Cover not available
Part of
Ditransitives in Germanic Languages: Synchronic and diachronic aspects
Edited by Eva Zehentner, Melanie Röthlisberger and Timothy Colleman
[Studies in Germanic Linguistics 7] 2023
► pp. 19–55

The emergence of the English dative alternation as a response to system-wide changes

An Evolutionary Game Theory approach

This chapter revisits the much-discussed question whether a causal relationship holds between several changes observed in the history of English; these are (a) the increasing use of prepositional patterns, (b) the loss of nominal case marking, and (c) the fixation of constituent order. Located within the same time-period, namely Middle English, there is relatively broad consensus that the processes are correlated. However, the extent and directionality of causation is highly debated. This chapter addresses this issue by taking another look at a specific case study which reflects all the changes: the history of the dative alternation. To add to results from earlier corpus-based investigations on this development, the emergence of the alternation is modelled by means of Evolutionary Game Theory (EGT). Specifically, the study tests the hypothesis that the increase of prepositional ditransitives and ultimately the dative alternation is a consequence of case marking being lost and constituent order becoming fixed, and discusses the potential benefits of taking an EGT approach to such questions.
Keywords: dative alternation, Middle English, Evolutionary Game Theory, case marking, constituent order
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Changes in the history of the English dative alternation
    • 2.1Increase of prepositional patterns and the rise of the dative alternation
    • 2.2Loss of case marking
    • 2.3Fixation of constituent order
    • 2.4Correlations and causal effects
  • 3.(Evolutionary) game theory
    • 3.1Introduction to (E)GT
    • 3.2EGT applications to (historical) linguistics: Potential uses
  • 4.An EGT approach to the history of the English dative alternation
    • 4.1Set-up of the model
    • 4.2Input and results of the model
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 8 August 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sigl.7.01zeh
References (100)
References
Alcorn, Rhona. 2011. “Pronouns, Prepositions and Probabilities: A Multivariate Study of Old English Word Order.” Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
Allen, Cynthia. 1995. Case Marking and Reanalysis: Grammatical Relations from Old to Early Modern English. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 2005. “Changes in Case Marking in NP: From Old English to Middle English.” In Competition and Variation in Natural Languages: The Case for Case, ed. by Mengistu Amberber, and Helen de Hoop, 223–249. Amsterdam: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. “Case Syncretism and Word Order Change.” In The Handbook of the History of English, ed. by Ans van Kemenade, and Bettelou Los, 201–223. Malden, MA: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2009. “The Development of Case in Germanic.” In The Role of Semantic, Pragmatic and Discourse Factors in the Development of Case, ed. by Jóhanna Barðdal, and Shobhana Chelliah, 123–159. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Kristian Kristoffersen, and Andreas Sveen. 2011. “West Scandinavian Ditransitives as a Family of Constructions: With a Special Attention to the Norwegian V–REFL–NP Construction.” Linguistics 49 (1): 53–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baugh, Albert, and Thomas Cable. 2002. A History of the English Language. (5th edn.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bech, Kristin. 2001. “Word Order Patterns in Old and Middle English: A Syntactic and Pragmatic Study.” Bergen: University of Bergen Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
Bertacca, Antonio. 2009. Natural Morphology and the Loss of Nominal Inflections in English. Pisa: PLUS-Pisa UP.Google Scholar
Blake, Barry. 2001. Case. (2nd edn.). Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Alistair. 2001. Old English Grammar. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Carroll, John, and Michael Tanenhaus. 1975. “Prolegomena to a Functional Theory of Word Formation.” In Papers from the Parasession on Functionalism, ed. by Robin Grossman, Timothy Vance, and James San. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Cassidy, Frederic. 1938. “The Background in Old English of the Modern English Substitutes for the Dative-Object in the Group Verb + Dative-Object +Accusative-Object.” Ann Arbor, MA: University of Michigan Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Colleman, Timothy, and Bernard De Clerck. 2009. “‘Caused Motion’? The Semantics of the English to-Dative and the Dutch aan-Dative.” Cognitive Linguistics 20 (1): 5–42.Google Scholar
