum. We show that all three exhibit an alternation (the dative alternation) between a ditransitive (‘double object’) construction and a corresponding prepositional dative construction, and outline a number of differences between these constructions in the different varieties of Arabic. We consider the distribution of verbs exhibiting the dative alternation in the light of Ryding’s (2011) observations concerning Modern Standard Arabic.

Ditransitieve constructies in het Nederlands: semasiologische en onomasiologische kwesties

This paper presents a construction-based exploration of a number of formal and semantic issues surrounding the Dutch double object and prepositional dative constructions. The first part of the paper deals with the formal demarcation of these constructions vis-à-vis other three-place argument structure constructions. The second part discusses diachronic shifts and synchronic variation in the constructional semantics of the double object pattern, the third part briefly looks into the semantic relation between the double object construction and the prepositional dative. The overall aim of the paper is to give a general impression of the way such issues are dealt with in construction grammar.

On the syntax of ditransitive sentences in Slovenian

In this paper we discuss Slovenian ditransitive sentences with respect to the two possible word orders of the objects found with neutral intonation, DAT≫ACC and ACC≫DAT. We follow the idea in the Gracanin-Yuksek (2006) paper on Croatian that these two word orders instantiate different structures. In Slovenian, the DAT≫ACC order has an applicative structure (either high or low), while the ACC≫DAT is a prepositional dative construction. The applicative analysis provides a novel argument for this type of analysis. Other supporting arguments examined are scope properties, binding of possessives, the possibility of the causative reading, non-contrastive focus and heavy NP shift, and properties of idioms.

Semantic and Pragmatic Motivations for Constructional Preferences

A select group of transfer verbs can enter into four different constructions: the ditransitive construction ( He provided John the money), the prepositional-dative construction ( He provided the money to John), a construction with a prepositional theme ( He provided John with the money), and a construction with a recipient realized by a for-phrase ( He provided the money for John). In this article, the authors take a close look at three such verbs: provide, supply, and present. Corpus analysis shows that these three verbs display different structural preferences with respect to the for-, to-, and with-patterns. To explain these preferences, the study investigates pragmatic principles (following Mukherjee on provide) and the role played by semantic factors. An examination of the semantics of the verbs and the lexically motivated constructional semantics of the to, for, and with-patterns shows (a) that the three constructions are not interchangeable and (b) that the preferential differences among the three verbs find an explanation in the compatibility between lexical and constructional semantics. The description is mainly based on data from the British National Corpus.

Constructional Preemption by Contextual Mismatch: A Corpus-Linguistic Investigation

Abstract The seeming absence of negative evidence in the input that children receive during language acquisition has long been regarded as a serious problem for non-nativist linguistic theories. Among the solutions that have been suggested for this problem, preemption by competing structures is doubtless the most intensively researched and widely accepted. However, while preemption works well in the domain of morphology, it cannot apply categorically in the domain of syntax, as this would preclude the existence of semantically overlapping constructions, such as the ditransitive and the prepositional dative, which can be used alternatively with many, but not all, verbs of literal or metaphorical transfer. This paper investigates one specific version of preemption briefly entertained by Pinker (Language learnability and language development, Harvard University Pressm, 1984), which would account both for the existence of semantically overlapping constructions and for the fact that these constructions may preempt each other in the case of individual verbs. Typically, such pairs of grammatical constructions differ in their information-structural restrictions and speakers tend to choose the construction that best fits a given discourse context; when speakers use a construction even though there is an alternative that fits the discourse context better, children may take this as evidence that the alternative is not available for the specific verb in question. Two corpus studies are presented, comparing the information-structural profile of prepositional dative constructions containing verbs that may alternate between the dative and the ditransitive with the information structural profile of verbs that are restricted to the prepositional dative. For Pinker's preemptive mechanism to be feasible, there should be a clear and systematic difference in the information-structural profile of these two classes of verbs. However, no such difference can be found in actual usage.

Double Object Constructions Disguised as Prepositional Datives

Recent work by Bresnan and colleagues (Bresnan 2007, Bresnan et al. 2007, Bresnan and Nikitina 2007) has argued that double object and prepositional dative constructions are essentially identical, the choice between them being conditioned by various factors. I argue against this conclusion, showing that the grammar clearly distinguishes double object from prepositional dative constructions. Under certain circumstances, the first object of a double object construction can shift to the right, with the preposition to appearing, but the grammar still distinguishes this from a prepositional dative construction that looks identical on the surface. The phenomena that I investigate are scope interactions with quantifiers and locative inversion. In addition, the rightward reordering operations investigated here indicate that constraints on variable binding, including weak crossover, must be formulated in terms of linear order rather than hierarchy.

‘Caused motion’? The semantics of the English to-dative and the Dutch aan-dative

Both English and Dutch feature a variety of verbs of possessional transfer which display the phenomenon of dative alternation. They can either be used in a double object construction with unmarked NP theme and recipient objects or in a so-called “prepositional dative” construction in which only the theme is encoded as a bare NP object and the recipient is marked by a preposition. Within this context of dative alternation, this study zooms in on the English prepositional dative construction with to and the Dutch prepositional dative construction with aan (cognate with English on, German an). Existing analyses of these constructions hold widely different views on the semantic import of the prepositions used: some authors take the preposition to bring an element of ‘caused motion’ to the semantics of the construction, while others treat it as a grammaticalized marker of recipient function. We shall argue for an intermediate position: while the constructions with to and aan are not limited to events which involve an actual spatial transfer but cover a wide variety of ‘caused possession’ events, they are nevertheless subject to a number of constraints which can be traced back to the spatial semantics of English to and Dutch aan. These semantic constraints will be illustrated by means of corpus-based observations on the behaviour of a number of English and Dutch verbs in the respective dative alternations.

Verb disposition in argument structure alternations: a corpus study of the dative alternation in Dutch

Semantic accounts of verb pattern alternations often rely on observations about ‘verb disposition’: the preference of verbs with particular lexical semantic characteristics for one of two competing constructions is taken as a clue to the semantic differences between the two constructions. For instance, it has been observed with regard to the English dative alternation that verbs of refusal such as deny and refuse are perfectly acceptable in the ditransitive construction but much less so in the so-called prepositional dative construction with to (compare They refused the convict a last cigarette with ? They refused a last cigarette to the convict); and this contrast has been presented as evidence for the hypothesis that the prepositional dative highlights the actual movement of the theme toward the receiver (e.g. [Goldberg, A.E., 1992. The inherent semantics of argument structure: the case of the English ditransitive. Cognitive Linguistics 3, 37–74]). This paper discusses the merit of verb disposition as evidence for semantic hypotheses about alternating constructions and presents the results of a corpus-based study of verb disposition in the Dutch dative alternation. On the basis of [Gries, S., Stefanowitsch, A., 2004. Extending Collostructional Analysis: a corpus-based perspective on alternations. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9, 97–129] method of ‘distinctive collexeme analysis’, the alternating verbs with a statistically significant preference for the Dutch ditransitive are separated from those with a statistically significant preference for the prepositional dative in a corpus of contemporary Dutch newspaper language. The results of this test provide the basis for a number of empirically valid generalizations about the semantic parameters driving the dative alternation.