Dative alternation

Within the framework developed in this chapter, dative alternation must be seen as an alternation between two forms of pseudo-complementation. The phenomenon can therefore be captured in terms of lexical rules. The dative form is accounted for straightforwardly by the pseudo-complementation lexical rule introduced in the previous section (Section 3.5.3). The double object form must be allowed by another rule, such as the one specified in d68. This rule identifies a pseudo-complement preposition in the lexicon (using the function get_lex) which supplies the semantics associated with the NP inserted into the subcat list (the dative NP). This NP can be seen as the object of the missing preposition in the double object form. The lexical rule induces a ``focus shift'', raising the inserted NP in obliqueness to the level of direct object and pushing the original direct object down to the level of indirect object.

 

add_adj_top(Head , SubcatIn ,
SubcatOut , SemanticsIn : , SemanticsOut ,
Operator-adjsIn , Operator-adjsOut ) :-
test_rest(RestSubcat ),
get_lex( ),
add_adj_top(Head , , SubcatOut , SemanticsIn ,
SemanticsOut , Operator-adjsIn , Operator-adjsOut ). test_rest( ).
test_rest( ).

This rule can apply to transitive forms of verbs which have semantics compatible with a pseudo-complement preposition. So, for example, the presence of a lexical entry which licenses John sang a song will lead to a lexical entry which licenses John sang Mary a song where sing is compatible with the benefit expressed by the for pseudo-complement. In this case, RestSubcat is and the test test_rest succeeds with its first clause. It also can apply to ditransitive forms of verbs with a subcat list again, if the semantics of the verb is compatible with the semantics of a pseudo-complement preposition. For instance, a lexical entry which licenses John gave a book to Mary will lead to one which licenses John gave Mary a book by virtue of the presence of the pseudo-complement preposition to in lexicon, which has a semantics compatible with the meaning expressed by give. In this case the second clause of test_rest will succeed. The function add_adj_top is called recursively to allow for the addition of other compatible pseudo-complements, e.g. to license John gave Mary a book for the kids (interpretation: John gave a book to Mary, and the book is intended to benefit the children).

This approach to the dative alternation links the alternate forms through the semantics associated with the dative (pseudo-complement) preposition -- the semantics provided in one case by the preposition is in the other case indicated by the obliqueness of one NP relative to the other. Thus the approach makes a generalisation about the relationship between dative PPs and inner double object NPs. Furthermore, the approach ensures that there is only one available interpretation of the double object form -- the pseudo-complement interpretation -- even if the ``missing'' preposition can be interpreted as either a pseudo-complement or an adjunct type preposition. It is also in line with Jackendoff's (1990) analysis in which the double object form only allows an interpretation in which the object of the preposition benefits from the object of the verb, but differs from that work in that here the double object form has an interpretation identical to one of the interpretations of the dative form (see Section 3.3.2).

The rule in d68 above is only an example of how the double-object form lexical rule could be defined. In actuality, this rule would likely have to define more complicated modifications of the internal semantic structure expressed by the verb in the alternate form. Several lexical rules of this type may also be necessary, probably involving a more precise definition of the initial internal semantics associated with the verb, to capture different types of semantic alternation between the dative and double object forms. The form of the rules is not critical for the current discussion; the fact that such rules can be defined to account for the dative alternation is important.

The lexical rule approach to the treatment of the semantics of the two forms involved in the dative alternation provides a means of accounting for alternation contrasts previously difficult to explain. Consider the sentences in d44-d67. (From Jackendoff 1990, who attributes d44-d45 and d73-d67 to Jane Grimshaw.)

  John fixed the roof for Mary. *John fixed Mary the roof.

  John fixed a sandwich for Mary. John fixed Mary a sandwich.

  Bill removed the garbage for Harold. *Bill removed Harold the garbage.

  John chose a dress for Mary. *John chose Mary a dress.

 

Sue poured some cement for Dick. *Sue poured Dick some cement.

  Sue poured some coffee for Dick. Sue poured Dick some coffee.

The contrast between d44 and d45 stems from differences in the meaning expressed by the verb fix. In d44, fix means repair, and is apparently not compatible with the semantics of the pseudo-complement on this interpretation. The only lexical rule which can be used to interpret (3.79a) is the thematic adjunction lexical rule, resulting in an interpretation in which the entire fixing event is done for Mary. No interpretation of (3.79b) is possible because the lexical rule licensing the double object form requires the modified verb to have semantics compatible with the meaning of the pseudo-complement. In d45, on the other hand, fix is being used to mean make, which is compatible with for pseudo-complementation (as a cause-create-rel), and therefore the double object form lexical rule can apply to provide an interpretation for (3.80b). Likewise, the semantic relations expressed by the verbs in d42 and d43 are not compatible with pseudo-complements and thus the double object forms involving these verbs are not permitted. Only the thematic adjunct interpretation of the PPs is available.

The contrast between d73 and d67 must be a result of consultation of world knowledge in the application of the lexical rules. There is no difference in the senses of pour expressed in these sentences. On the pseudo-complementation interpretation of these sentences (that is, when the pseudo-complement lexical rule introduces the -phrase), what is being poured is interpreted as affecting Dick directly. While there are clearly several senses in which coffee can benefit Dick (e.g. because it is liquid and humans need liquid to survive; because it is warm; etc.), there is no sense in which the cement in d73 can benefit Dick directly, likely because Dick is not intended to receive the cement. The benefit-rel which is conveyed by the preposition for is an underspecified relation which must be fully specified through pragmatic reasoning (to determine how something benefited), and in the case of d73 the relation cannot be specified on the basis of world knowledge. Thus the pseudo-complement interpretation of these sentences is ruled out on the grounds of limitations in the world. Pragmatic reasoning is required to support and augment the underspecified lexically-proposed interpretation.