Cover not available
Part of
Perspectives on Linguistic Structure and Context: Studies in honor of Knud Lambrecht
Edited by Stacey Katz Bourns and Lindsy L. Myers
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 244] 2014
► pp. 3–16

The information structure of ditransitives

Informing scope properties and long-distance dependency constraints

ORCID logo
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.
Published online: 5 March 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.244.01gol
References (57)
References
Allen, Kachina, Francisco Pereira, Matthew Botvinick, and Adele E. Goldberg. 2012. “Distinguishing Grammatical Constructions with fMRI Pattern Analysis.” Brain and Language 123: 174–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ambridge, Ben, and Adele E. Goldberg. 2008. “The island status of clausal complements: Evidence in favor of an information structure explanation.” Cognitive Linguistics 19 (3):357–389. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1971. “On the Role of Deep Structure in Semantic Interpretation.” Foundations of Language 6: 197–219.Google Scholar
Arnold, Jennifer E., Thomas Wasow, Anthony Losongco, and Ryan Ginstrom. 2000. “Heaviness vs Newness: The Effects of Structural Complexity and Discourse Status on Constituent Ordering.” Language 76: 28–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Basilico, David. 1998. “Object Position and Predication Forms.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16 (3):541–595. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Birner, Betty J., and Gregory L. Ward. 1998. Information Status and Noncanonical Word Order in English . Vol. 40. Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borkin, Ann. 1974. Problems in Form and Function . University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, and Lioba Moshi. 1990. “Asymmetries in Comparative Bantu Syntax.” Language 21 (2):147–185.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, Anna Cueni, Tatiana Nikitina, and R. Harald Baayen. 2007. “Predicting the Dative Alternation.” In Cognitive Foundations of Interpretation , ed. by Gerlof Boume, Irene Krämer, and Joost Zwarts, 69–94. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, and Ford, Marilyn. 2010. “Predicting Syntax?: Processing Dative Constructions in American and Australian Varieties of English.” Language , 86 (1):168–213. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, and Nikitina, Tatiana. ms. On the Gradience of the Dative Alternation. Stanford University.
Bruening, Benjamin. 2001. “QR Obeys Superiority: Frozen Scope and ACD.” Linguistic Inquiry 32: 233–73. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Carlson, Gregory. Ms. Weak Indefinites . University of Rochester DOI logo
Chafe, Wallace L. 1976. “Giveness, Contrastiveness, Definiteness, Subjects, Topics and Point of View.” In Subject and Topic , ed. by Charles N. Li, 25–56. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
. 1987. “Cognitive Constraints on Information Flow.” In Coherence and Grounding in Discourse , ed. by Russell S. Tomlin, 21–52. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Collins, Peter. 1995. “The Indirect Object Construction in English: An Informational Approach.” Linguistics 33: 35–49. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew. 1986. “Primary Objects, Secondary Objects and Antidative.” Language 62 (4):808–845. DOI logo.Google Scholar
DuBois, John W. 1987. “The Discourse Basis of Ergativity.” Language 63 (4):805–855. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W., Lorraine E Kumpf, and William J. Ashby, eds. 2004. Preferred Argument Structure: Grammar as Architecture for Function . Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 1979. “Discourse Constraints on Dative Movement.” In Syntax and Semantics 12, ed. by Suzanne Laberge and Gillian Sankoff, 441–467. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
. 1998. “The Syntax-Focus Structure Interface.” In Syntax and Semantics 29:The Limits of Syntax, ed. by Peter Culicover and Louise McNally, 211–240. Emerald Group.
. 2007. Information Structure: the Syntax-discourse Interface . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles. J. 1968. “The Case for Case.” In Universals in Linguistic Theory, ed. by Robert T. Harms, 1–88. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Francis, Hartwell S., L. Michelle Gregory, and Laura. A. Michaelis. 1999. “Are Lexical Subjects Deviant?” Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society .
Givón, Talmy. 1975. “Focus and the Scope of Assertion: Some Bantu Evidence.” Studies in African Linguistics 6: 185–205.Google Scholar
. 1979. On Understanding Grammar . New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
. 1984. Syntax: A Functional-typological Introduction . Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. (to appear). “Backgrounded Constituents Cannot be “Extracted.” In Island Effects, ed. by Jon Sprouse, Norbert Hornstein, Brian Dillon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logo
. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Green, Georgia. 1974. Semantics and Syntactic Regularity . Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Gregory, Michelle L., and Laura A Michaelis. 2001. “Topicalization and Left Dislocation: A Functional Opposition Revisited.” Journal of Pragmatics 33 (11):1665–1706. DOI logo.Google Scholar
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. DOI logo.
Gundel, Jeanette. 1985. “Shared Knowledge and Topicality.” Journal of Pragmatics 9 (1):83–107. DOI logo.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Halliday, A.K. 1967. “Notes on Transitivity and Theme in English. Part II .” Journal of Linguistics 3: 199–244. DOI logo.Google Scholar
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 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hovav, Malka Rappaport, and Beth Levin. 2008. “The English Dative Alternation: The Case for Verb Sensitivity.” Journal of Linguistics , 44 (01):129–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ioup, Georgette. 1975. “Some Universals of Quantifier Scope.” Syntax and Semantics , ed. by John P. Kimball, 37–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, Matthew, and Adele E. Goldberg. 2012. “Evidence that Constructional Meaning is Accessed Automatically: Jabberwocky Sentences Prime Associated Verbs.” Language and Cognitive Processes October 1–14. DOI logo
Kuno, Susumu. 1991. “Remarks on Quantifier Scope.” In Current English Linguistics in Japan , ed. by Werner Winter, 261–88. New York: Mouton. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logo.Google Scholar
. 2001. “A Framework for the Analysis of Cleft Constructions.” Linguistics 39 (3):463–516. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larson, Richard. 1990. “Double Objects Revisited: Reply to Jackendoff.” Linguistic Inquiry 21: 589–632.Google Scholar
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. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations . Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian. 1977. “Starting Points.” Language 53: 152–68. DOI logo.Google Scholar
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. Hauser et al., 80–101. Berkeley: BLS, Inc.Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A., and S. Francis Hartwell. 2007. ”Lexical Subjects and the Conflation Strategy.” In Topics in the Grammar-Pragmatics Interface: Papers in Honor of Jeanette K. Gundel , ed. by N. Hedberg and R. Zacharski, 19–48. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oehrle, Richard. 1975. “Discourse Constraints on Dative Movement.” Syntax and Semantics 12: 46–70.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H. 1965. Subject and Object in Modern English . New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Polinsky, Maria. 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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
van Oosten, Jeanne. 1984. The Nature of Subjects, Topics and Agents: A Cognitive Explanation . University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Wasow, Thomas. 2002. Postverbal Behavior . Stanford: Center for Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Wasow, Thomas, and Jennifer Arnold. 2005. “Intuitions in Linguistic Argumentation.” Lingua 115(11): 1481–1501. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Bruening, Benjamin
2021. Implicit arguments in English double object constructions. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 39:4 ► pp. 1023 ff. DOI logo
JERRO, KYLE
2021. Applied Objects and the Syntax–Semantics Interface. Journal of Linguistics 57:2 ► pp. 365 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2014. Exploring Functional-Cognitive Space [Studies in Language Companion Series, 157], DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2019. Reference Point and Case [Human Cognitive Processing, 68], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 20 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.