Dative shift

In linguistics, dative shift is a pattern in which the subcategorization of a verb can take on two
alternating forms. In the oblique dative (OD) form, the verb takes a noun phrase (NP) and
a prepositional phrase (PP), the second of which is not an argument.

John gave [NP a book] [PP to Mary].

In the double object construction (DOC) form the verb takes two noun phrases, both of which
are arguments.

John gave [NP Mary] [NP a book].

Synonyms used in the literature[edit]

Terms used in literature on dative shift can vary. The chart below provides terms used in this article in bold, along with other
common synonyms used elsewhere :

Double object construction Oblique dative Dative alternations

Dative shift Simple dative Dative construction

VP complementation structures Dative complement construction Dative transformation

Distribution[edit]
Traditional grammar suggests (as a “rule of thumb”) that only single-syllable verbs can be in double
object construction (DOC).[1]

(3) a. [John] bought [Mary] [a cake]

b. [John] bought [a cake] [for Mary]
(4) a. *[John] acquired [Mary] [a new car]
b. [John] acquired [a new car] [for Mary]

These verbs must have the theta-role of recipient/goal/beneficiary in their theta grid when in DOC
form. A theta grid is where theta roles are stored for a particular verb (see Section 2 on the theta
role page). In example (5), the DOC form is not permitted, despite the verb root being single syllable,
because wash lacks the theta-role of recipient. One explanation for why the verb lacks this theta-role is
that there is no possessive relationship between the direct object and the indirect object).[1]

(5) a. *[John] washed [Mary] [the dishes]

b. [John] washed [the dishes][for Mary]
One lexical theory suggests the reason for this lies with the origin of the verbs that allow dative form.
Generally, native verbs (Anglo-Saxon) allow dative form, whereas Latinate verbs do not. This is
thought to be primarily due to the stress associated with native verbs, rather
than etymological conditions.

An additional semantic component constrains some native verbs further. The double object
construction requires a possessor/possessed relationship. This means the indirect object in the
oblique dative construction must have the theta-role of beneficiary (PP introduced by "for") or
recipient/goal (PP introduced by "to") to be a candidate for the dative alternation.[2]

This theory suggests verbs chosen for double-object form are done so before syntactic processes take
place. The knowledge of the relationship of possession/possessed (semantic constraint) is learned prior
to the class constraint of the verbs (native vs. latinate).

Examples of verb that allow dative form Examples of verbs that do not allow dative form

Tell me your idea *Expose them your answer

Toss me the ball *Recount me a story

Make me a sandwich *Donate her the money

Send me a letter ?Purchase her a birthday cake

Mail me a letter ?Explain me the solution

Baker's Paradox and original hypotheses[edit]

Although DOC and oblique dative forms are common productions for children at age three, the dative shift
poses a paradox for young children learning English. The paradox, termed “Baker’s Paradox”, can be
summarized in the following examples.
When children hear both forms:

(12) a. Give money to him (oblique dative form)

b. Give him money (DOC);

Children may formulate a lexical rule, deriving the double object form from the oblique dative form.
However, the rule would permit the following example of overgeneralization:

(13) a. Donate money to him.

b. *Donate him money.

Example (13)b is an overgeneralization because they apply dative shift to the verb “donate”, however,
“donate” cannot undergo dative shift.[14]:204
When children say ungrammatical sentences, they are not often corrected. How, then, do children
avoid overgeneralizations such as the one above? There are 2 main hypotheses which try and explain
how children avoid overgeneralizations: ……

Verbs that undergo the "dative shift" rule must also be specified by a possessor-
possession relationship. Verbs whose meanings are not cognitively compatible with the notion of a
possession change will not produce a coherent semantic structure in the double object construction.

Example DOC Alternating Form Reasons for DOC ill/well formedness

ill-formed: the verb "drive" requires a semantic structure

* I drove I drove the car to
Chicago the car. Chicago. corresponding to 'causing Chicago to possess the car', which is
nonsense if only people can be possessors.

* I drove Mary I drove the car for ill-formed: the verb "drive" is not compatible with
the car. Mary. the notion of causing to possess

I bought Mary I bought the car for

well-formed: "buying" is a form of causing to possess.
the car. Mary.

