Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T16:30:59.663Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Which comes first in the double object construction?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2015

NURIA YÁÑEZ-BOUZA  and
DAVID DENISON
NURIA YÁÑEZ-BOUZA
Affiliation:
Departamento de Filoloxía Inglesa, Francesa e Alemá, Universidade de Vigo, Vigo E-36310, Spainnuria.y.b@uvigo.es
DAVID DENISON
Affiliation:
Linguistics and English Language, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, UKdavid.denison@manchester.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Competition between two methods of marking recipient/beneficiary and theme has figured in much recent research:

  1. (1) Jim gave the driver £5.   (indirect object before direct object)

  2. (2) Jim gave £5 to the driver.   (direct object before prepositional phrase)

A reverse double object variant is often ignored or treated as a minor and highly restricted variant:

    1. (a) ?Jim gave £5 the driver.   (direct object before indirect object)

    2. (b) Jim gave it him.

However, pattern (3) was much more widespread even in late Modern English, while there is clear dialectal variation within present-day British English.

In this article we investigate the pronominal pattern (3b), mainly in relation to pattern (1), tracking its progressive restriction in distribution. We mine three of the Penn parsed corpora for the general history in English of double object patterns with two pronoun objects. We then add a further nine dialect and/or historical English corpora selected for coverage and representativeness. A usage database of examples in these corpora allows more detailed description than has been possible hitherto. The analysis focuses on verb lemmas, objects and dialect variation and offers an important corrective to the bulk of research on the so-called Dative Alternation between patterns (1) and (2). We also examine works in the normative grammatical tradition, producing a precept database that reveals the changing status of variants as dialectal or preferred. In our conclusion we show the importance of prefabricated expressions (prefabs) in the later history of (3), sketching an analysis in Construction Grammar terms.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 19 , Special Issue 2: Sense of place in the history of English , July 2015 , pp. 247 - 268
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

We are happy to contribute to a special issue that honours Joan Beal, a supportive colleague and friend who has made important contributions to many areas of English language and linguistics, among them the study of British dialects and prescriptivism, two of the topics addressed in this article. We hope she finds something of interest here.

2

The authors would like to acknowledge financial support. David Denison: Research Network Fund grant awarded by University of Manchester/School of Arts, Languages and Cultures for Advances in English Historical Syntax. Nuria Yáñez-Bouza: the Spanish Ministry of ‘Economía y Competitividad’, Ramón y Cajal Scheme (RYC-2011-07863); the European Regional Development Fund (FFI2013-44065-P); the Autonomous Government of Galicia (Secretary General for Universities, GPC2014/060); University of Vigo. The authors are grateful to Timothy Colleman, Johanna Gerwin, Willem Hollmann and Bernd Kortmann for copies of papers and clarification. We thank George Walkden and especially Paul Johnston for a web interface to CorpusSearch 2, in turn based on Web Query by Pablo Faria for the Tycho Brahe Project (http://galileo.rice.edu/sci/brahe.html).

