The English dative alternation: The case for verb sensitivity

Journal of Linguistics

Volumn 44, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 129-167

  Hovav, Malka Rappaport ^a   Levin, Beth ^b  

^a HEBREW UNIVERSITY OF JERUSALEM   (Israel)

^b STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 38949098184     PISSN: 00222267     EISSN: 14697742     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0022226707004975     Document Type: Article

References (106)

1. Abusch, Dorit. 1986. Verbs of change, causation, and time (Report CSLI-86-50). Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University.
2. Anderson, John M. 1971. The grammar of case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3. Allen, Cynthia L. 1995. Case marking and reanalysis: Grammatical relations from Old to Early Modern English. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
4. Anttila, Arto. In press. Phonological constraints on constituent ordering. WCCFL 26. Somerville, MA : Cascadilla Press.
5. Aoun, Joseph & Yen-hui Audrey Li. 1989. Scope and constituency. Linguistic Inquiry 20, 141-172.
6. Aristar, Anthony R. 1996. The relationship between dative and locative: Kurylowicz's argument from a typological perspective. Diachronica 13, 207-224.
7. Arnold, Jennifer E., Thomas Wasow, Anthony Losongco & Ryan Ginstrom. 2000. Heaviness vs. newness: The effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering. Language 76, 28-55.
8. Baker, Mark C. 1988. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
9. Baker, Mark C. 1997. Thematic roles and syntactic structure. In Liliane Haegeman (ed.), Elements of grammar: Handbook of generative syntax, 73-137. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
10. Beavers, John. 2006. Argument/oblique alternations and the structure of lexical meaning. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.
11. Beck, Sigrid & Kyle Johnson. 2004. Double objects again, Linguistic Inquiry 35, 97-124.
12. Benveniste, Emile,1960. Être et avoir dans leurs fonctions linguistiques. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 55, 113-134.
13. Bertinetto, Pier Marco & Mario Squartini. 1995. An attempt at defining the class of 'gradual completion' verbs. In Pier Marco Bertinetto, Valentina Bianchi, James Higginbotham & Mario Squartini (eds.), Temporal reference, aspect and actionality, vol. 1: Semantic and syntactic perspectives, 11-26. Turin: Rosenberg and Sellier.
14. Blansitt, Edward L. 1988. Datives and allatives. In Michael Hammond, Edith Moravcsik & Jessica Wirth (eds.), Studies in syntactic typology, 173-191. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
15. Borer, Hagit. 2003. Exo-skeletal vs. endo-skeletal explanations: Syntactic projections and the lexicon. In John Moore & Maria Polinsky (eds.), The nature of explanation in linguistic theory, 31-67. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
16. Bresnan, Joan. 1982. The passive in lexical theory. In Joan Bresnan (ed.), The mental representation of grammatical relations, 3-86. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press.
17. Bresnan, Joan, Anna Cueni, Tatiana Nikitina & Harald Baayen. 2007. Predicting the dative alternation. In Gerlof Bouma, Irene Krämer & Joost Zwarts (eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation, 69-94. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.
18. Bresnan, Joan & Tatiana Nikitina. In press. Categoricity and gradience in the dative alternation. In Lian Hee Wee & Linda Uyechi (eds.), Reality exploration and discovery : Pattern interaction in language and life. Stanford, CA : CSLI Publications.
19. Brown, Cheryl. 1983. Topic continuity in written English narrative. In Talmy Givón (ed.), Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-linguistic study, 313-342. Amsterdam,: John Benjamins.
20. Butt, Miriam, Mary Dalrymple & Anette Frank. 1997. An architecture for Linking Theory in LFG. The LFG 97 Conference.
21. Clark, Eve V. & Kathie L. Carpenter. ,1989. The notion of source in language acquisition. Language 65, 1-30.
22. Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language universais and linguistic typology, 2nd edn. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
23. Croft, William. 1991, Syntactic categories and grammatical relations. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
24. Croft, William. 1998. Event structure in argument linking. In Miriam Butt & Wilhelm Geuder (eds.), The projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional factors, 21-63. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
25. Croft, William. 2003a. Lexical rules vs. constructions: A false dichotomy. In Hubert Cuyckens, Thomas Berg, René Dirven & Klaus-Uwe Panther (eds.), Motivation in language: Studies in honor of Günter Radden, 49-68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
26. Croft, William. 2003b. Typology and universals, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
27. Croft, William, Johanna Bardal, Willem, Hollmann, Maike Nielsen, Violeta Sotirova & Chiaki Taoka. 2001, Discriminating verb meanings: The case of transfer verbs. Handout, LAGB Autumn Meeting, Reading.
28. Dahl, Östen & Kari Fraurud. 1996. Animacy in grammar and discourse. In Thorstein Fretheim, & Jeanette K. Gundel (eds.), Reference and referent accessibility, 47-64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
29. Davidse, Kristin. 1996. Functional dimensions of the dative in English. In William Van Belle & Willy Van Langendonck (eds.), The dative, vol. 1: Descriptive studies, 289-338. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
30. den Dikken, Marcel. 1995. Particles: On the syntax of verb-particle, triadic, and causative constructions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
31. Dowty, David R. 1979. Word meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.
