Search Results

Since the earliest days of generative grammar, there has existed a strong tendency to consider one construction in relation to a particular rough paraphrase. Initially, this was a result of the emphasis on transformations that derived one pattern from another. While today there exist many non-derivational theories for which this motivation no longer exists, the traditional outlook has not completely lost its grip, as can be seen from continuing focus on partial or incomplete generalizations such as the ‘dative’ construction or the ‘locative’ alternation. This chapter argues that it is profitable to look beyond alternations: to consider each surface pattern on its own terms. It is observed that when considering instances of the same surface pattern involving different words, similarities should be attributed to the surface pattern and differences to the different verbs and arguments involved. A derivational proposal is critiqued in order to demonstrate that what appear to be arguments in favour of derivations are often in fact arguments in favour of attention to surface structure instead.

This chapter identifies a second set of ditransitive verbs: the verbs of commanding and permitting. Unlike the verbs of persuading and urging discussed in the Chapter 3, which have a thematic structure of AGENT, THEME, and GOAL, the verbs of commanding and permitting have a thematic structure of AGENT, RECIPIENT, and THEME. The different roles are clear from the different cases that express them: THEMES are expressed by accusative NPs, and RECIPIENTS by dative NPs. Verbs of commanding and permitting have two ‘variants’, a three-place and a two-place one. This is not an accidental, idiosyncratic lexical property of these verbs, but a structural feature connected with the basic meanings of this group. It is precisely this structural feature of the verbs of commanding and permitting that is responsible for the appearance of the first to-infinitival ECMs in Middle English.

This chapter focuses on a third type of ditransitive: commissives, with meanings like ‘promise’. The commissives are interesting in that finite clauses are still their preferred complement in Present-day English, unlike the other subject-controlled verbs where finite clauses have been ousted completely by the to-infinitive. Closer investigation suggests that this survival is due to the fact that coreference of the subject of the subclause and an argument of the main clause is less frequent than with the verbs discussed in the previous chapters, i.e., the embedded subject is not ‘controlled’. Secondly, the ratio of modals versus simple subjunctive form is far higher in Old English after the commissives than after other ‘control’ verbs, which suggests that there is a need to distinguish between these types by using different modals for different types, which explains the continued survival of finite clauses.

Chapter 9, “Verb meaning and argument structure constructions”, addresses the question of the relationship between the meaning of a verb and the meaning of the argument structure construction(s) it occurs in. Verbs never occur outside of an argument structure construction, and an argument structure construction never occurs without a verb. Moreover, a verb occurs in multiple argument structure constructions. These facts make it difficult to identify the semantic contributions of verb and construction. A verb’s meaning involves a force-dynamic potential which allows it to occur in multiple argument structure constructions; a verb occurring in a particular argument structure construction represents a specific force-dynamic construal of that event. The semantic contributions of verb and construction overlap in complex ways and may be analyzed differently across speakers and over time. Fine-grained analyses of the distribution of verbs across various constructions supports a usage-based, exemplar model of verb + construction meaning.

This chapter focuses on double object structures (or ditransitive structures) and the common alternations of the first object with prepositionally marked ones. It considers two patterns: Class A ditransitives and Class B ditransitives. It also examines an approach that treats the first object of a ditransitive as a preposition phrase (PP) with an invisible P. Ditransitive first objects have various characteristic properties including inseparability from the verb, passivizability, and incompatibility with object raising and complex determiner phrase (DP) shift. The contrasting properties of first and second objects of a ditransitive can be attributed to differences of semantic roles borne by the relevant DPs. The chapter also discusses the links between Array 2 single objects and ditransitive first objects, links between Array 1 single objects and ditransitive second objects, and problems in Spanish and German.

It is not theoretically possible for an English 2 arc cooccurring with a final 3 arc to be a prepassive arc of either type. That English ditransitive clauses cannot have periphrastic 2 object passive or middle correspondents is highly desirable from a theoretical perspective since solid factual evidence suggests that those are passives of 4 objects, rather than 2 objects. This chapter deals with periphrastic passivization and restricted phenomena, focusing on expletive there and locative inversion passives. It also examines the character of ditransitive objects and the edge label of pseudopassive prepassive arcs, along with particles and 3 object-like behavior.

Case parameters determine, directly or indirectly, many aspects of grammatical-function realization, change, and alignment. The classic example of a grammatical-function-changing operation is the passive, and this is the initial focus of this chapter. The chapter next looks at various kinds of ergative alignment, and then other grammatical-function-changing operations: causatives and ditransitives. For each construction-type—passives, ergatives, causatives, and ditransitives—a parameter hierarchy is proposed. Finally, the chapter considers the question of Case macroparameters and assesses the recent proposals that languages may altogether lack abstract Case. Here it speculates about the reasons behind the apparent requirement for Case and/or nominal licensing.

This chapter focuses on English periphrastic passives and the most basic constraints on English passivization. It discusses the distinction between Class A ditransitives and Class B ditransitives and considers various types of English ditransitive clauses, along with failures of ditransitive 4 object passivization. It also looks at two alternative viewpoints on ditransitive constructions, one from Richard Oehrle (1976) and the other from Marcel den Dikken (1995).

