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
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

Cited by 4 other publications

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
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
Syed, Saurov & Andrew Simpson
2023. AN ARGUMENT FOR NON‐AGREE‐DRIVEN MOVEMENT. Studia Linguistica DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 april 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.