Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-s6l46 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T09:06:25.673Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ditransitives in Middle English: on semantic specialisation and the rise of the dative alternation1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 January 2017

EVA ZEHENTNER
EVA ZEHENTNER*
Affiliation:
Department of English, University of Vienna, Spitalgasse 2–4, 1090 Vienna, Austria eva.zehentner@univie.ac.at
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article discusses the plausibility of a correlation or even a causal relation between two phenomena that can be observed in the history of English ditransitives. The changes concerned are: first, the emergence of the ‘dative alternation’, i.e. the establishment of a link between the double object construction (DOC) and its prepositional paraphrase, and second, a reduction in the range of verb classes associated with the DOC, with the construction's semantics becoming specialised to basic transfer senses. Empirically, the article is based on a quantitative analysis of the occurrences of the DOC as well as its prepositional competitors in the Penn–Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English, 2nd edition (PPCME2). On the basis of these results, it will be argued that the semantic narrowing and the increasing ability of ditransitive verbs to be paraphrased by a to-prepositional construction (to-POC) interacted in a bi-directional causal manner.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 22 , Issue 1 , March 2018 , pp. 149 - 175
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

1

The author is grateful to Nikolaus Ritt and the NatSide-Team at the University of Vienna for helpful comments; furthermore, I would like to thank Timothy Colleman and Ludovic De Cuypere for valuable discussions on the issue.