Colleman, Timothy, and Bernard De Clerck. 2011. “Constructional Semantics on the Move: On Semantic Specialization in the English Double Object Construction.” Cognitive Linguistics 22 (1): 183–209. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard, and Polinsky, Maria. 1998. “Gender in a Historical Perspective: Radial Categories Meet Language Change.” In Language Change and Typological Variation: In Honor of Winfred P. Lehmann on the Occasion of his 83rd Birthday, ed. by Carol F. Justus, and Edgar C. Polomé, 566–589. Washington DC: Institute for the Study of Man.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2000. Explaining Language Change: An Evolutionary Approach. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
. 2006. “Evolutionary Models and Functional-Typological Theories of Language Change.” In Handbook of the History of English, ed. by Ans van Kemenade, and Bettelou Los, 68–91. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Cuypere, Ludovic. 2010. “The Old English Double Object Alternation: A Discourse–Based Account.” Sprachwissenschaft 35: 337–368.Google Scholar
. 2013. “Debiasing Semantic Analysis: The Case of the English Preposition to.” Language Sciences 37: 122–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015a. “A Multivariate Analysis of the Old English ACC+DAT Double Object Alternation.” Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 11 (2): 225–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015b. “The Old English to–Dative Construction.”  English Language and Linguistics 19 (1): 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deo, Ashwini. 2015. “The Semantic and Pragmatic Underpinnings of Grammaticalization Paths: The Progressive and the Imperfective.” Semantics and Pragmatics 8 (14): 1–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Smet Hendrik, Frauke D’hoedt, Lauren Fonteyn, and Kristel van Goethem. 2018. “The Changing Functions of Competing Forms: Attraction and Differentiation.” Cognitive Linguistics 29 (2): 197–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Vaere, Hilde, Ludovic De Cuypere, and Klaas Willems. 2020. “Alternating Constructions with Ditransitive ‘geben’ in Present-Day German.” Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga. 1992. “Syntax.” In The Cambridge History of the English Language, Vol. 2, ed. by Norman Blake, 207–408. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Olga, Ans van Kemenade, Willem Koopman, and Wim van der Wurff. 2000. The Syntax of Early English. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Fischer Olga, and Wim van der Wurff. 2006. “Syntax.” In A History of the English Language, ed. by Richard Hogg, and David Denison, 109–198. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gerwin, Johanna. 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: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haeberli, Eric. 2000. “Adjuncts and the Syntax of Subjects in Old and Middle English.” In Diachronic Syntax: Models and Mechanisms, ed. by Susan Pintzuk, George Tsoulas, and Anthony Warner, 109–131. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Hagège, Claude. 2010. Adpositions. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harbert, Wayne. 2007. The Germanic Languages. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Harris, Alice, and Lyle Campbell. 1995. Historical Syntax in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haselow, Alexander. 2011. Typological Changes in the Lexicon: Analytic Tendencies in English Noun Formation. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2006. Ditransitive Constructions in the World’s Languages. Leipzig spring school on linguistic diversity. [URL] (accessed 18 April 2019).Google Scholar
. 2015. “Ditransitive Constructions.” Annual Review of Linguistics 1: 19–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 1994. “Grammaticalization as an Explanatory Parameter.” In Perspectives on Grammaticalization, ed. by William Pagliuca, 255–287. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hofbauer, Josef, and Karl Sigmund. 1998. Evolutionary Games and Population Dynamics. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hofbauer, Joseph, and Karl Sigmund. 2003. “Evolutionary Game Dynamics.” Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 40 (4): 479–519. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Sebastian. 2005. Grammaticalization and English Complex Prepositions: A Corpus-Based Study. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hogg, Richard. 2002. An Introduction to Old English. Edinburgh: EUP.Google Scholar
