Cover not available
Article published In:
The locus of linguistic variation
Edited by Constantine Lignos, Laurel MacKenzie and Meredith Tamminga
[Linguistic Variation 16:2] 2016
► pp. 151–182

Locating variation in the dative alternation

This paper investigates the structure of the dative alternation in dialects of Northwest British English. This includes theme passivization of apparent Double Object Constructions (It was given her). Detailed investigation shows that different dialects use distinct licensing strategies to derive the Theme passive structure. The main variety discussed is Liverpool English, where Theme passivisation is shown to derive from a prepositional dative with a null preposition. In contrast, Manchester English, a neighbouring variety, derives Theme passives of the Double Object Construction, via an Applicative configuration (Haddican 2010, Haddican and Holmberg 2012). The study shows that a range of syntactic properties and restrictions on a structure can be traced back to variation in the functional lexicon.
Keywords: syntactic variation, null preposition, parameters, Ditransitives, dialectal variation
Published online: 27 January 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.16.2.01big
References (59)
Aboh, Enoch. 2010. The P route. In Guglielmo Cinque & Luigi Rizzi (eds.), Mapping spatial PPs, 225–260. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Adger, David & Daniel Harbour. 2007. Syntax and syncretisms of the Person Case Constraint. Syntax 1011. 2–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2003. The syntax of ditransitives: evidence from clitics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Baltin, Mark & Paul M. Postal. 1996. More on reanalysis hypotheses. Linguistic Inquiry 27(1). 127–145.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C. & Chris Collins. 2006. Linkers and the internal structure of vP. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 24(2). 307–354. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berwick, Robert & Noam Chomsky. 2008. ‘Poverty of the stimulus’ revisited: Recent challenges reconsidered. Proceedings of the 30th annual conference of the cognitive science society .
Borer, Hagit. 1984. Parametric Syntax. Foris, Dordrecht. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan & Marilyn Ford. 2010. Predicting syntax: Processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English. Language 86(1). 168–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan & Tatiana Nikitina. 2009. The Gradience of the Dative Alternation. In Linda Uyechi & Lian Hee Wee (eds.), Reality Exploration and discovery: Pattern interaction in language and life, 161–184. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Caponigro, Ivano & Lisa Pearl. 2008. Silent prepositions: evidence from free relatives. In Anna Asbury, Jakub Dotlacil, Berit Gehrke, & Rick Nouwen (eds.), The syntax and semantics of spatial P, 365–385. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Roger Martin, David Michaels, Juan Uriagereka, & Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.), Step by step: Essays on Minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–156. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2008. On phases. In Robert Freidin, Carlos Peregrín Otero, & Maria Luisa Zubizarreta (eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory, 133–166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2010. Mapping Spatial PPs: An introduction. In Guglielmo Cinque & Luigi Rizzi, (eds.), Mapping Spatial PPsMapping Spatial PPs, 3–25. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Collins, Chris. 2005. A smuggling approach to the passive in English. Syntax 81. 81–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Home sweet home. NYU Working Papers in Linguistics 11. 1–27.Google Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel. 1995. Particles: On the syntax of verb-particle, triadic and causative constructions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Den Dikken, Marcel. 2010. Directions from the GET-GO. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 91. 23–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Emonds, Joseph. 1985. A unified theory of syntactic categories. Dordrect: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gehrke, Berit & Marika Lekakou 2013. How to miss your preposition. Studies in Greek Linguistics 331. 92–106.Google Scholar
Gerwin, Joanna. 2013. Give it me!: pronominal ditransitives in English dialects. English Language and Linguistics 17(3). 445–463. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Ditransitives in British English Dialects. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Green, Georgia. 1974. Semantics and syntax regularity. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Haddican, William. 2010. Theme-goal ditransitives and theme passivisation in British English dialects. Lingua 1201. 2424–2443. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haddican, William & Anders Holmberg. 2012. Object movement symmetries in British English dialects: Experimental evidence for a mixed case/locality approach. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 15(3). 189–212. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2002. Possession and the double object construction. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 21. 31–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert & Amy Weinberg. 1981. Case theory and preposition stranding. Linguistic Inquiry 121. 55–91.Google Scholar