References

Aaron, Arthur, Aron, Elaine N. & Coups, Elliot J.. 2009. Statistics for psychology, 5th edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.Google Scholar
Allen, Cynthia L. 1995. Case marking and reanalysis: Grammatical relations from Old to Early Modern English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anthony, Laurence. 2014. AntConc (Version 3.4.3) [Computer Software]. Tokyo: Waseda University. www.laurenceanthony.net/software/antconc/ (accessed 24 December 2016).Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2007. The semantic and lexical range of the ditransitive construction in the history of (North) Germanic. Functions of Language 14, 9–30.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2009. The development of case in Germanic. In Barðdal, Jóhanna & Chelliah, Shobhana (eds.), The role of semantic, pragmatic, and discourse factors in the development of case, 123–59. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna & Kulikov, Leonid. 2009. Case in decline. In Malchukov, Andrej & Spencer, Andrew (eds.), The Oxford handbook of case, 470–8. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Kristoffersen, Kristian E. & Sveen, Andreas. 2011. West Scandinavian ditransitives as a family of constructions: With a special attention to the Norwegian V-REFL-NP construction. Linguistics 49 (1), 53–104.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Smirnova, Elena, Sommerer, Lotte & Gildea, Spike (eds.). 2015. Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel & Akimoto, Minoji (eds.). 1999. Collocational and idiomatic aspects of complex predicates in the history of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cappelle, Bert. 2006. Particle placement and the case for ‘allostructions’. In Schönefeld, Doris (ed.), Constructions 1, special volume: Constructions all over: Case studies and theoretical implications. www.researchgate.net/publication/31590515_Particle_placement_and_the_case_for_allostructions (accessed 24 December 2016).Google Scholar
Cassidy, Frederic G. 1938. The background in Old English of the Modern English substitutes for the dative-object in the group verb + dative-object + accusative-object. PhD thesis, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Colleman, Timothy. 2010. Lectal variation in constructional semantics: Benefactive ditransitives in Dutch. In Geeraerts, Dirk, Kristiansen, Gitte & Peirsman, Yves (eds.), Advances in cognitive sociolinguistics, 191–221. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Colleman, Timothy. 2011. Ditransitive verbs and the ditransitive construction: A diachronic perspective. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 59 (4), 387–410.Google Scholar
Colleman, Timothy & De Clerck, Bernard. 2008. Accounting for ditransitives with envy and forgive . Functions of Language 15, 187–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colleman, Timothy & De Clerck, Bernard. 2009. ‘Caused motion’? The semantics of the English to-dative and the Dutch aan-dative. Cognitive Linguistics 20 (1), 5–42.Google Scholar
Colleman, Timothy & De Clerck, Bernard. 2011. Constructional semantics on the move: On semantic specialization in the English double object construction. Cognitive Linguistics 22 (1), 183–209.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2000. Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2003. Lexical rules vs. constructions: A false dichotomy. In Cuyckens, Hubert, Berg, Thomas, Dirven, René & Panther, Klaus-Uwe (eds.), Motivation in language: Studies in honour of Guenter Radden, 49–68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, Ewa. 1997. Cognitive semantics and the Polish dative. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Clerck, Bernard, Delorge, Martine & Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie. 2011. Semantic and pragmatic motivations for constructional preferences: A corpus-based study of provide, supply, and present . Journal of English Linguistics 39, 359–91.Google Scholar
De Cuypere, Ludovic. 2010. The Old English double object alternation: A discourse-based account. Sprachwissenschaft 35, 337–68.Google Scholar
De Cuypere, Ludovic. 2013. Debiasing semantic analysis: The case of the English preposition to . Language Sciences 37, 122–35.Google Scholar
De Cuypere, Ludovic. 2015a. A multivariate analysis of the Old English ACC+DAT double object alternation. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 11 (2), 225–54.Google Scholar
De Cuypere, Ludovic. 2015b. The Old English to-dative construction. English Language and Linguistics 19 (1), 1–26.Google Scholar
Dercole, Fabio & Rinaldi, Sergio. 2008. Analysis of evolutionary processes. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Detges, Ulrich. 2009. How useful is case morphology? The loss of the Old French two-case system within a theory of preferred argument structure. In Barðdal & Chelliah (eds.).Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga. 1992. Syntax. In Blake, Norman (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, vol. 2, 207–408. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gast, Volker. 2007. I gave it him – on the motivation of the ‘alternative double object construction’ in varieties of British English. Functions of Language 14 (1), 31–56.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk. 1997. Diachronic prototype semantics: A contribution to historical lexicology. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Gerwin, Johanna. 2014. Ditransitives in British English dialects. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2010. Useful statistics for corpus linguistics. In Sánchez Pérez, Aquilino & Sánchez, Moisés Almela (eds.), A mosaic of corpus linguistics: Selected approaches, 269–91. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Herriman, Jennifer. 1995. The indirect object in Present-Day English. Gothenburg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2013. Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word formation, and syntax, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Sebastian & Mukherjee, Joybrato. 2007. Ditransitive verbs in Indian English and British English: A corpus-linguistic study. Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik 32 (1), 5–24.Google Scholar
Kittilä, Seppo. 2006. The anomaly of the verb ‘give’ explained by its high (formal and semantic) transitivity. Linguistics 44 (3), 569–612.Google Scholar
Koopman, Willem. 1991–3. The order of dative and accusative objects in Old English. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 25–27, 109–21.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony & Taylor, Ann. 2000. Penn–Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English, second edition. www.ling.upenn.edu/hist-corpora/PPCME2-RELEASE-3/index.html (accessed 24 December 2016).Google Scholar
Lambert, Silke. 2010. Beyond recipients: Towards a typology of dative uses. PhD thesis, The State University of New York at Buffalo.Google Scholar
McFadden, Thomas. 2002. The rise of the to-dative in Middle English. In Lightfoot, David W. (ed.), Syntactic effects of morphological change, 107–23. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Bruce. 1985. Old English syntax, vol. 1. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Mukherjee, Joybrato. 2001. Principles of pattern selection: A corpus-based case study . Journal of English Linguistics 29 (4), 295–314.Google Scholar
Mukherjee, Joybrato. 2005. English ditransitive verbs: Aspects of theory, description and a usage-based model. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Mustanoja, Tauno F. 1960. A Middle English syntax, vol. 1. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Newman, John. 1996. Give: A cognitive linguistic study. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Perek, Florent. 2015. Argument structure in usage-based construction grammar: Experimental and corpus-based perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 1989. Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team. 2014. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna. www.R-project.org (accessed 24 December 2016).Google Scholar
Randall, Beth. 2009. CorpusSearch 2: A tool for linguistic research. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. http://corpussearch.sourceforge.net/ (accessed 24 December 2016).Google Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, Malka & Levin, Beth. 2008. The English dative alternation: The case of verb sensitivity. Journal of Linguistics 44 (1), 129–67.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter. 1995. Betrachtungen zum Auf- und Abstieg einiger praepositionaler Konstruktionen im Englischen. NOWELE 26, 67–124.Google Scholar
Rostila, Jouni. 2007. Konstruktionsansaetze zur Argumentmarkierung im Deutschen. Tampere: Juvenes Print.Google Scholar
Schwegler, Armin. 1990. Analyticity and syntheticity: A diachronic perspective with special reference to Romance languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Gries, Stefan Th.. 2003. Collostructions: Investigating the interaction between words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8 (2), 209–43.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2012. Analyticity and syntheticity in the history of English. In Nevalainen, Terttu & Traugott, Elizabeth C. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of the history of English, 654–65. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Torrent, Tiago T. 2015. On the relation between inheritance and change: The Constructional Convergence and the Construction Network Reconfiguration Hypotheses. In Barðdal, Smirnova, Sommerer & Gildea (eds.).Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1992. Syntax. In Hogg, Richard (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, vol. 1, 168–289. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Trousdale, Graeme. 2013. Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
University of Michigan Regents. 2013. The electronic Middle English dictionary. http://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/med/ (accessed 24 December 2016).Google Scholar
Van de Velde, Freek. 2014. Degeneracy: The maintenance of constructional networks. In Boogaart, Ronny, Colleman, Timothy & Rutten, Gijsbert (eds.), Extending the scope of Construction Grammar, 141–80. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Vincent, Nigel. 1997. Synthetic and analytic structures. In Maiden, Martin & Parry, Mair (eds.), The dialects of Italy, 99–105. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Visser, Fredericus. Th. 1963. An historical syntax of the English language, vol.1: Syntactical units with one verb. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Wolk, Christoph, Bresnan, Joan, Rosenbach, Anette & Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2013. Dative and genitive variability in Late Modern English. Diachronica 30 (3), 382–419.Google Scholar
Yáñez-Bouza, Nuria & Denison, David. 2015. Which comes first in the double object construction? Diachronic and dialectal variation. English Language and Linguistics 19 (2), 247–68.Google Scholar