Horn, Wilhelm. 1921. Sprachkoerper und Sprachfunktion im Englischen. Berlin: Mayer and Mueller.Google Scholar
Iglesias-Rábade, Luis. 2011. Semantic Erosion of Middle English Prepositions. Frankfurt/Main: Lang.Google Scholar
Jäger, Gerhard. 2004. Evolutionary Game Theory for Linguists: A Primer. (unpublished manuscript). University of Tübingen. [URL] (accessed 02 Sept 2020).Google Scholar
. 2007. “Evolutionary Game Theory and Typology: A Case Study.” Language 83 (1): 74–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. “Applications of Game Theory in Linguistics.” Language and Linguistics Compass 2 (3): 408–421.Google Scholar
Kirby, Simon, Tom Griffiths, and Kenny Smith. 2014. Iterated Learning and the Evolution of Language. Current Opinion in Neurobiology 28: 108–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kittilä, Seppo, Katja Västi, and Jussi Ylikoski. 2011. “Introduction to Case, Animacy and Semantic Roles.” In Case, Animacy and Semantic Roles, ed. by Seppo Kittilä, Katja Västi, and Jussi Ylikoski, 1–26. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koopman, Willem. 1990. “Word Order in Old English.” Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
Koopman, Willem, and Wim van der Wurff. 2000. “Two Word Order Patterns in the History of English: Stability, Variation, Change.” In Stability, Variation and Change of Word-Order Patterns over Time, ed. by Rosanna Sornicola, Erich Poppe, and Ariel Shisha–Halevy, 259–283. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kroch, Anthony, and Ann Taylor. 1997. “Verb Movement in Old and Middle English: Dialect Variation and Language Contact.” In Parameters of Morphosyntactic Change, ed. by Ans van Kemenade, and Nigel Vincent, 297–325. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
. 2000a. Penn–Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English, Second Edition. [URL] (accessed 02 Sept 2020).Google Scholar
. 2000b. “Verb-Object Order in Early Middle English.” In Diachronic Syntax: Models and Mechanisms, ed. by Susan Pintzuk, George Tsoulas, and Anthony Warner, 132–187. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Kulikov, Leonid. 2009. “Evolution of Case Systems.” In The Oxford Handbook of Case, ed. by Andrej Malchukov and Andrew Spencer, 439–457. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1994. Principle of Change, Internal Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger. 1992. “Phonology and Morphology.” In The Cambridge History of the English Language. Vol. 2: 1066–1476, ed. by Norman Blake, 23–155. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lightfoot, David. 1991. How to Set Parameters: Arguments from Language Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Los, Bettelou. 2015. A Historical Syntax of English. Edinburgh: EUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lundskær–Nielsen, Tom. 1993. Prepositions in Old and Middle English (NOWELE Supplement 9). Odense: Odense UP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej, Martin Haspelmath, and Bernard Comrie. 2010. “Ditransitive Constructions: A Typological Overview.” In Studies in Ditransitive Constructions, ed. by Andrej Malchukov, Martin Haspelmath, and Bernard Comrie, 1–64. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maynard Smith, John. 1982. Evolution and the Theory of Games. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maynard Smith, John, and George Price. 1973. “The Logic of Animal Conflict.”  Nature 246: 15–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McFadden, Thomas. 2002. “The Rise of the to-Dative in Middle English.” In Syntactic Effects of Morphological Change, ed. by David Lightfoot, 107–123. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, Bruce. 1985. Old English Syntax, Vol. 1. Oxford: Clarendon. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mustanoja, Tauno. 1960. A Middle English Syntax, Vol. 1. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Nash, John. 1950. “Equilibrium Points in n-Person Games.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 36 (1): 48–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu. 1999. “Making the Best Use of ‘Bad’ Data: Evidence for Sociolinguistic Variation in Early Modern English.” Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 100 (4): 499–533.Google Scholar
Nowak, Martin A. 2000. “The Basic Reproductive Ratio of a Word, the Maximum Size of a Lexicon.” Journal of Theoretical Biology 204: 179–189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006. Evolutionary Dynamics: Exploring the Equations of Life. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Harvard UP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ogura, Michiko. 1980. The Syntactic and Semantic Rivalry of Quoth, Say and Tell in Medieval English. Japan: Kufs.Google Scholar
