この論文をさがす
説明
<jats:p>We challenge the predominant view of the English dative alternation, which takes all alternating verbs to have two meanings: a caused possession meaning realized by the double object variant and a caused motion meaning realized by the<jats:italic>to</jats:italic>variant. Instead, we argue that verbs like<jats:italic>give</jats:italic>and<jats:italic>sell</jats:italic>only have a caused possession meaning, while verbs like<jats:italic>throw</jats:italic>and<jats:italic>send</jats:italic>have both caused motion and caused possession meanings. We show that the caused possession meaning may be realized by both variants. Concomitantly, we argue that verbs like<jats:italic>give</jats:italic>, even in the<jats:italic>to</jats:italic>variant, lack a conceptual path constituent, and instead have a caused possession meaning which can be understood as the bringing about of a ‘have’ relation. We reassess evidence for alternative approaches adduced from inference patterns and verb–argument combinations and demonstrate how our verb-sensitive analysis, when combined with an account of variant choice, provides a more insightful explanation of this data, while having wider coverage. Our investigation affirms proposals that a verb's own meaning plays a key role in determining its argument realization options. To conclude, we consider the crosslinguistic implications of our study, attempting to explain why so many languages lack a true dative alternation.</jats:p>
収録刊行物
-
- Journal of Linguistics
-
Journal of Linguistics 44 (1), 129-167, 2008-02-05
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
