语言学论文.docx

1、语言学论文COURSE PAPERAbstractDative alternation in English, as we know, involves the alternating verbs with two meanings: a caused possession meaning realized by the double object frame and a caused motion meaning realized by the to variant. Certain experts thought the double object frame is originated

2、from dative construction, while others just have the opposite views. Some, however, thought the two are similar in several ways. Based on the latest research on language acquisition, and other related studies, this thesis mainly studies the nature and various restrictions of dative alternation from

3、the prospective: the multiple meaning approach and the simple meaning approach. Key Words: dative alternation, nature, variant, restriction, double object constructionIntroductionDative alternation is a consistently and intensively studied phenomenon that is featured by the relative optionality of t

4、he ordering of two internal arguments in a ditransitive verb. It refers to particularly the different realizations of verb with a recipient and a theme argument.Any analysis of the dative alternation in English needs to mention the questions being hotly discussed of these days of what actually lead

5、to the alternation. The alternation includes verbs that illustrate two realizations of the same arguments. Verbs denoting a kind of transfer may occur in two different constructions.As what are exampled in the following sentences The Dative Alternation involves the variation between the double objec

6、t (DO) construction and the prepositional object (PO) constructionDifferent constructions endow sentences of the same origin with distinct emphasis and for different pragmatic uses. Analysis of Nature Based on the Two Research ApproachesThere are two main ways to analyze the dative alternation: The

7、single meaning research as well as the multiple meaning research. The first one is that both variants are related to the same meaning with which two argument realization options are allowed. The second one is that variants are associated with a little bit different but related meanings, with each me

8、aning leading to distinct argument realization patterns. The first one is defined as the single meaning approach and the second multiple meaning approach1. And nowadays, in the linguistic field, the second multiple meaning approach dominates. It indicates the non-derivational relation between varian

9、ts: each one is connected with its own meaning, though these are not always distinguishable under a truth condition and each leads to its own argument realization2 On most instantiations of the approach, the to- variant expresses caused motion. Using Goldbergs (1995) characterization: an agent cause

10、s a theme to move along a path to a goal, where the movement and path are interpreted in the possessional field The double object construction illustrates the cause possession : to cause a receiver to possess an entity with a broadly constructed definition3. Many dative verbs such as give categorize

11、 either for an NP direct object and a PP indirect object (b), which can be referred as the prepositional structure.a. Lily gave Bill a ticket. (DO)NP1 V NP2 NP3 b. Lily gave a ticket to Bill. (PO)NP1 V NP3 to NP2 Sentence a and b can be interpreted respectively as:a. NP1 CAUSES NP2 TO HAVE NP1b. NP1

12、 CAUSES NP3 TO GO TO NP2 4 Another four sentences in comparison:c. Lily sent Bill a box(DO)d. Lily sent a box to Bill(PO)e. Lily sent Beijing a boxf. Lilly sent a box to Beijing In (c), Bill is the projected possessor of the box, whereas in (e), Beijing is just a location, the final destination of t

13、he box but not a projected possessor .g. The place gives me the creeps h. The place gives the creeps to meAs on the multiple meaning approach, this alternation is directly reflected by the different interpretations connected with each variant: a distinct realization of arguments is aroused by each m

14、eaning. In the to variant form, the arguments of a verb are realized in the same manner as the arguments of caused motion verbs. The double object construction shows the realization of arguments kept in English for events of caused possession. When one variant is appropriate and the other is not, th

15、e explanation is linked to the meaning difference between the variants5. Almost any latest analyses adopt a uniform approach to the dative alternation. For all dative verbs, the variants are associated with either one meaning or two, depending on the general approach. An exception is the analysis fr

16、om Jackendoffs (1990: 197f.), who offers the illustration for the alternation with verbs like give and sell, whose meaning basically involves the change of possession (give-type dative verbs), and a different analysis for the alternation with verbs like throw and kick (throw-type verbs) a category d

17、escribed as verbs of instantaneous imparting of force in some manner causing ballistic motion (Pinker 1989: 110). Researchers indicates that with give-type verbs, the two variants have structures that are similar in the thematic connection, differing only in the action connection The action connecti