Polo, Chiara. 2002. “Double Objects and Morphological Triggers for Syntactic Case.” In Syntactic Effects of Morphological Change, ed. by David Lightfoot, 124–142. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quinn, Heidi. 2005. The Distribution of Case Forms in English. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Ritt, Nikolaus. 2004. Selfish Sounds and Linguistic Evolution: A Darwinian Approach to Language Change. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ritt, Nikolaus, and Andreas Baumann. 2012. “Transferring Mathematics to English Studies.” In Transfer in English Studies, ed. by Manfred Markus, and Herbert Schendl, 219–237. Wien: Braumüller.Google Scholar
. 2014. “Evolutionary Game Theory in Historical Language Studies.” Abstract presented at the 10th International Conference on the Evolution of Language (EVOLANG X), Vienna, April 14–17.Google Scholar
Rosemeyer, Malte, and Freek Van de Velde. 2020. “On Cause and Correlation in Language Change: Word Order and Clefting in Brazilian Portuguese.” Language Dynamics and Change. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Samuels, Michael. 1972. Linguistic Evolution: With Special Reference to English. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seiler, Guido. 2006. “The Role of Functional Factors in Language Change: An Evolutionary Approach.” In Different Models of Linguistic Change, ed. by Ole Nedergård Thomsen, 163–182. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2012. “Analyticity and Syntheticity in the History of English.” In The Oxford Handbook of the History of English, ed. by Terttu Nevalainen, and Elizabeth Traugott, 654–665. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, Ann, and Susan Pintzuk. 2015. “Verb Order, Object Position, and Information Status in Old English.” In Syntax over Time: Lexical, Morphological, and Information-Structural Interactions, ed. by Theresa Biberauer, and George Walkden, 318–335. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, Peter, and Leo Jonker. 1978. “Evolutionary Stable Strategies and Game Dynamics.” Mathematical Biosciences 40: 145–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra. 1995. “The Iconicity of ‘Dative Shift’ in English: Considerations from Information Flow in Discourse.” In Syntactic Iconicity and Linguistic Freezes: The Human Dimension, ed. by Marge Landsberg, 155–175. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1992. “Syntax.” In The Cambridge History of the English Language, Vol. 1, ed. by Richard Hogg, 168–289. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trips, Carola. 2002. From OV to VO in Early Middle English. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Trijp, Remi. 2013. “Linguistic Assessment Criteria for Explaining Language Change: A Case Study on Syncretism in German Definite Articles.” Language Dynamics and Change 3: 105–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. The Evolution of Case Grammar. Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Visser, Fredericus. 1963. An Historical Syntax of the English Language. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
von Neumann, John, and Oskar Morgenstern. 1944. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP.Google Scholar
Wang, Zhijian, Bin Xu, and Hai-Jun Zhou. 2014. “Social Cycling and Conditional Responses in the Rock-Paper-Scissors Game.” Scientific Reports 4: 5830. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wolk, Christoph, Joan Bresnan, Anette Rosenbach, and Benedikt Szmrecsanyi. 2013. “Dative and Genitive Variability in Late Modern English.” Diachronica 30 (3): 382–419. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yáñez–Bouza, Nuria, and David Denison. 2015. “Which Comes First in the Double Object Construction? Diachronic and Dialectal Variation.” English Language and Linguistics 19 (2): 247–268. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zehentner, Eva. 2017. “Ditransitives in Middle English: On Semantic Specialisation and the Rise of the Dative Alternation.” English Language and Linguistics 22 (1): 149–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. Competition in Language Change: The Rise of the English Dative Alternation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zehentner, Eva, and Marianne Hundt. 2021. “Prepositions in Early Modern English Argument Structure and beyond.” In English Historical Linguistics: Change in Structure and Meaning, ed. by Bettelou Los, Claire Cowie, Patrick Honeybone, and Graeme Trousdale, 201–224. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold. 1992. “Some Choices in the Theory of Morphology.” In Formal Grammar, ed. by Robert Levine, 327–371. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar