Dative shift
Traditional grammar suggests (as a "rule of thumb") that only single-syllable verbs can be in the double object construction (DOC).
Pinker (1989) supports this observation with examples of Latinate verbs with one metrical foot (e.g. promise, offer, assign, award) that allow the DOC.
In example (5), the DOC form is not permitted, despite the verb root being single syllable, because [wash] lacks the theta-role of recipient.
[4] This theory suggests verbs chosen for the double object construction are done so before syntactic processes take place.
[5] Chomsky's argument suggests that an oblique dative example like [John sent a letter to Mary] derives from an underlying form.
The OD form therefore involves an underlying verb phrase (VP) whose subject is [a letter] and whose object is [(to) Mary].
[8]: 347 Larson builds off of the original proposal made by Chomsky, stating that the Oblique Dative form is derived from an underlying structure.
Larson suggests that both the oblique dative form and the double object construction are surface representations.
The verb [send], which moves to the empty V position, has two thematic roles that are assigned to the internal arguments theme: [a letter] and goal [to Mary].
This forms a clause-like VP [a letter send to Mary] [6]: 342 Larson states that the double object construction can be explained under a derivational approach.
With this amended view of passive formation, Larson derives the double object construction surface representation.
The theta role assigned to the subject of VP undergoes demotion, reducing the position to non-thematic status.
In most variants of the Uniform Multiple Meaning Approach (Beck & Johnson 2004,[9] Harley 2003,[10] Pinker 1989[11]), it is assumed that the relationship between the double object construction and the oblique dative forms is non-derivational.
Contemporary theories that take the Single Meaning Approach continue to consider dative shift with the assertion Larson's 1988 analysis makes: that the DOC and OD variants are associated with the same semantic meaning, but surface differently due to different argument realizations (Hovav & Levin, 2008[13]).
For example, children were presented with novel verbs in both the double object construction and oblique dative forms: After hearing these two forms and then being asked to produce a corresponding alternation for one of the two, children were more likely to produce the oblique dative (11) than the double object construction (12).
The "conservatism" hypothesis proposes that children do not overgeneralize the double object construction to verbs such as [donate] and [whisper] (ex.
[John whispers Mary the secret]), because the child never hears ungrammatical double object constructions in their input.
[16]: 204–205 This idea was first suggested by Baker (1979) who posited that children never make errors similar to those shown in (14b) and never receive information, about the ungrammaticality of (14b).
According to these theorists, a strict "conservatism hypothesis" is false because children in their studies did not only use the double-object construction with verbs they had previously heard in that alternation.
In this account, the syntactic change and semantic constraints of the dative rule are consequences of a single operation, namely the lexicosemantic shift.
Verbs whose meanings are not cognitively compatible with the notion of a possession change will not produce a coherent semantic structure in the double object construction.
It is proposed that children will apply the morphophonological constraint to subclasses of alternating verbs that are all from the native class (monosyllabic).
For example, children would apply the constraint to the following five subclasses of alternating verbs: Children would not apply the constraint to the class of "future having" verbs because they are not all from the native (monosyllabic) class, thereby allowing the following DOC examples to be well-formed: Similar to English, Dutch also displays the phenomenon of dative alternation: (17a) illustrates the double object construction which has an unmarked NP theme and recipient object; (17b) illustrates the oblique dative construction which has only the theme encoded as a bare NP object and the recipient is marked by a preposition.
When the oblique dative form is used, as in sentence 18b, it would be semantically interpreted as [Vader] physically cutting off of his arm to give to [Oma] because it implies that a material transfer is involved.
[22] Ai & Chen (2008) further show that Mandarin only allows the dative alternation with verbs that select a goal argument.
[24] John-iJohn-NOMMary-eykeyMary-DATmwul-ulwater-ACCcwu-ess-tagive-PST-INDJohn-i Mary-eykey mwul-ul cwu-ess-taJohn-NOM Mary-DAT water-ACC give-PST-IND'John gave water to Mary'This differs from similar constructions using the dative marker [-eyse/eykeyse] that indicates a locative or source argument.
[24] John-unJohn-TOPSeoul-eyse/*eySeoul-in/DAThankwuke-lulKorean-ACCkongpwuha-ess-tastudy-PST-INDJohn-un Seoul-eyse/*ey hankwuke-lul kongpwuha-ess-taJohn-TOP Seoul-in/DAT Korean-ACC study-PST-IND'John studied Korean in Seoul'Na-nunI-TOPkythesi-lulpoem-ACCithischayk-eyse/*eybook-from.DATinyongha-ess-tacite-PST-INDNa-nun ky si-lul i chayk-eyse/*ey inyongha-ess-taI-TOP the poem-ACC this book-from.DAT cite-PST-IND'I cited the poem from this book'Levin suggests that Korean adopts the Verb-Sensitive Approach which predicts that dative verbs are distinctly associated with event types.
In order to further understand the theme–goal structure in Korean, Baek and Lee (2004) propose two explanations, "backwards binding" and "quantifier scope".
An example provided by Baek and Lee (2004) is as follows: Ambiguous case: Mary-nunMary-TOPmotuneveryhagsaeng-eykeystudent-DATettensomeeumsig-lulfood-ACCcwuesstagave.Mary-nun motun hagsaeng-eykey etten eumsig-lul cwuesstaMary-TOP every student-DAT some food-ACC gave.
In fact, (25b) helps to demonstrate that the goal phrase which is located at its base-generated position solves the ambiguity problem by participating in the scope interaction, which is consistent with the theme–goal analysis in Korean.
