Dative verbs: A crosslinguistic perspective

In a recent paper, M. Rappaport Hovav and B. Levin (2008) challenge the predominant view of the English dative alternation, which takes all alternating verbs to have two meanings and, concomitantly, associates each meaning with a particular syntactic realization (e.g. S. Beck and K. Johnson 2004, G. Green 1974, K. Hale and S.J. Keyser 2002, H. Harley 2003, M. Krifka 1999, 2001, R. Oehrle 1976, S. Pinker 1989). On this accepted view, the first meaning, a caused possession meaning, schematized in (4a), is said to be realized by the double object variant (the (a) sentences in (1)-(3)), while the second meaning, a caused motion meaning, schematized in (4b), is said to be realized by the to variant (the (b) sentences).

[1]  Elena Anagnostopoulou,et al.  On clitics, feature movement, and double object alternations , 2004 .

[2]  M. Dryer.  Primary Objects, Secondary Objects, and Antidative , 1986 .

[3]  P. C. Hofherr,et al.  Possessors , Goals and theClassification of Ditransitive Predicates : Evidence fromHebrew , 2006 .

[4]  Andrew McIntyre,et al.  The interpretation of German datives and English have , 2006 .

[5]  J. Maling.  Dative: The heterogeneity of the mapping among morphological case, grammatical functions, and thematic roles , 2001 .

[6]  Jeffrey Gruber.  Studies in lexical relations , 1965 .

[7]  Miriam Butt,et al.  The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors , 2004 .

[8]  Michelle A. Hollander,et al.  The learnability and acquisition of the dative alternation , 1989 .

[9]  Georgia M. Green,et al.  Semantics and Syntactic Regularity , 1974 .

[10]  Ray Jackendoff,et al.  Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar , 1972 .

[11]  Liina Pylkkänen,et al.  What Applicative Heads Apply To , 2000 .

[12]  Martin Haspelmath,et al.  The geometry of grammatical meaning: Semantic maps and cross-linguistic comparison , 2003 .

[13]  S. J. Keyser,et al.  Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure , 2002 .

[14]  D. Gerdts,et al.  Mapping Halkomelem grammatical relations , 1993 .

[15]  Jean-Pierre Koenig,et al.  Sublexical Modality And The Structure Of Lexical Semantic Representations , 2001 .

[16]  Beth Levin,et al.  Objecthood: An event structure perspective , 1999 .

[17]  T. Mohanan.  Argument structure in Hindi , 1994 .

[18]  Anthony Rodrigues Aristar.  The relationship between dative and locative : Kuryłowicz's argument from a typological perspective , 1996 .

[19]  Beth Levin,et al.  English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation , 1993 .

[20]  W. Bruce Croft.  Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations , 1990 .

[21]  Nomi Erteschik-Shir.  Discourse constraints on dative movement , 2003 .

[22]  Karin Kipper Schuler,et al.  Argument Realization , 2006, Comput. Linguistics.

[23]  Richard Hudson,et al.  SO-CALLED 'DOUBLE OBJECTS' AND GRAMMATICAL RELATIONS , 1992 .

[24]  Malka Rappaport Hovav,et al.  The English dative alternation: The case for verb sensitivity1 , 2008, Journal of Linguistics.

[25]  Marjolyn Verspoor,et al.  Lexical and syntactical constructions and the construction of meaning : proceedings of the bi-annual ICLA meeting in Albuquerque, July 1995 , 1997 .

[26]  Jane Grimshaw,et al.  Words and Structure , 2004 .

[27]  Kieran Snyder.  The relationship between *form and *function in ditransitive constructions , 2003 .

[28]  Adele E. Goldberg.  The Relationships between Verbs and Constructions , 1997 .

[29]  S. Thompson.  The iconicity of "dative shift" in English: Considerations from information flow in discourse , 1995 .

[30]  Masatoshi Koizumi,et al.  On the nature of the “dative” particle ni in Japanese , 1995 .

[31]  Heidi Harley,et al.  Possession and the double object construction , 2002 .

[32]  Beth Levin,et al.  Verbs and Constructions: Where Next? , 2004 .

[33]  Kristin Davidse.  4.Functional dimensions of the dative in English , 1996 .

[34]  Edward Blansitt.  Datives and allatives , 1988 .

[35]  Thomas Wasov,et al.  Postverbal behavior , 2002, CSLI lecture notes series.

[36]  Ina Ruck,et al.  USA , 1969, The Lancet.

[37]  Manfred Krifka.  Lexical Representations and the Nature of the Dative Alternation , 2001 .

[38]  S. Pinker.  Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure , 1989 .

[39]  Anna Siewierska.  Languages With and Without Objects: The Functional Grammar Approach , 1998 .

[40]  Nomi Ertescik-Shir.  Discourse Constraints on Dative Movement , 1979 .

[41]  Frans Plank.  Objects : towards a theory of grammatical relations , 1986 .

[42]  Edward L. Keenan,et al.  Towards a universal definition of "Subject , 2014 .

[43]  Kyle Johnson,et al.  Double Objects Again , 2004, Linguistic Inquiry.

[44]  A. Marantz.  Implications of asymmetries in double object constructions , 1993 .

[45]  Richard Thomas Oehrle,et al.  The grammatical status of the English dative alternation , 1976 .

[46]  Leonard Talmy,et al.  Force Dynamics in Language and Cognition , 1987, Cogn. Sci..

[47]  A. Goldberg.  Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language , 2006 .

[48]  Mark C. Baker,et al.  Thematic Roles and Syntactic Structure , 1997 .