0. INTRODUCTION Peyraube (19$6, 1987, 1988) has identified three main dative or doubleobjectconstructions in Archaic Chinese (51h c. B.C. to 200 A.D.), viz.: V IO DO: V+Indirect Object (10)+Direct Object (DO) V DO yu 10: V+Direct Object (DO)+yu �+Indirect Object (10) yi DO V 10: yi I
The doubleobjectconstruction involves so-called ditransitive verbs, i.e., verbs with both a direct object (DO) and an indirect object (IO), to use traditional terminology here. Ditransitive verbs (also called double object verbs) can be further divided into three classes: verbs of giving or
In this article an overview is given of the verbal valence patterns of the verb נתן in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Four patterns are distinguished for this verb: 1. נתן + OBJECTto produce; 2. + נתן OBJECT + RECIPIENTto give to; 3. נתן + OBJECT + LOCATIONto place; 4. נתן + OBJECT + 2ND OBJECTto make into. All occurrences of the verb in the DSS corpus used, consisting of 1QHa, 1QS, 1QM, and 1QpHab, are discussed and divided into one of these patterns. This study shows that pattern 3 occurs most, followed by pattern 2, and that it can be argued that pattern 1 and 4 also occur in our DSS corpus, though the evidence is scarce. In some cases, translations, differing from the translations in the editions of the texts, are proposed that better reflect the verbal valence patterns used in the clause.
With data from over a thousand regional varieties of Chinese, the paper presents a comprehensive survey of ditransitive constructions in Chinese dialects and their alignment types, focusing in particular on delving in system-internal and external factors correlating with the observed typological distinctions. It starts with questioning the validity of one of Hashimoto’s (1976) well-known parameters for North-South typological classification of Chinese – i.e., the double object construction (DOC) takes the form of V-OR-OT in Northern Chinese and V-OT-OR in Southern Chinese, the latter also known as the ‘Inverted DOC’ (IDOC), – based on the fact that two distinct groups of Southern Chinese, i.e., Min and Southwestern Mandarin spoken in Southwestern China, tally unexpectedly with Northern Chinese and only allow the form of V-OR-OT. It is subsequently found that the distinction is strongly correlated with the typology of the generalpurpose verb of giving (the verb ‘to give’). All dialects with DOC possess an underived ditransitive verb ‘to give’, whereas those with IDOC in general lack such as verb, using instead the combination of a monotransitive handling verb and an allative preposition, i.e., the dative construction in the form of ‘take OT to OR’, to express the ‘give’-type ditransitive event. This finding naturally leads to the following conclusions: (1) it is the loss of the verb ‘to give’ that triggers the loss of DOC in the latter group of dialects, which consequently renders the dative construction as the only ‘give’-type ditransitive construction in such dialects; (2) the IDOC is in nature an indirective construction (dative construction) with merely the dative marker left out, and the driving force of the omission is nothing but a high usage frequency of the indirective construction.
It is further observed that the English-like dative alternation between the DOC and the dative construction existing in Chinese for thousands of years since Archaic Chinese is only preserved in a small fraction of its modern varieties. The majority of Chinese dialects have undergone a typological shift from the mixed type to either the DOC-type (predominantly Northern Chinese) or the indirectivetype (predominantly Southern Chinese), motivated by the systerm-external factor (Altaization of Northern Chinese in the former case) and the systerm-internal factor (loss of the verb ‘to give’ in the latter case) respectively
with a prepositional phrase ( John gave a book
). The second construction is the doubleobjectconstruction, owing its name to the fact that both objects (R and T) appear unmarked, usually in a fixed order following the verb ( John gave
a book ).
The frequency and
observed in other languages (e.g. English, Icelandic, and Main- land Scandinavian languages). On the basis of such criteria, we conclude that in the underlying structure of both the PP Object Construction (PPOC) and the DoubleObjectConstruction (DOC), the DO is a sister to V. This struc- tural
Ditransitive verbs in English occur in two patterns: a ‘standard’ verb-object-object form and an ‘alternative’ complementation pattern - a nominal complement followed by a prepositional phrase. The alternation between these two patterns gives rise to central questions in syntax, among them the distinction between complements and adjuncts and the notion of ‘heaviness’. This paper consists of two experiments. Experiment one addresses the question of whether speakers’ choice of construction is affected by the medium of delivery employed (spoken or written). Experiment two considers the possibility of applying the Given Before New (GBN) principle to the results from ICE-GB. The GBN principle predicts that (a) the first elements in both double object constructions and their prepositional paraphrases will be given, and that (b) the second NP in a double object construction, and the PP in the prepositional version, will constitute new information.
Phoevos Panagiotidis (Cyprus College) . Description This monograph by Elena Anagnostopoulou (hereafter EA) probes ditransi- tive constructions with her focus being doubleobjectconstructions (e.g. John passed Mary the ring ) crosslinguistically, rather than ditransitives involving PPs (e.g. John passed
) feature a double-objectconstruction, with no preposition marking either recipient or theme (corresponding to the same coding of the patient in a monotransitive clause).
Krio (English-based; Finney, 2013 )
Seychelles Creole (French-based; Michaelis and Rosalie, 2013