The English dative alternation: The case for verb sensitivity

1.

A verb-sensitive approach to the dative alternation

Any analysis of the English dative alternation must address the question of what gives rise to this alternation, particularly as it is not found in all languages. This alternation involves verbs that show two realizations of apparently the same arguments, as illustrated with give and throw in (1) and (2), respectively. We refer to these two argument realization patterns as the to variant (the (a) sentences) and the double object variant (the (b) sentences).

(1)

(a)

Martha gave an apple to Myrna.

(b)

Martha gave Myrna an apple.

(2)

(a)

Leigh threw the ball to Lane.

(b)

Leigh threw Lane the ball.

There are two major classes of analyses for this alternation. One assumes that both variants are associated with the same meaning, with this meaning allowing two argument realization options. The second assumes that the variants are associated with different but related meanings, with each meaning giving rise to a distinct argument realization pattern. We refer to the first class of analyses as the single meaning approach,² and to the second as the multiple meaning approach. The currently dominant approach is the multiple meaning approach, which assumes a nonderivational relation between the variants: each is associated with its own meaning, though these are not always truth-conditionally distinguishable, and each gives rise to its own realization of arguments (e.g., Beck & Johnson 2004; Goldberg 1992, 1995; Hale & Keyser 2002; Harley 2003; Krifka 1999, 2004; Pinker 1989). On most instantiations of the approach, the to variant expresses caused motion, to use Goldberg's (1995) characterization: an agent causes a theme to move along a path to a goal, where the movement and path are interpreted in the possessional field (Gruber 1965; Jackendoff 1972, 1983). The double object variant expresses caused possession - causing a recipient to possess an entity, with the notion of possession construed broadly, as is typical in natural languages. Sample semantic representations for the two variants are given in (3) and (4). Those in (3) are Krifka's (1999) linearized adaptations of Pinker's (1989) tree representations; the neo-Davidsonian representations in (4) are proposed by Krifka (1999).

(3)

(a)

to variant: NP₀causes NP₂to go to NP₁

(b)

Double object variant