Hughes, Arthur & Peter Trudgill. 1979. English accents and dialects: An introduction to social and regional varieties of British English. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Ioannidou, Alexandra & Marcel den Dikken. 2009. P-drop, D-drop, D-spread. In Claire Halpert, Jeremy Hartman, & David Hill (eds.), Proceedings of the 2007 Workshop in Greek syntax and semantics at MIT, 393–408. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1983. Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jeong, Youngmi. 2007. Applicatives: Structure and interpretation from a minimalist perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 2004. Here and there. In C. Leclère, et al. (eds.), Lexique Syntaxe, et Lexique-Grammaire/Syntax, Lexis and Lexicon Grammar: Papers in Honour of Maurice Gross, 253–275. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. Kayne, Richard S. Some notes on comparative syntax, with special reference to English and French. In Guglielmo Cinque & Richard Kayne (eds.), The Oxford handbook of comparative syntax, 3–69. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kishimoto, Hideki. 2000. Indefinite pronouns and overt N-raising. Linguistic Inquiry 311. 557–566. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koopman, Hilda. 2000/2010. Prepositions, postpositions, circumpositions, and particles. In Guglielmo Cinque & Luigi Rizzi (eds.), Mapping spatial PPs, 26–73. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Koopman, Hilda & Anna Szabolcsi. 2000. Verbal complexes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larson, Richard K. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19(3). 335–391.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1993. English verb classes and alternations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Longobardi, Giuseppe. 2001. Formal Syntax, Diachronic Minimalism, and Etymology: The History of French Chez. Linguistic Inquiry 32(2). 275–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McGinnis, Martha. 1998. Locality in A-movement. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
. 2001. Variation in the phase structure of applicatives. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 11. 105–146. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Myler, Neil. 2011. Come the pub with me: silent TO in a dialect of British English. NYU Working Papers in Linguistics 31. 120–135.Google Scholar
. 2013. On coming the pub in the North West of England: accusative unaccusatives, dependent case and preposition incorporation. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 16(2–3). 189–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nunes, Jairo. 2004. Linearization of chains and sideward movement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oehrle, Richard T. 1976. The grammatical status of the English dative alternation. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 1989. Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rezac, Milan. 2008. φ-Agree and Theta-related Case. In Daniel Harbour, David Adger, & Susana Béjar (eds.), φ theory: φ-features across interfaces and modules. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
van Riemsdijk, Henk. 2002. The unbearable lightness of GOing. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 51. 143–196. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Ian. 2010a. Agreement and head movement: Clitics, incorporation and defective goals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010b. A deletion analysis of null subjects. In Theresa Biberauer, Anders Holmberg, Ian Roberts, & Michelle Sheehan (eds.), Parametric variation: Null subjects in minimalist theory, 58–87. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Siewierska, Anna & Willem Hollmann. 2007. Ditransitive clauses in English with special reference to Lancashire dialect. In Mike Hannay & Gerard J. Steen (eds.), Structural-functional studies in English grammar: in honour of Lachlan Mackenzie, 83–102. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Svenonius, Peter. 2007. Adpositions, particles, and the arguments they introduce. In Eric Reuland, Tanmoy Bhattacharya, & Giorgos Spathas (eds.), Argument structure, 71–110. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Spatial prepositions in English. In Guglielmo Cinque & Luigi Rizzi (eds.), Mapping spatial PPs, 127–160. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Terzi, Arhonto. 2010. Locative prepositions and Place. In Guglielmo Cinque & Luigi Rizzi (eds.), Mapping spatial PPs, 196–224. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ura, Hiroyuki. 2000. Checking theory and grammatical functions in Universal Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wolfram, Walt and Natalie Schilling-Estes. 2006. American English, 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Woolford, Ellen. 1993. Symmetric and asymmetric passives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 11(4). 679–728. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Syed, Saurov & Andrew Simpson
2024. AN ARGUMENT FOR NON‐AGREE‐DRIVEN MOVEMENT. Studia Linguistica 78:2 ► pp. 229 ff. DOI logo
MacKenzie, Laurel, George Bailey & Danielle Turton
2022. Towards an updated dialect atlas of British English. Journal of Linguistic Geography 10:1 ► pp. 46 ff. DOI logo
Gopal, Deepthi, Tam Blaxter, David Willis & Adrian Leemann
2021. Testing models of diffusion of morphosyntactic innovations in Twitter data. In Urban Matters [Studies in Language Variation, 27], ► pp. 253 ff. DOI logo
Holmberg, Anders, Michelle Sheehan & Jenneke van der Wal
2019. Movement from the Double Object Construction Is Not Fully Symmetrical. Linguistic Inquiry 50:4 ► pp. 677 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.