'Give it him and then I'll give you money for it.' The dative alternation in Contemporary British English
‘Dative alternation’ refers to a linguistic phenomenon related to ditransitive verbs, that is, verbs which take a subject and two objects referring to a theme and a recipient. In English, the phenomenon offers the possibility of alternation between a prepositional object construction (PREP), where the recipient is encoded as a prepositional phrase (give it to him), a double object construction (DOC), where the recipient precedes the theme (give him it) and an alternative double object construction (altDOC), where the theme takes precedence over the recipient (give it him), the latter constrained to dialectal usage. Even though this alternation has been extensively addressed in the literature, few studies have considered language-external factors in determining the choice of encoding. This paper analyses the distribution of ditransitive forms in competition in contemporary British English from a twofold perspective, shedding some light on the distribution of these variants across time, along with the study of PREP, DOC and altDOC in relation to their sociolinguistic dimension. The corpus used as source of evidence is the British National Corpus, a 100-million-word collection of both written and spoken language from a wide range of sources.
Arnold, Jennifer E., Elsi Kaiser, Jason M. Kahn and Lucy K. Kim. 2013. Information structure: linguistic, cognitive, and processing approaches. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 4: 403–413.
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad and Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson.
Bresnan, Joan. 2007. Is syntactic knowledge probabilistic? Experiments with the English dative alternation. In Sam Featherston and Wolfgang Sternefeld eds. Roots: linguistics in search of its evidential base. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 75–96.
Bresnan, Joan, Anna Cueni, Tatiana Nikitina and R. Harald Baayen. 2007. Predicting the dative alternation. In Gerlof Bouma, Irene Krämer and Joost Zwarts eds. Cognitive foundations of interpretation. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, 69–94.
Bresnan, Joan and Tatiana Nikitina. 2003. On the gradience of the dative alternation. http://www.stanford.edu/~bresnan/new-dative.pdf (accessed 20 September 2018).
Bresnan, Joan and Tatiana Nikitina. 2008. The gradience of the dative alternation. In Linda Uyechi and Lian-Hee Wee eds. Reality, exploration and discovery: pattern interaction in language and life. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 161–184.
Eckert, Penelope. 1997. Age as a sociolinguistic variable. In Florian Coulmas ed. The handbook of sociolinguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, 151–167.
Faarlund, Jan Terje. 2005. The syntax of Old Norse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fischer, Olga. 2000. The syntax of Early English. In Norman Blake and Richard M. Hogg eds. The Cambridge history of the English language II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 207–398.
Fries, Charles C. 1940. On the development of the structural use of word-order in Modern English. Language 16/3: 199–208.
Garside, Roger. 1987. The CLAWS Word-tagging System. In Roger Garside, Geoffrey Leech and Geoffrey Sampson eds. The computational analysis of English: a corpus-based approach. London: Longman, 30–41.
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.
Gerwin, Johanna. 2014. Ditransitives in British English dialects. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Haddican, William. 2010. Theme-goal ditransitives and theme passivisation in British English dialects. Lingua 120/10: 2424–2443.
Haspelmath, Martin. 2015. Ditransitive constructions. Annual Review of Linguistics 1: 19–41.
Hawkins, John A. 1994. A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hawkins, John A. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Koopman, Willem. 1993. The order of dative and accusative objects in Old English and scrambling. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 25–27: 109–121.
Koopman, Willem and Wim van der Wurff. 2000. Two word order patterns in the history of English: stability, variation, change. In Rosanna Sornicola, Erich Poppe and Ariel Shisha-Halevy eds. Stability, variation and change of word-order patterns over time. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 259–283.
Krifka, Manfred. 2004. Semantic and pragmatic conditions for the dative alternation. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics 4/1: 1–31.
Lacerda, Renato. 2017. Information structure in child English: contrastive topicalization and the dative alternation. In Maria LaMendola and Jennifer Scott eds. Proceedings of the 41st annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, 387–400.
Levin, Beth. 1993. English verb classes and alternations. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Levin, Beth. 2007. Dative verbs: crosslinguistic perspective. Ms. Stanford University.
Levin, Beth. 2008. Dative verbs and dative alternations from a crosslinguistic perspective. Ms. Stanford University.
McFadden, Thomas. 2002. The rise of the to-dative in Middle English. In David W. Lightfoot ed. Syntactic effects of morphological change. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 107–123.
Rappaport-Hovav, Malka and Beth Levin. 2008. The English dative alternation: the case for verb sensitivity. Journal of Linguistics 44/1: 129–167.
Röthlisberger, Melanie, Jason Grafmiller and Benedikt Szmrecsanyi. 2017. Cognitive indigenization effects in the English dative alternation. Cognitive Linguistics 28/4: 673–710.
Siewierska, Anna and Willem Hollmann. 2007. Ditransitive clauses in English with special reference to Lancashire dialect. In Mike Hannay and Gerard J. Steen eds. Structural-functional studies in English grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 83–102.
Sówka-Pietraszewska, Katarzyna. 2012. On the development of a prepositional object construction with give verbs, motion verbs and Latinate verbs in English. VARIENG: Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English 10. http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/journal/volumes/10/sowka-pietraszewska.
The British National Corpus, version 3 (BNC XML Edition). 2007. Distributed by Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford, on behalf of the BNC Consortium. http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk.
Thompson, Sandra A. 1990. Information flow and dative shift in English discourse. In Jerold A. Edmondson, Crawford Feagin and Peter Mühlhäusler eds. Development and diversity: language variation across time and space. Dallas, Tx: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 239–253.
Visser, Fredericus. 1963. An historical syntax of the English language. Part One: Syntactical units with one verb. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Wasow, Thomas. 1997. Remarks on grammatical weight. Language Variation and Change 9/1: 81–105.
Wolk, Christoph, Joan Bresnan, Annete Rosenbach and Benedikt Szmrecsanyi. 2013. Dative and genitive variability in Late Modern English: exploring cross-constructional variation and change. Diachronica 30/3: 382–419.
Submission of your paper to this journal implies that the paper is not under submission for publication elsewhere. Material which has been previously copyrighted, published, or accepted for publication will not be considered for publication in this journal. Submission of a manuscript is interpreted as a statement of certification that no part of the manuscript is copyrighted by any other publisher nor is under review by any other formal publication. By submitting your manuscript to us, you agree on these copyright guidelines. It is your responsibility to ensure that your manuscript does not cause any copyright infringements, defamation, and other problems.
Submitted papers are assumed to contain no proprietary material unprotected by patent or patent application; responsibility for technical content and for protection of proprietary material rests solely with the author(s) and their organizations and is not the responsibility of the journal or its editorial staff. The main author is responsible for ensuring that the article has been seen and approved by all the other authors. It is the responsibility of the author to obtain all necessary copyright release permissions for the use of any copyrighted materials in the manuscript prior to the submission.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under the BY Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal
Article submission implies author agreement with this policy.