Earticle

This paper examines the language development of dative alternation in English, double object (DO) dative and prepositional object (PO) dative. It has been reported (cf. Gropen et al. (1989)) that children or speakers with insufficient linguistic knowledge tend to make errors in or over-generate dative alternation. Pinker (1989) took a semantics- based approach to the acquisition of argument structure proposing the broad-range rule and the narrow range verb classes. This paper takes an alternative syntax/UG-based approach to the issue at hand, arguing that the functional category Applicative plays an indispensible role in introducing a DO dative, thus attributing the use of the latter to the development of the former. We further argue that the development of the functional category Appl(icative) emerges from statistical learning of verb classes while children experience syntactic distributions of verbs in English.

The purpose of this study is to suggest a principled explanatory mechanism for the puzzling interaction of the complements DP1 and DP2 within VP in the Double Object Construction (DOC) and Dative Construction (DC). For this, the multiple Spec-VP and the multiple Theta (θ)-Agree of V inherited from v such as V1CAUSE and V2Have in DOC are posited with respect to Aoun and Li’s (1989) DOC to DC Transformation (T) approach. To support this postulation, Distributed Morphology (DM)? based Harley’s (2002) double object verb decomposition is adopted and slightly changed in the vein of the causative light verb v . And Kayne’s (1984) binary branching as well as Larson’s (1988) and Aoun and Li’s (1989) passivization are adopted and Aoun and Li’s (1989) Hybrid Analysis is a bit revised. As a result, the semantic relation and the structural (asymmetric) c-command relation between DP1 and DP2 in DOC and DC are solved. Also the inaccessibility of wh-extraction on DP2 in DOC and the accessibility of wh-extraction on DP1 in DC are explained.

This study aims to explain the dative alternation of Dative Constructions (DC) and the semantic properties of Double Object Constructions (DOC) through semantic extension of construction grammar. This study demonstrates that problematic verbs such as bring, kick, rob, steal, and hand should not be explained only by semantic observations. The dative meaning of ‘transfer’ allows these verbs to be used in DOC, which is normally restricted to Germanic or native English constructions, while DC consists primarily of Latin constructions and blocks many native verbs. In this vein, the results suggest that verbs of refusal, which appear in the double object construction through the relation of negation, and verbs lexicalizing the means of transfer, which invariably appear in the ditransitive construction, trigger the dative alternation as well as the integration of verbs and constructions.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate English double object construction and dative construction in terms of Role and Reference Grammar [RRG], with some reference to corresponding Korean constructions. In this paper, it is argued that the double object construction and the dative construction in English both involve the asymmetric (i.e., non-neutral alignment) structures typologically. The asymmetric structures are claimed to support the claim that the linking algorithm in RRG should be regarded as a lexical approach, and should reflect the different meanings in the Logical Structures. It is also claimed that beneficiary applicative mechanisms are employed to account for the marked undergoer selection of non-core arguments in English double object construction. Furthermore, it is shown that the same asymmetric structures should be posited for English beneficiary applicatives. It is also argued that there should be a single undergoer in English clause. This claim is naturally associated with the asymmetric structures for the double object construction.

The Double Object Construction and the Dative Construction roughly form a paraphrase relation, but there are so many interesting syntactic and semantic differences between them. This paper proposes that their differences follow from the Binarity Principle and the Principle of Co-arguments if both objects of the DOC are arguments, whereas the dative phrase of the DC is not an argument but an adjunct.

In this paper, we will explore the syntactic structure of double object and prepositional dative constructions in English and argues that the two constructions are derived from the same underlying structure rather than the separate syntactic structure. First, we consider the semantic structure of the two constructions and argue that the different semantic representations come from the property of the verb itself, rather than the syntactic structures. Second, we explore the underlying structure of the two constructions and propose they are derived from the same underlying structure. Finally, we attempt to show how the two different structures are derived from the same underlying structure in the narrow syntax.

The purpose of this study is to investigate the interpretations of English dative alternations by Korean learners, especially focusing on how Korean learners of English understand semantic and morphological constraints related to dative alternations. Sixty Korean learners of English participated in the experiment where they performed a grammaticality judgment task using Magnitude Estimation (ME) with English sentences representing different semantic and morphological conditions. The results demonstrated that Korean learners of English considered Prepositional Dative Constructions (PDCs) more grammatical than Double Object Constructions (DOCs) in overall sentence types and their understanding of different semantic and morphological constraints on dative alternations seems to be incomplete. The results also showed that the learners’ proficiency in English played an important role in understanding English dative alternations. Detailed discussions and pedagogical implications are presented.