References

Allen, Cynthia L. 1995. Case marking and reanalysis: Grammatical relations from Old to Early Modern English. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ash, John. 1766 [1761]. The easiest introduction to Dr Lowth's English grammar, 4th edn. London.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan & Nikitina, Tatiana. 2009. The gradience of the dative alternation. In Uyechi, Linda & Wee, Lian-Hee (eds.), Reality exploration and discovery: Pattern interaction in language and life. Stanford CA: CSLI Publications. Repr. [Cited from proofs of July 2008, accessed on 23/11/2013, web.stanford.edu/~bresnan/bresnan-nikitina.proof.pdf].Google Scholar
Brittain, Lewis. 1788. Rudiments of English grammar. Louvain.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2013. Usage-based theory and exemplar representations of constructions. In Hoffmann, Thomas & Trousdale, Graeme (eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar, 49–69. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Crane, George. 1843. The principles of language; exemplified in a practical English grammar. London.Google Scholar
Crombie, Alexander. 1830 [1802]. The etymology and syntax of the English language, explained and illustrated, 3rd collected and enlarged edn. London.Google Scholar
De Cuypere, Ludovic. 2015 [FirstView online 2014]. The Old English to-dative construction. English Language and Linguistics 19 (1), 1–26.Google Scholar
Denison, David. 1984. On get it over with. Neophilologus 68, 271–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denison, David. 1998. Syntax. In Romaine, Suzanne (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, vol. 4: 1776–1997, 92–329. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga. 1992. Syntax. In Blake, Norman (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, vol. 2: 1066–1476, 207–408. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Olga & van der Wurff, Wim. 2006. Syntax. In Hogg, Richard M. & Denison, David (eds.), A history of the English language, 109–98. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fogg, Peter W. 1796. Dissertations grammatical and philological. Stockport.Google Scholar
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), Special issue: Ditransitivity, 31–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerwin, Johanna. 2013. Give it me!: Pronominal ditransitives in English dialects. English Language and Linguistics 17 (3), 445–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haddican, William. 2010. Theme–Goal ditransitives and Theme passivization in British English dialects. Lingua 120 (10), 2424–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K.. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, Arthur, Trudgill, Peter & Watt, Dominic. 2012. English accents and dialects: An introduction to social and regional varieties of English in the British Isles, 5th edn. Abingdon & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1909–49. A Modern English grammar on historical principles, 7 vols. Heidelberg: Carl Winters Universitätsbuchhandlung. Reprint. London, 1961.Google Scholar
Koopman, Willem & van der Wurff, Wim. 2000. Two word order patterns in the history of English: Stability, variation, change. In Sornicola, Rosanna, Poppe, Erich & Shisha-Halevy, Ariel (eds.), Stability, variation and change of word-order patterns over time, 259–83. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd & Lunkenheimer, Kerstin. 2013. The electronic world atlas of varieties of English. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Available online at http://ewave-atlas.org (22 November 2013).Google Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1993. English verb classes and alternations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
McFadden, Thomas. 2002. The rise of the to-dative in Middle English. In Lightfoot, David (ed.), Syntactic effects of morphological change, 107–23. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, Hugh. 1799. Scotticisms, vulgar Anglicisms, and grammatical improprieties corrected, with reasons for the corrections. Glasgow.Google Scholar
Mukherjee, Joybrato. 2005. English ditransitive verbs: Aspects of theory, description and a usage-based model. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orton, Harold, Sanderson, Stewart & Widdowson, John. 1978. The linguistic atlas of England. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Oxford English Dictionary, available at www.oed.com.Google Scholar
Ozón, Gabriel Alejandro. 2009. Alternating ditransitives in English: A corpus-based study. PhD dissertation, University College London.Google Scholar
Poutsma, Hendrick. 1914–29. A grammar of late Modern English, 2 parts. Groningen: Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London & New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Randall, Beth. 2005–7. CorpusSearch 2. Computer program. Designed by Beth Randall, Ann Taylor & Anthony Kroch. http://corpussearch.sourceforge.net/credits.htmlGoogle Scholar
Shorrocks, Graham. 1999. A grammar of the dialect of the Bolton area, vol. 2: Morphology and syntax. Frankfurt am Main, etc.: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Siewierska, Anna & Hollmann, Willem. 2007. Ditransitive clauses in English with special reference to Lancashire dialect. In Hannay, Mike & Steen, Gerald J. (eds.), Structural-functional studies in English grammar, 81–102. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sweet, Henry. 1903 [1898]. A new English grammar: Logical and historical, vol. 2: Syntax. Reprint. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2013. Grammatical variation in British English dialects: A study in corpus-based dialectometry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Visser, Frederick Th. 1963–73. An historical syntax of the English language, 4 vols. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
Wolk, Christoph, Bresnan, Joan, Rosenbach, Anette & Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2013. Dative and genitive variability in Late Modern English: Exploring cross-constructional variation and change. Diachronica 30 (3), 382–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, Joseph. 1896–1905. The English dialect dictionary, 6 vols. London: Kegan Paul for the English Dialect Society.Google Scholar
Yáñez-Bouza, Nuria. Forthcoming. Early and Late Modern English grammars as evidence in English historical linguistics. In Merja Kytö & Päivi Pahta (eds.), Cambridge handbook of English historical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Yañez-Bouza, Nuria. Unpublished MS. ‘may depend on me sending it to you’: Double objects in early grammars.Google Scholar