The Effect of ‘Heavy’ Recipient on the Ditransitive Constructions in Five Languages
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.53469/jtpss.2024.04(05).01Keywords:
Ditransitive construction, Recipient weight, Construction grammarAbstract
The study of ditransitive constructions often focuses on factors that influence their encoding, with the "end-weight" principle playing a key role in organizing informational structure. "End-weight" refers to "a tendency to reserve the final position for the more complex parts of a clause or sentence". This study delves into the effects of the recipient’s heavy weight on the encoding of ditransitive patterns in five languages, aiming to uncover both similarities and differences. Our findings indicate that the recipient’s heavy weight significantly influences the encoding of ditransitive patterns in Mandarin and English. In contrast, Cantonese, Japanese, and German consistently maintain their canonical patterns regardless of the recipient’s heavy weight, running counter to the end-weight principle. These insights significantly enhance our typological understanding of ditransitive constructions. Future research should focus on empirical and theoretical exploration to elucidate the motivations behind these linguistic differences.
References
Malchukov, A., Haspelmath, M. and Comrie, B. (2010). Ditransitive constructions: a typological overview. In Malchukov, A., Haspelmath, M. and Comrie, B. (eds.) Studies in ditransitive constructions: A comparative handbook. Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter, 1-64.
Bresnan, J., Ford, M. (2010) Predicting syntax: processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English. Language, vol. 86, 168-213.
Haspelmath, M. (2007). Ditransitive alignment splits and inverse alignment. Functions of Language, vol. 14, no.1, 79-102.
Zhu, D.X. (1982). Lecture notes on grammar. Beijing, Shangwu Yinshuguan.
Liu, D.Q. (2001). A typological study of giving-type ditransitive patterns in Chinese. Studies of the Chinese Language, vol. 50, no.5, 387–398.
He, X.W. (2008). A study on the factors influencing the selection of the ditransitive construction. Language Teaching and Research, no.3, pp. 29-36.
Xu, L.J., Peyraube, A. (1997). On the double object construction and the oblique construction in Cantonese. Studies in Language, vol.21, no.1, 105-127.
Lam, O. S.-C. (2014). Double object constructions and the anomalous syntax of GIVE in Cantonese. Language Sciences, no.45, 71-95.
Gries, S.T., Stefanowitsch, A. (2005). Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, vol.9, no.1, 97-129.
Zehentner, E., Röthlisberger, M. and Collemanm, T. (2023). Ditransitive constructions in Germanic languages: new avenues and new challenges. In Zehentner, E., Röthlisberger, M. and Colleman, T. (eds.) Ditransitives in Germanic languages synchronic and diachronic aspects. Amsterdam, John Benjamins, 1-18.
Kholodova, A., Allen, S. (2023). The dative alternation in German. In Zehentner, E., Röthlisberger, M. and Colleman, T. (eds.) Ditransitives in Germanic languages synchronic and diachronic aspects, Amsterdam, John Benjamins, 264-298.
Miyagawa, S., & Tsujioka, T. (2004). Argument structure and ditransitive verbs in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, no. 13, 1-38.
Hoji, H. (1985). Logical form constraints and configuration structures in Japanese. Ph.D. Dissertation, Washington, University of Washington.
Takano, Y. (1998). Object shift and scrambling. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory vol. 16, no.4, 817-889.
Yatsushiro, K. (2003). VP internal scrambling. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, no. 12, 141-170.
Haspelmath, M. (2013). Ditransitive Constructions: The Verb ‘Give’. In Dryer, M. S., Haspelmath, M. (eds.) WALS Online (v2020.3) [Data set]. Zenodo.
Quirk, R., Sidney, G., Geoffrey, L. and Jan, S. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London, Longman.
Wu, J., Shi, Y.Z. (2009). Motivations in the choice of constructions: a case study of object transfer sentences. Language Teaching and Research, no.6,17-24.
Zhang, D., Xu, J.J. (2023). Dative alternation in Chinese a mixed-effects logistic regression analysis. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics. vol. 28, no.4, 559-585.
Thompson, S.A. (1990). Information flow and dative shift in English discourse. In Edmondson, J.A., Feagin, C. and Mühlhäusler, P. (eds.) Development and diversity: Language variation across time and space, Dallas, Summer Institute of Linguistics. 239-253.
Collins, P. (1995). The indirect object construction in English: an informational approach. Linguistic, no.33, 35-50.
Snyder, K.M. (2003). The relationship between form and function in ditransitive constructions. Ph.D. Dissertation, Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania.
Bresnan, J., Cuenti, A., Nikitina, T. and Baayen, R. H. (2007). Predicting the dative alternation. In Bouma, G. and Krämer, I. (eds.) Cognitive foundations of interpretation, Amsterdam: KNAW, 69-94.
Zhang, D., Xu, J.J. (2019). A multifactorial study of dative alternation in English and Chinese. Journal of Foreign Languages, vol. 42, no.2, 24-33.
Zehentner, E. (2022). Ambiguity avoidance as a factor in the rise of the English dative alternation". Cognitive Linguistics, vol. 33, no. 1, 3-33.
De Vaere, H., De Cuypere, L. and Willems, K. (2021). Alternating constructions with ditransitive geben in present-day German. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, vol. 17, no.1, 73-107.
Yamashita, H., Chang, F. (2001). "Long before short" preference in the production of a head-final language. Cognition, no. 81, B46-B55.
Arnold, J.E., Losongco, A., Wasow, T. and Ginstrom, R.(2000). Heaviness vs newness: The effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering. Language, no. 76, 28-55.
Kondo, T., & Yamashita, H. (2010). Why speakers produce scrambled sentences: an analysis of a spoken language corpus in Japanese. In Yamashita H., Hirose, Y. and Packard, J.L. (eds.) Processing and Producing head-final structures, Netherlands, Springer, 195-215