18、on describes the agentpatient relations in an event, while the thematic connection represents the event in terms of a theme and its location or path (Anderson 1971, Jackendoff 1983). Jackendoff suggests that “give-type words include three arguments, and thematically it involves a theme moving along

19、a possessional path from a source agent to a target the recipient”.The two approaches varies as what leads to the dative alternation. In the view of Bakers concerning the single meaning approach, the variants are related derivationally, and indeed thematic paraphrasespresupposing an answer to the si

20、ngle meaning approachthey must have same underlying syntactic structure. Instantiation of this approach tend to take the “trigger ” for the dative alternation to be case-related, involving the incorporation of a preposition whose complement is the goal (Baker 1988; Larson 1988). However ,this approa

21、ch does not answer why those related verbs should be associated with preposition incorporation and why sometimes a variant is suitable and sometimes are not.And nowadays, almost a large portion of analysis of dative alternation is based on a single approach. Variants of all dative verbs, are associa

22、ted with one or more meanings. Common Restriction in Dative Alternation(1) Restrictions to the Indirect Words In the double object construction, the indirect object is usually related to animacy.a. Lily sent Beijing a boxb. Lilly sent Bill a box Sentence f “Lilly sent a box to Beijing ”is generally

23、regarded as a grammatically right, however not acceptable description, for the indirect object is a name of place with no animate feature. All words the dative alternation involves an alternate realization of recipients, and the recipients are generally an animate entity capable of possession.6 Howe

24、ver, in the dative alternation, the object showing the recipient could be both animate and inanimate. Such as:c. Lily sent a box to Beijingd. Lily sent a box to Bill. (2) Movement RestrictionsIn the dative construction NP3 must experience movement:a. The horror movie gave Beth creeps.b. The horror m

25、ovie gave creeps to Beth.c. His stimulation gave Beth an idea.d. His stimulation gave an idea to Beth.(3) Restrictions of Possession This restriction is a little bit similar with indirect words restriction.The double object construction involves a proposition of NP2 possessing NP3 after the verb eve

26、nt. NP1 (the possessor) must satisfy the selectional restrictions for possession:a. Lily sent a package to Beijng .b. Lily sent Beijing a package. (Beijing does not h a v e the package)The relevant notion of possession includes possession of information:a. Lily showed the card to Beth.b. Lily showed

27、 Beth the card (other words such as read, tell, quote)The relevant notion of possession also includes future possession:a. Lily forwarded the book to Beth.b. Lily forwarded Beth the book. (offer, promise)(4)Restrictions on the End-Weight Principle. The end-weight and end-focus principle are two guid

28、ing rules to the arrangement of sentence order, in which the importance of end of sentence is emphasized. Often the same long constructions are placed at the end of the sentences, such as the placement of the postponed modifier of adjectives or noun phrases at the end of the sentence. The principle

29、restricts that the longest and most complicated component in the information structure need to be put at the end of the sentence. For the direct object loner than the indirect object, the double object is better.a. Lily gave book to those who did not come to the mathematical class and did not write

30、down any notes.b. Lily gave those persons books which covers phonetics, phonology, semantics, and pragmatics.(5) Restrictions on the Meaning and Verb Category. Usually, certain implication could be expressed in two ways or sentence forms, but the two sentence forms may not give the exactly same mean

31、ing.a. The doctor gave lily a beautiful and smooth skinb. The doctor gave a beautiful and smooth skin to Lilyc. Lily taught Beth Englishd. Lily taught English to Beth In sentences a, there are two quite different understandings: the doctor gave Lily a leather-like thing or the doctor help Lily to re

32、gain beauty with certain skin care or plastic surgery, while in sentence b, only the first explanation is acceptable. sentence c not only implicates the action of Lily to teach Beth English, but also Beths skillful grasp of English. So the meaning that we want to express can sometimes restricts the use of dative alternation.(6) Other restrictions In the situations mentioned below, the dative alternation should not be used1)When the Subject of the Sentence is not the Possessor of the Direct Object Before the A