This chapter argues that information structure plays a critical role in explaining the ditransitive construction’s distribution, scope properties, and interaction with long-distance dependency constructions. Specifically, since the recipient argument is a secondary topic and backgrounded in discourse, it tends to have wide scope over the theme argument and also tends to resist extraction when combined with long-distance dependency constructions. An alternative, the to-dative, is favored in these circumstances, since it has a more appropriate information structure.
1995Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, Adele E.
to appear). “Backgrounded Constituents Cannot be “Extracted.” In Island Effects, ed. by Jon Sprouse, Norbert Hornstein, Brian Dillon Cambridge Cambridge University Press
Goldberg, Adele E.
2006Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
1974Semantics and Syntactic Regularity. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Gregory, Michelle L., and Laura A. Michaelis
2001“Topicalization and Left Dislocation: A Functional Opposition Revisited.”Journal of Pragmatics 33 (11):1665–1706. .
Grosz, Barbara J., Joshi, Aravind K., and Scott Weinstein
1983“Providing a Unified Account of Definite Noun Phrases in Discourse.” Paper presented at Proceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Cambridge, MA. .
1985“Shared Knowledge and Topicality.”Journal of Pragmatics 9 (1):83–107. .
Gundel, Jeanette K.
1998“Centering Theory and Givenness Hierarchy.” In Centering Theory in Discourse, ed. by Marilyn A. Walker, Aravind K. Joshi and Ellen Prince, 183–198. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
1967“Notes on Transitivity and Theme in English. Part II .”Journal of Linguistics 3: 199–244. .
Hay, Jennifer, and Jyoan Bresnan
2006“Spoken Syntax: The Phonetics of giving a hand in New Zealand English. Linguistic Review 23 (3): 321–349. 10.1515/TLR.2006.013
Hovav, Malka Rappaport, and Beth Levin
2008“The English Dative Alternation: The Case for Verb Sensitivity.”Journal of Linguistics, 44 (01):129–167.
1975“Some Universals of Quantifier Scope.”Syntax and Semantics, ed. by John P. Kimball, 37–58. New York: Academic Press.
Johnson, Matthew, and Adele E. Goldberg
2012“Evidence that Constructional Meaning is Accessed Automatically: Jabberwocky Sentences Prime Associated Verbs.”Language and Cognitive ProcessesOctober 1–14.
1991“Remarks on Quantifier Scope.” In Current English Linguistics in Japan, ed. by Werner Winter, 261–88. New York: Mouton. .
1994Information Structure and Sentence Form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. .
2001“A Framework for the Analysis of Cleft Constructions.”Linguistics 39 (3):463–516.
1990“Double Objects Revisited: Reply to Jackendoff.”Linguistic Inquiry 21: 589–632.
Langendoen, D. Terence, Nancy Kalish-Landon, and John Dore
1973“Dative Questions: A Study in the Relation of Acceptability to Grammaticality of an English Sentence Type.”Cognition 2 (4):451–478. .
1993English Verb Classes and Alternations. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
1977“Starting Points.”Language 53: 152–68. .
Michaelis, Laura A.
2012”Complementation by Construction.” In The Proceedings of the Thirty-second Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: Parasession on Theoretical Approaches to Argument Structure, ed. by M.J. Hauseret al., 80–101. Berkeley: BLS, Inc.
1975“Discourse Constraints on Dative Movement.”Syntax and Semantics 12: 46–70.
Partee, Barbara H.
1965Subject and Object in Modern English. New York: Garland.
1998“A Non-Syntactic Account of Some Asymmetries in the Double Object Construction.” In Conceptual Structure and Language: Bridging the Gap, ed. by Jean-Pierre Koenig, 403–422. Stanford: CSLI.
Thompson, Sandra A.
1990“Information Flow and Dative Shift in English Discourse.” In Development and Diversity: Linguistic Variation Across Time and Space, ed. by Jerold Edmondson, Crawfor Feaq, and Peter Muhlhausler, 239–253. Dallas, TX: SIL.
van Oosten, Jeanne
1984The Nature of Subjects, Topics and Agents: A Cognitive Explanation. University of California, Berkeley.
Van Valin, Robert D.
1998“The Acquisition of Wh-Questions and the Mechanisms of Language Acquisition.” In The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure, ed. by Michael Tomasello, 221–49. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
2002Postverbal Behavior. Stanford: Center for Study of Language and Information.
Wasow, Thomas, and Jennifer Arnold
2005“Intuitions in Linguistic Argumentation.”Lingua 115(11): 1481–1501. .
Cited by 4 other publications
2021. Implicit arguments in English double object constructions. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 39:4 ► pp. 1023 ff.
2021. Applied Objects and the Syntax–Semantics Interface. Journal of Linguistics 57:2 ► pp. 365 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 november 2023. 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.