Dative shift

In linguistics, dative shift refers to a pattern in which the subcategorization of a verb can take on two alternating forms, the oblique dative form or the double object construction form. In the oblique dative (OD) form, the verb takes a noun phrase (NP) and a dative prepositional phrase (PP), the second of which is not a core argument. : (1) John gave [ NP a book ] [ PP.DATIVE to Mary ]. In the double object construction (DOC) form the verb takes two noun phrases, both of which are core arguments, with the dative argument preceding the other argument. : (2) John gave [ NP.DATIVE Mary ] [ NP a book ].

In linguistics, dative shift refers to a pattern in which the subcategorization of a verb can take on two alternating forms, the oblique dative form or the double object construction form. In the oblique dative (OD) form, the verb takes a noun phrase (NP) and a dative prepositional phrase (PP), the second of which is not a core argument. (1) John gave [ NP a book ] [ PP.DATIVE to Mary ]. In the double object construction (DOC) form the verb takes two noun phrases, both of which are core arguments, with the dative argument preceding the other argument. (2) John gave [ NP.DATIVE Mary ] [ NP a book ]. ==Synonyms used in the literature== Terms used in literature on dative shift can vary. The chart below provides terms used in this article along with common synonyms used elsewhere. ==Analyses of dative shift== ===Chomsky 1955=== Noam Chomsky, in The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory (1955, 1975) provides a proposal about dative structure using transformational grammar. Chomsky's argument suggests that an oblique dative example like [John sent a letter to Mary] derives from an underlying form. In this oblique dative sentence [John sent a letter to Mary], the verb, [sent], and its indirect object, [to Mary], make up a constituent that excludes the direct object [a letter]. The OD form therefore involves an underlying verb phrase (VP) whose subject is [a letter] and whose object is [(to) Mary]. The VP [sent to Mary] is considered an inner constituent. This inner constituent is clear to see in the D-Structure, but is obscured in the S-Structure after V-Raising. Examples (6) and (7) show the oblique dative form as it appears in its underlying representation before V-Raising (6) and in its surface representation after V-Raising (7): (6) John [ VP a letter [ V' send to Mary ]] (D-Structure) (7) John send [ VP a letter [ V' to Mary ]] (S-Structure) ===Kayne 1983=== In his book, Connectedness and Binary Branching, Richard S. Kayne proposed that an empty preposition is the source of the double-object construction. In his analysis, English prepositions have the ability to assign objective grammatical case. Kayne argues that an empty preposition is responsible for allowing a double object construction. (8) John bought [ pp P e [Mary ]] a book. Kayne continues with the notion that an empty preposition (P e ) cannot be the source of case role. Instead the empty preposition transfers the case assigned by the verb. He further stipulates that case may only be transferred via prepositions that normally assign object case. Therefore, languages that do not assign object case via prepositions (such as French) cannot have the double-object form. ===Barss and Lasnik 1986=== In their 1986 paper "A Note on Anaphora and Double Objects", Barss and Lasnik point out a number of asymmetries in the behaviour of the two NPs in double object construction. All of their findings point to the same conclusion: in constructions involving a verb phrase of the form V-NP1-NP2, the first NP c-commands the second NP, but not vice versa. The paper provides significant evidence for rejecting linear phrase structure trees. ===Larson 1988=== Larson builds off of the original proposal made by Chomsky, stating that the Oblique Dative form is derived from an underlying structure. Larson suggests that both the oblique dative form and the double object construction are surface representations. He relates the oblique dative and double object structures derivationally. ====Oblique datives==== To account for oblique datives, Larson adopts a proposal originally made by Chomsky (1955, 1975), where the verb in the deep structure is raised in the surface structure (S-structure) (see Figure 1). The correct ordering of the oblique dative surfaces through head to head movement. See Figure 2. The verb [send], which moves to the empty V position, has two thematic roles that are assigned to the internal arguments theme: [a letter] and goal [to Mary]. The movement leaves a trace at the original V and creates a sequence of co-indexed V positions. Raising is attributed to case and Inflectional Agreement. Larson's motivations for V' Raising are the same motivations used to derive the surface order of raising in VSO languages, such as Irish. Specifically, the subject NP can receive case from the V, when V governs the NP. Citing Chomsky (1975, 55) in the process, Larson provides an intuitive explanation of oblique datives. He argues that [to send] forms the small predicate [send-to-Mary.] It can be said of this small predicate that it has the inner subject [a letter]. This forms a clause-like VP [a letter send to Mary] ====Double object construction==== Larson states that the double object construction can be explained under a derivational approach. He proposes an operation he names “passive derivation” defined as: NP movement that promotes an argument to the subject position of an inflectional phrase or verb phrase. First, Larson strengthens the argument that the two NPs in Figure 1 above, relate to subject and object position. He states that the governed preposition to has the status of dative case case marking. This is similar to case marking appearing on indirect object in more highly inflected languages. Secondly, Larson extends operations that apply between subjects and objects to structures such as those shown in Figure 1. Specifically, he looks the