This chapter deals with various clauses having that clause complements, including those containing what appear to be 3 objects. It illustrates how clauses offer important insights into English periphrastic passives. The chapter first considers an example which is associated with a distinct pattern of passivization possibilities before turning to a four-way typology of verbs taking that clause complements. It then discusses Type II verbal clause structures in relation to English periphrastic passives and invisible resumptive pronouns, ditransitive clauses with that clause complements, and particles and 3 objects.

This chapter investigates the syntactic and semantic properties of core and noncore datives in French. It is shown that despite their superficial similarity, core and noncore datives present several distinctive properties, some of which were not previously noted for French. The chapter proposes that core and noncore datives have their origin in different underlying structures: the former originate as the complement of a MOTION subevent of transitive verbs, whereas the latter are “second” subjects of a stative predicate, either base-generated in this position or raised out of the theme, when the theme contains a Part-noun. The analysis reaches generalizations concerning the lexico-semantic decomposition of verbal predicates appearing with core and noncore datives.

This chapter provides an overview of the uses of dative case in constructions other than dative external possessors, such as ‘ethical’ datives and dative objects of transitive and ditransitive verbs. Constructions traditionally analysed as ‘impersonal’ as well as constructions with copulas that use dative case present particular challenges of analysis, as do the dative complements of adjectives and nouns. While this study focuses on attributive possession, the use of dative case in predicative discussion is discussed in this chapter. In addition to delimiting the scope of the present investigation, the chapter provides background for the discussion in Chapter 7 of the relationship between the loss of functions of the dative case generally and the loss of dative external possessors in Middle English.

This chapter applies the theoretical framework of events to the study of non-core arguments. The applied argument in the symmetric applicative construction is introduced by a PP. This PP serves as the modifier of the event predicate, and its head, a null P, is incorporated into V. In an asymmetric applicative, including the ditransitive construction in English, two predicates are involved: in addition to the matrix verb, the other predicate is a P_HAVEP. The derivation of this construction is therefore by nature identical to that of English resultatives. An implication of this chapter concerns the syntactic distinction between core arguments and non-core arguments. The core argument is merged in either [Spec EP] or [Spec FP], while the applied argument is introduced elsewhere providing its merge position is permitted by general syntactic constraints.

Chapter 5 explores interactions between types of predication and ordering patterns at syntactic edges. First, it argues that scrambling within a resultative predication is impossible owing to the interaction between anti-locality and cyclic Spell-out. On the basis of this proposal, it explains why certain types of resultative disallow predicate fronting or quantifier stranding. The chapter also considers order-preservation effects in depictive domains. It argues that depictives are merged as an adjunct to a verbal projection, and that a null subject must be postulated within depictive phrases. This explains otherwise surprising contrasts between resultatives and depictives in terms of (re)ordering and scrambling. The chapter proposes that small clauses within a decomposed VP undergo linearization, and this claim explains why the semantic ambiguity of ‘again’ is correlated with certain types of ordering at syntactic edges. The chapter's proposal is also extended to ditransitive verb constructions, with some consequences for the position of applicative arguments.

This chapter sets out to discuss the links between the two domains of historical linguistics and typology, showing that it is actually quite indirect. The three basic mechanisms which govern grammatical change, that is, the processes of reanalysis (including grammaticalization and exaptation), analogy (including the phenomena of lexicalization and/or degrammaticalization), and external borrowing through language contact, only minimally involve typological research strictly defined. External borrowing is the only exception which could be included in the definition of linguistic areas. In spite of this, diachronic linguistics often enables us to provide, if not explanations, at least grounded hypotheses about the common properties which Sinitic languages share, if not the basic differences which are revealed between them. Examples are taken from the following topics to illustrate the points made above: passives and causatives, post verbal and pre verbal adverbs, double object constructions, and verbs of saying

This chapter addresses the statistical modelling of ‘failed changes’, i.e., changes that reverse instead of going to completion. The chapter compares two models: a symmetrical model derived by assuming that a failed change is represented by the first derivative of a successful change (Postma 2010) and an asymmetrical model derived by multiplying two successful changes together (i.e., by having a second change bleed the environment for the first change). A case study in the development of ‘to’ in the history of English ditransitives is used to argue for the asymmetrical model, where the two changes are (1) the realization of dative case as ‘to’ across the board, and (2) a grammar where ‘to’ is the default realization of dative case, but a null realization is used in recipient–theme contexts (e.g., ‘I gave John the ball’).

The present chapter addresses a thorny question of whether individual constructions reveal alignment preferences with respect to monotransitive (accusative vs. ergative) and ditransitive (indirective vs. secundative) alignment. It is argued that typological variation in this domain can be explained through interaction of two general factors, Harmony embodying the analogical tendency for coding/behavior matching, and Bias embodying intrinsic alignment preferences dictated by functional properties of individual constructions. It is shown that interaction between these two factors can both explain the crosslinguistically recurrent patterns of alignment (arising in situations when both motivations prefer the same alignment pattern) and crosslinguistic variation (arising in situations when the two motivations are in conflict).