1 / 13

The English Ditransitive Construction

The English Ditransitive Construction. Goldberg, Adele E. (1995): Constructions. Ch. 6. Lucas Champollion (thanks to Ryan Gabbard for some slides) Nov 15 th , 2004. CAUSE-RECEIVE < agent recipient patient >. Instance or means. PREDICATE < *** Insert Verb Here *** >.

aquarius
Télécharger la présentation

The English Ditransitive Construction

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The English Ditransitive Construction Goldberg, Adele E. (1995): Constructions. Ch. 6. Lucas Champollion (thanks to Ryan Gabbard for some slides) Nov 15th, 2004

  2. CAUSE-RECEIVE < agent recipient patient > Instance or means PREDICATE < *** Insert Verb Here *** > Verb Subject Object Object2 The Ditransitive Construction Pat mailed Bill a letter. John will bake Mary a cake.

  3. Outline • Evidence for the construction • Evidence that it means “X successfully causes Y to receive Z, where X is a volitional and Y is either willing or has no choice” • Semantic constraints on X and Y • Some systematic metaphors that license extensions from the basic sense

  4. The Ditransitive Construction: Why It Exists • okMary baked her sister a cake. (meaning: Mary baked a cake with the intention of giving it to her sister.) • *Mary baked her sister a cake. (meaning: Sally baked the cake so that her sister wouldn’t have to bake it) • *Mary baked her sister a cake. (meaning: Mary baked a cake for herself because her sister told her so) •  Transfer meaning either in construction or in bake • More evidence lies in the semantic constraints

  5. Semantic Constraints on the Subject • *Joe threw the right fielder the ball he intended the first baseman to catch • okJoe painted Sally a picture.  Subject must be volitional (i.e. an agent) • Problem: okOedipus gave his mother a kiss, okMary accidentally loaned Bob a lot of money  Constraints are the same as for murder

  6. Semantic Constraints on Object1 • okShe brought a package to the border. • *She brought the border a package. • okShe brought a package to the boarder. • okShe brought the boarder a package.  Object1 must be animate (i.e. a recipient)

  7. Semantic Constraints on Object1 (contd.) • Must either be willing: *Bill threw the coma victim a blanket • or have no choice: okBill gave Chris a headache / a kick / a speeding ticket. • Willingness ≠ benefit: okJack poured Jane an arsenic–laced martini.

  8. Apparent Counterexamples • okThe medicine brought him relief. • okThe rain bought us some time. • okShe gave me the flu.  Subject is not volitional! • Do these examples have anything in common? • cf. The document supplied us with some entertainment.

  9. Reminder: Polysemy give, throw, take, feed X successfully causes Y to receive Z but also: X causes Y not to receive Z X intends to cause Y to receive Z X enables Y to receive Z refuse, deny make, build, get, win, bake Subject Verb Object Object2 permit, allow

  10. CAUSE-”RECEIVE” < cause affectee effect > Instance or means PREDICATE < *** Insert Verb Here *** > Verb Subject Object Object2 A Systematic Metaphor: Causal Events as Transfers She gave me the flu. (unintentionally)

  11. More Systematic Metaphors • Communication as Reception: She told Jo a fairy tale, She wired Jo a message (cf. Jo received the information from Bill) • Perceptions as Received Entities: He gave Bob a glimpse (cf. I caught a glimpse from him) • Directed Action as Transferred Entity: She blew him a kiss, She threw him a parting glance (cf. All he got from her was a goodbye wave) • Facts/Assumptions/Beliefs as Objects: I’ll grant you that much of your argument (cf. I don’t want to give up that assumption)

  12. A More Complicated Case • Actions for Someone’s Benefit as Transferred Objects: Cry me a river, They’re going to kill Reagan a commie (cf. She graciously offered a ride to the airport, He owes you many favors) • recipient does not receive Object2 here  ?! • Source domain not ‘X causes Y to receive Z’ but ‘X causes Y to receive some object’ • Target domain ‘X performs an action for the benefit of Y’ • Therefore more constrained, dialectal variation: ?Cry Joe a river, ?Sally cried me a river

  13. Thanks.

More Related