two main effects of passive derivation occurring in the inner VP: Withdrawal of case from object position Suppression of thematic role assignment in subject position Larson makes one amendment to the derivation of passives called argument demotion that states that a theta role must be assigned to a V' adjunct. With this amended view of passive formation, Larson derives the double object construction surface representation. When the indirect object NP is moved to the VP subject position, the application of passive derivation results in the absorption of the case assigned to the indirect object, and hence the absorption of to. The theta role assigned to the subject of VP undergoes demotion, reducing the position to non-thematic status. The direct object is realized as a V' adjunct and receives its theta-role from V', consistent with argument demotion. The changes from the underlying form to derive the surface structure of the DOC are depicted in Figure 3 and summarized below. ===Contemporary theories=== At present, there are two major classes of analyses for dative shift; these two classes have been called the Uniform Multiple Meaning Approach (Levin, 2008) and the Single Meaning Approach (Hovav & Levin, 2008), with the former being considered the dominant approach. ====Uniform Multiple Meaning Approach==== In most variants of the Uniform Multiple Meaning Approach (Beck & Johnson 2004, Harley 2003, Pinker 1989 ), it is assumed that the relationship between the double object construction and the oblique dative forms is non-derivational. That is to say that the alternation arises not purely from syntactic factors, but from semantic ones as well; each variation is associated with its own meaning, and hence, each meaning has its own realization of arguments. This shows a clear departure from some of the main beliefs in Larson's 1988 analysis. In most realizations of this approach, dative verbs have both the caused motion meaning, expressed by the OD form and the caused possession meaning, expressed by the DOC form (Goldberg, 1995 ). ====Single Meaning Approach==== Contemporary theories that take the Single Meaning Approach continue to consider dative shift with the assertion Larson's 1988 analysis makes: that the DOC and OD variants are associated with the same semantic meaning, but surface differently due to different argument realizations (Hovav & Levin, 2008 ). Variants of this approach include Jackendoff's (1990), in which he provides different analyses for verbs with different types of meaning (e.g. “give” and “sell” vs “throw” and “kick” shown in the table below). This approach, also taken by Hovav and Levin (2008), is known as the Verb-Sensitive Approach. ==Psycholinguistics== ===Child acquisition of dative shift=== ====General observations==== Findings have shown that by age three children demonstrate an understanding of dative shift alternation. When presented with both alternations using novel verbs, children are more likely to shift the DOC form into the oblique dative form. For example, children were presented with novel verbs in both the double object construction and oblique dative forms: (9) "You pilked Petey the cup" (DOC) (10) "You gorped the keys to Toby" (oblique dative) After hearing these two forms and then being asked to produce a corresponding alternation for one of the two, children were more likely to produce the oblique dative (11) than the double object construction (12). (11) "I pilked the cup to Petey" (oblique dative) (12) "I gorped Toby the keys" (DOC). ====Baker's Paradox and original hypotheses==== Although DOC and oblique dative forms are common productions for children at age three, the dative shift poses a paradox for young children learning English. The paradox, termed "Baker's Paradox", can be summarized in the following examples. When children hear both forms: (13a) Give money to him (OD) (13b) Give him money (DOC) Children may formulate a lexical rule, deriving the double object construction from the oblique dative form. However, the rule would permit the following example of overgeneralization: (14a) Donate money to him. (OD) (14b) *Donate him money. (DOC) Example 14b is an overgeneralization because dative shift has been applied to the verb "donate", whereas in fact "donate" cannot undergo dative shift. When children say ungrammatical sentences, they are not often corrected. How, then, do children avoid overgeneralizations such as the one above? There are two main hypotheses which try and explain how children avoid overgeneralizations, the "conservatism" hypothesis and the "criteria" hypothesis. The "conservatism" hypothesis proposes that children do not overgeneralize the double object construction to verbs such as [donate] and [whisper] (ex. [John whispers Mary the secret]), because the child never hears ungrammatical double object constructions in their input. The child only recreates forms they hear in their input and therefore does not generalize the double object construction. This idea was first suggested by Baker (1979) who posited that children never make errors similar to those shown in (14b) and never receive information, about the ungrammaticality of (14b). Therefore, this hypothesis predicts that children acquire dative shift rules verb-by-verb, not by generalization. The "criteria" hypothesis instead proposes that children learn to constrain their rule for dative shift and are able to apply it only to monosyllabic verbs (one-syllable verbs, ex. [give]), which indicate possession changes (ex. [Mary gave John the ball], where [give] denotes a possession change from Mary, to John). In other words, children are quite productive with their speech, applying dative shift to many verbs, but are constrained by morphophonological criteria (monosyllabic vs. polysyllabic verbs), and semantic criteria (possession change). ==References== ==External links==

Text derived from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1328686390 under CC BY-SA 4.0; modifications have been made.