Narrow-range level
On the “narrow-range level” the dative rule constricts the broad-level rule, allowing it only to apply to
subclasses of semantically and morphologically similar verbs. Narrow-range rules could be acquired
by a procedure that is weakly conservative, in that the only verbs that the child allows to undergo the
dative shift freely are those verbs that they have actually heard undergo an alternation, or verbs that are
semantically similar to them.
The narrow subclasses of verbs are simply the set of verbs that are similar to a verb the child has heard
to alternate. ‘Semantic similarity’ would be defined as verbs that share most or all of their
grammatically-relevant semantic structure (ex. the notions of “go”, “be”, “have”, or “act”, and kinds
of causal relations such as “cause”, “let”, and “prevent”, including the verbs “throw” and “kick”,
which share the same general semantic structure of “cause”).[14]:244–246

Morphophonological constraint
The final constraint of this proposed hypothesis is the morphophonological constraint. It is proposed
that children will apply the morphological constraint to subclasses of alternating verbs that are all from
the native class (monosyllabic). If the set of alternating verbs are not all from the native class, then the
child will not apply the morphophonological constraint. This account correctly predicts that the
morphophonological constraint could apply to some semantic subclasses, but not others. For example,
children would apply the constraint to the following five subclasses of alternating verbs:
 Verb Subclass Grammatical Example Ungrammatical Example

1. giving John gave Mary the book. *John donated / contributed Mary the book.

2. communication John told Mary the news. *John explained / announced / reported Mary the news.

3. creation John baked Mary a cake. *John constructed / designed / created Mary a cake.

4. sending John shipped Mary a parcel. *John transported Mary a parcel.

5. obtaining John bought Mary some food. *John obtained / collected Mary some food.

Children would not apply the constraint to the class of “future having” verbs because they are not all
from the native (monosyllabic) class, thereby allowing the following DOC examples to be well-
formed:

(14) John assigned / allotted / guaranteed / bequeathed Mary four tickets.

[14]:247–249

References

1. ^ Jump up to:a b Payne, Thomas (2011). Understanding English Grammar. pp. 322–323.
2. Jump up^ Mazurkewich, Irene; White (1984). "The acquisition of the dative
alternation: Unlearning overgeneralizations". Cognition 16: 261–283.doi:10.1016/0010-
0277(84)90030-1.
3. Jump up^ Chomsky, Noam (1975). The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory. New
York. ISBN 0-306-30760-X.
4. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v Larson, Richard K. (1988). "On the Double
Object Construction". Linguistic Inquiry. Summer 19 (3).
5. Jump up^ Kayne, Richard S. (1983). Connectedness and Binary Branching. U.S.A:
Foris Publications. pp. 193–196. ISBN 90-6765-028-5.
6. ^ Jump up to:a b c Barss, A; Lasnik (1986). "A Note on Anaphora and Double
Objects". Linguistic Inquiry 17
7. Jump up^ Beck & Johnson (2004). "Double Objects Again". Linguistic Inquiry. Winter
(35): 97–123.
8. Jump up^ Harley, H. (2003). "Possession and the Double Object
Construction". Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2: 31–70. doi:10.1075/livy.2.04har.
9. Jump up^ Pinker, Steven (June 1989). "The Learnability and Acquisition of the Dative
Alternation in English". Language 65 (2): 203–257.doi:10.2307/415332.
10. Jump up^ Goldberg, Adele (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach
to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
11. Jump up^ Hoavav & Levin (2008). "The English dative alternation: The case for verb
sensitivity" 44. pp. 129–167.
12. Jump up^ Jackendoff, R. (1990). "On Larson's Analysis of the Double Object
Construction". Linguistic Inquiry 21: 427–456.
13. ^ Jump up to:a b Conwell, Erin; Demuth (May 2007). "Early Syntactic productivity:
Evidence from dative shift". Elsevier 103 (2): 163–179.
14. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g h i Gropen, J; Wilson (1989). "The Learnability and Acquisition
of the Dative Alternation in English". Language 65: 204.