The English dative alternation: The case for verb sensitivity

Abstract

We challenge the predominant view of the English dative alternation, which takes all alternating verbs to have two meanings : a caused possession meaning realized by the double object variant and a caused motion meaning realized by the to variant. Instead, we argue that verbs like give and sell only have a caused possession meaning, while verbs like throw and send have both caused motion and caused possession meanings. We show that the caused possession meaning may be realized by both variants. Concomitantly, we argue that verbs like give, even in the to variant, lack a conceptual path constituent, and instead have a caused possession meaning which can be understood as the bringing about of a ' have' relation. We reassess evidence for alternative approaches adduced from inference patterns and verb-argument combinations and demonstrate how our verb-sensitive analysis, when combined with an account of variant choice, provides a more insightful explanation of this data, while having wider coverage. Our investigation affirms proposals that a verb's own meaning plays a key role in determining its argument realization options. To conclude, we consider the crosslinguistic implications of our study, attempting to explain why so many languages lack a true dative alternation. A V E R B -S E N S I T I V E A P P R O A C H T O T H E D A T I V E A L T E R N A T I O NAny 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 [1] We have had many opportunities to present this material, and we are grateful to the audiences for their comments and questions. We thank all those who have discussed this paper with us or provided extensive comments on earlier versions, including

High and Low Applicatives in Slovenian and Cross-linguistically

“…The main observation is that the division into the group of verbs with both high and low applicative meanings and the group with only low applicative meaning in Slovenian overlaps with Rappaport Hovav and Levin (2008) groups of verbs argued to exist with respect to the dative alternation. Furthermore, it will be established that in order to keep a Pylkkänen-type analysis for languages such as Slovenian, the incompatibility of the high applicative head and the low applicative meaning with the group of verbs discussed in Section 3.4. should be attributed to the semantic properties of the high applicative head.…”

“…In this part of the paper I shall link Slovenian applicative data to the verb-sensitive approach in Rappaport Hovav and Levin (2008). The main observation is that the division into the group of verbs with both high and low applicative meanings and the group with only low applicative meaning in Slovenian overlaps with Rappaport Hovav and Levin (2008) groups of verbs argued to exist with respect to the dative alternation.…”

“…In Slovenian the two applicative heads cannot freely attach to any VP, instead, the availability of the low and high applicative meanings depends on the inherent semantic meaning of the verb (Section 3). The data will then be related to Rappaport Hovav and Levin (2008) verb-sensitive analysis (Section 4). Finally, similar data from other South Slavic languages, Bulgarian, Macedonian and Serbo-Croatian will be presented (Section 5).…”

“…Also, further research in this area is needed to classify verbs such as bake and run, which also take the high applicative but do not clearly have a caused motion and possession component in their root meaning. For now, the Rappaport Hovav and Levin (2008) classification is useful in identifying the group of verbs without the high applicative reading, but does not suffice in terms of establishing a full range of root meaning components for verbs that appear in both high and low applicative constructions.…”

“…Section 3 deals with the main characteristics of Slovenian applicative constructions and the implications they have for Pylkkänen's analysis. Slovenian data is then linked to the approach found in Rappaport Hovav and Levin (2008) in Section 4. Finally, data from three other South Slavic languages is presented in Section 5.…”