32. Dowty, David R. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67, 547-619.
33. Dryer, Matthew S. 1986. On primary objects, secondary objects, and antidative. Language 62, 808-845.
34. Emonds, Joseph, 1972. Evidence that indirect-object movement is a structure-preserving rule. Foundations of Language 8, 546-56, 1.
35. Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 1979. Discourse constraints on dative movement. In Talmy Givón (ed.), Discourse and syntax (Syntax and Semantics 12), 441-467. New York: Academic Press.
36. Filip, Hana & Susan Rothstein. 2006. Telicity as a semantic parameter. In James Lavine, Steven Franks, Mila Tasseva-Kurktchieva & Hana Filip (eds.), Formal approaches to Slavic linguistics: The Princeton Meeting 2005, 1.39-156. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications, University of Michigan.
37. Fodor, Jerry A. 1970. Three reasons for not deriving kill from cause to die. Linguistic Inquiry 1, 429-438.
38. Freeze, Ray. 1992. Existentials and other locatives. Language 68, 553-595.
39. Givón, Talmy. 1984a. Direct object and dative shifting: Semantic and pragmatic case. In Frans Plank (ed.), Objects: Towards a theory of grammatical relations, 151-182. London: Academic Press.
40. Givón, Talmy. 1984b. Syntax: A functional-typological introduction, vol. I. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
41. Goldberg, Adele E. 1992. The inherent semantics of argument structure: The case of the English ditransitive construction. Cognitive Linguistics 3, 37-74.
42. Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
43. Goldberg, Adele E. 1997. The relationships between verbs and constructions. In Marjolijn Verspoor, Kee Dong Lee & Eve Sweetser (eds.), Lexical and syntactical constructions and the construction of meaning, 383-398. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
44. Goldsmith, John. 1980. Meaning and mechanism, in grammar. In Susumu Kuno (ed.), Harvard studies in syntax and semantics, 423-449. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
45. Green, Georgia M. 1974. Semantics and syntactic regularity. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
46. Gries, Stefan Thomas. 2003. Towards a corpus-based identification of prototypical instances of constructions. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 1, 1-28.
47. Gruber, Jeffrey S. 1965. Studies in lexical relations. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
48. Reprinted in Jeffrey S. Gruber. 1976. Lexical structures in syntax and semantics. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
49. Hale, Ken & Samuel J. Keyser. 2002. Prolegomenon to a theory of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
50. Hameyer, Klaus. 1979. English and German constraints on dative movement. Word 30, 235-244.
51. Harley, Heidi. 2003. Possession and the double object construction. In Pierre Pica & Johan Rooryck (eds.), Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2, 31-70. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
52. Haspelmath, Martin. 2003. The geometry of grammatical meaning: Semantic maps and crosslinguistic comparison. In Michael Tomasello (ed.), The new psychology of language II, 211-242. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
53. Haspelmath, Martin. 2005. Ditransitive constructions: The verb 'give'. In Martin Haspelmath, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil & Bernard Comrie (eds.), World atlas of language structures, 426-429. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
54. Hay, Jen, Christopher Kennedy & Beth Levin. 1999. Scalar structure underlies telicity in 'degree achievements'. In Tanya Matthews & Devon Strolovitch (eds.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory 9, 127-144. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Linguistics Circle Publications, Cornell University.
55. Heine, Bernd, 1997. Possession: Cognitive sources, forces, and grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
56. Hoekstra, Eric. 1991. Binding, ditransitives and the structure of the VP. In Werner Abraham, Wim Kosmeijer & Eric Reuland (eds.), Issues in Germanic syntax, 351-364. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
57. Jackendoff, Ray S. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
58. Jackendoff, Ray S. .1983. Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
59. Jackendoff, Ray S. 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
60. Kay, Paul, 2005. Argument structure constructions and the argument-adjunct distinction. In Mirjam Fried & Hans C. Boas (eds.), Grammatical constructions: Back to the roots, 71-98. Amsterdam.: John Benjamins.
61. Koenig, Jean-Pierre & Anthony R. Davis. 2001. Sublexical modality and the structure of lexical semantic representations. Linguistics and Philosophy 24, 71-124.
62. Kratzer, Angelika. 2004. Telicity and the meaning of objective case. In Jacqueline Guéron & Jacqueline Lecarme (eds.), The syntax of time, 389-423. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
63. Krifka, Manfred. 1992. Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and temporal constitution. In Ivan A. Sag & Anna Szabolcsi (eds.), Lexical matters, 29-54. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
64. Krifka, Manfred. 1999. Manner in dative alternation. WCCFL 18, 260-271, Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
65. Krifka, Manfred. 2004. Semantic and pragmatic conditions for the dative alternation. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics 4, 1-32.
66. Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
67. Larson, Richard K. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19, 335-391.
68. Levin, Beth. 2004. Verbs and constructions: Where next? Handout, Western Conference on Linguistics, University of Southern California.
69. Levin, Beth. 2007. Dative verbs: A crosslinguistic perspective. Ms., Stanford University.
70. Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport Hovav. 2005. Argument realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
71. Levinson, Lisa. 2005. 'To' in two places in the dative alternation. In Sudha Arunachalam, Tatjana Scheffler, Sandhya Sundaresan & Joshua Tauberer (eds.), The 28th Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium (Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 11.1), 155-168. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania.
72. Lyons, John. 1967. A note on possessive, existential and locative sentences. Foundations of Language 3, 390-396.
73. Machonis, Peter A. 1985. Transformations of verb phrase idioms: Passivization, particle movement, dative shift. American Speech 60, 291-308.
74. Marantz, Alec. 1996. 'Cat' as a phrasal idiom,: Consequences of late insertion in Distributed Morphology. Ms., MIT.
75. McCawley, James D. 1978. Conversational implicature and the lexicon. In Peter Cole (ed.), Pragmatics (Syntax and Semantics 9), 245-259. New York : Academic Press.
76. McFadden, Thomas. 2002. The rise of the to-dative in Middle English. In David Lightfoot (ed.), Syntactic effects of morphological change, 107-123. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
77. McIntyre, Andrew. 2006. The interpretation of German datives and English have. In Daniel Hole, Andre Meinunger & Werner Abraham (eds.), Datives and other cases: Between argument structure and event structure, 185-211. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
78. Miller, George A. & Philip N, Johnson-Laird. 1976. Language and perception. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
79. Newman, John. 1996. Give: A cognitive linguistic study. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
80. Nunberg, Geoffrey, Ivan A. Sag & Thomas Wasow. 1994. Idioms. Language 70, 491-538.
81. Oehrle, Richard T. 1976. The grammatical status of the English dative alternation. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
82. Oehrle, Richard T. 1977. Review of Georgia M. Green: Semantics and syntactic regularity. Language 53, 198-208.
83. O'Grady, William. 1998. The syntax of idioms. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 16, 279-312.
84. Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
85. Pinker, Steven. 1989. Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
86. Polinsky, Maria. 1996. A non-syntactic account of some asymmetries in the double object construction. In Jean-Pierre Koenig (ed.), Discourse and cognition: Bridging the gap, 403-422. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
87. Polo, Chiara. 2002. Double objects and morphological triggers for syntactic case. In David Lightfoot (ed.), Syntactic effects of'morphologicalchange, 124-142. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
88. Ramchand, Gillian. To appear. Verb meaning and the lexicon: A first phase syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
89. Ransom, Evelyn N. 1979. Defmiteness and animacy constraints on passive and double-object constructions in English. Glossa 13, 215-240.
90. Rappaport Hovav, Malka. In press. Lexicalized meaning and the internal temporal structure of events. In Susan Rothstein (ed.), Crosslinguistic and theoretical approaches to the semantics of aspect. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
91. Rappaport Hovav, Malka & Beth Levin. 2005. Change of state verbs: Implications for theories of argument projection. In Nomi Erteschik-Shir & Tova Rapoport (eds.), The syntax of aspect, 274-286. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
92. Reddy, Michael. 1979. The conduit metaphor - A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In Andrew Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and thought, 284-324. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
93. Richards, Norvin. 2001, An idiomatic argument for lexical decomposition. Linguistic Inquiry 32, 183-193.
94. Siewierska, Anna. 1998. Languages with and without objects: The Functional Grammar approach. Languages in Contrast 1, 173-190.
95. Snyder, Kieran Margaret. 2003. The relationship between form and function in ditransitive constructions. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
96. Taylor, John R. 1996. Possessives in English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
97. Tenny, Carol L. 1994. Aspectual roles and the syntax-semantics interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
98. Tham, Shiao Wei. 2004. Representing possessive predication: Semantic dimensions and pragmatic bases. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.
99. Thompson, Sandra A. 1990. Information flow and dative shift in English, discourse. In Jerold A. Edmondson, Crawford Feagin & Peter Mühlhäusler (eds.), Development and diversity: Language variation across time and space, 239-253. Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
100. Thompson, Sandra A, 1995. The iconicity of 'dative shift' in English: Considerations from, information flow in discourse. In Marge E. Landsberg (ed.), Syntactic iconicity and linguistic freezes, 155-175. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
101. Ura, Hiroyuki. 2000. Checking theory and grammatical functions in Universal Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
102. Van Belle, William & Willy Van Langendonck. 1992. The indirect object in Dutch. Leuvense Bijdragen 81, 17-43.
103. Wasow, Thomas. 1997. Remarks on grammatical, weight. Language Variation and Change 9, 81-105.
104. Wasow, Thomas. 2002. Postverbal behavior. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
105. Wechsler, Stephen. 1995. The semantic basis of argument structure. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
106. Zwarts, Joost. 2005. Prepositional aspect and the algebra of paths. Linguistics and Philosophy 28, 739-779.