Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T15:42:30.578Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The connection between verbs and argument structures: Native speaker production of the double object dative

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Kate Wolfe-Quintero
Kate Wolfe-Quintero*
Affiliation:
University of Hawaii, Manoa
*
Department of ESL, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, HI 96822. Email: katewq@hawaii.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study is an investigation of the patterns and strength of the connections between English dative verbs and the double object dative (DOD) argument structure in native speaker production. The subjects completed three written production tasks using dative and other verbs from different semantic classes of verbs. The results show that alternating dative verbs varied in their patterns of connection to argument structures, but were consistent in the strength of their connection to the DOD argument structure across subjects and tasks. There was no support for production differences due to verb class membership, but the results do support a model of lexical representation that represents variable strengths of association between individual verbs and argument structures. With respect to the design of production and processing studies, the results do not support the treatment of alternating dative verbs as a unitary group, nor a priori assumptions about relative argument structure complexity between alternating and nonalternating verbs, but do support the use of production tasks to determine individual verb argument structure preferences.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 19 , Issue 2 , April 1998 , pp. 225 - 257
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1998

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Bley-Vroman, R., & Yoshinaga, N. (1992). Broad and narrow constraints on the English dative alternation: Some fundamental differences between native speakers and foreign language learners. University of Hawaii Working Papers in ESL, 11, 157–199.Google Scholar
Bock, J. K., & Brewer, W. F. (1974). Reconstructive recall in sentences with alternative surface structures. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 103, 837–843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boland, J. E., & Tanenhaus, M. K.Garnsey, S. M., & Carlson, G. N. (1995). Verb argument structure in parsing and interpretation: Evidence from wh-questions. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 774–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Britt, A. (1994). The interaction of referential ambiguity and argument structure in the parsing ofprepositional phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 251–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, J. B., Davies, P., & Richman, B. (1971). Word frequency book. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Connine, C., Ferreira, F., Jones, C., Clifton, C., & Frazier, L. (1984). Verb frame preferences:Descriptive norms. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 13, 307–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Creider, C. (1979). On the explanation of transformations. In Givón, T. (Ed.), Discourse and syntax (pp. 3–21). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, N. (1979). Discourse constraints on dative movement. In Givón, T. (Ed.), Discourseand syntax (pp. 441–467). New York: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, F. (1994). Choice of passive voice is affected by verb type and animacy. Journal of Mem-ory and Language, 33, 715–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, V. (1996). Is it better to give than to donate? Syntactic flexibility in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 724–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Francis, W. N., & Kucera, H. (1982). Frequency analysis of English usage: Lexicon and grammar. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. (1992). The inherent semantics of argument structure: The case of the English ditransi-tive construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 3, 37–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, J. (1980). Meaning and mechanism in grammar. In Kuno, S. (Ed.), Harvard studies insyntax and semantics III (pp. 37–74). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Green, G. M. (1974). Semantics and syntactic regularity. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, J., & Prince, A. (1986). A prosodic account of the lo-dative alternation. Unpublishedmanuscript, Brandeis University.Google Scholar
Gropen, J., Pinker, S., Hollander, M., & Goldberg, R. (1991). Affectedness and direct objects: Therole of argument semantics in the acquisition of verb argument structure. Cognition, 41,153–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gropen, J., Pinker, S., Hollander, M., Goldberg, R., & Wilson, R. (1989). The learnability andacquisition of the dative alternation in English. Language, 65, 203–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gruber, J. S. (1976). Argument structures in syntax and semantics. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Inagaki, S. (1993). The acquisition of constraints on the dative alternation in English by nativespeakers and adult Japanese learners of English: The role of associative mechanisms. Univer-sity of Hawaii Working Papers in English as a Second Language, 12, 1–24.Google Scholar
Inagaki, S. (1995). The acquisition of the narrow-range rules for the dative alternation in English by Japa-nese and Chinese adult learners of English. Scholarly paper. Department of English as a Second Language, University of Hawaii at Manoa.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1983). Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Johansson, S., & Hofland, K. (1989). Frequency analysis of English vocabulary and grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: Chi-cago University Press.Google Scholar
MacDonald, M. C, Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). The lexical nature of syntacticambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 676–703.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McElree, B. (1993). The locus of lexical preference effects in sentence comprehension: A time-course analysis. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 536–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oehrle, R. T. (1976). The grammatical status of the English dative alternation. Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sawyer, M. (1995). Learnability, teachability, and argument structure: Adult Japanese learners' acquisition of the English dative alternation. Doctoral dissertation, University of Hawaii at Manoa.Google Scholar
Schmauder, A. R. (1991). Argument structure frames: A lexical complexity metric? Journal ofExperimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 49–65.Google ScholarPubMed
Schmauder, A. R., Kennison, S. M., & Clifton, C. Jr., (1991). On the conditions necessary forobtaining argument structure complexity effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 1188–1192.Google Scholar
Shapiro, L. P., Brookins, B., Gordon, B., & Nagel, N. (1991). Verb effects during sentence processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 49–65.Google ScholarPubMed
Shapiro, L. P., Nagel, H. N., & Levine, B. A. (1993). Preferences for a verb's complements andtheir use in sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 96–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, L. P., Zurif, E., & Grimshaw, J. (1989). Verb processing during sentence comprehension:Contextual impenetrability. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18, 223–243.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stowell, T. (1981). Origins of phrase structure. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Trueswell, J. C, Tanenhaus, M. K., & Kello, C. (1993). Verb-specific constraints in sentence processing: Separating effects of lexical preference from garden-paths. Journal of ExperimentalPsychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 528–553.Google ScholarPubMed
F., Van Der Leek, (1996). Rigid syntax and flexible meaning: The case of the English ditransitive. In Goldberg, A. E. (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language (pp. 321–332). Stan-ford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Visser, F. T. (1963). An historical syntax of the English language. Part One: Syntactical units withone verb. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Wilson, R., Pinker, S., Zaenen, A., & Lebeaux, D. (1981, October). Productivity and the dativealternation. Paper presented at the Sixth Annual Boston University Conference on LanguageDevelopment.Google Scholar