Skip to main content

Ditransitives in Middle English: on semantic specialisation and the rise of the dative alternation 1


This article discusses the plausibility of a correlation or even a causal relation between two phenomena that can be observed in the history of English ditransitives. The changes concerned are: first, the emergence of the ‘dative alternation’, i.e. the establishment of a link between the double object construction (DOC) and its prepositional paraphrase, and second, a reduction in the range of verb classes associated with the DOC, with the construction's semantics becoming specialised to basic transfer senses. Empirically, the article is based on a quantitative analysis of the occurrences of the DOC as well as its prepositional competitors in the Penn–Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English, 2nd edition (PPCME2). On the basis of these results, it will be argued that the semantic narrowing and the increasing ability of ditransitive verbs to be paraphrased by a to-prepositional construction (to-POC) interacted in a bi-directional causal manner.

Hide All

The author is grateful to Nikolaus Ritt and the NatSide-Team at the University of Vienna for helpful comments; furthermore, I would like to thank Timothy Colleman and Ludovic De Cuypere for valuable discussions on the issue.

Hide All
Aaron Arthur, Aron Elaine N. & Coups Elliot J.. 2009. Statistics for psychology, 5th edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Allen Cynthia L. 1995. Case marking and reanalysis: Grammatical relations from Old to Early Modern English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Anthony Laurence. 2014. AntConc (Version 3.4.3) [Computer Software]. Tokyo: Waseda University. (accessed 24 December 2016).
Barðdal Jóhanna. 2007. The semantic and lexical range of the ditransitive construction in the history of (North) Germanic. Functions of Language 14, 930.
Barðdal Jóhanna. 2009. The development of case in Germanic. In Barðdal Jóhanna & Chelliah Shobhana (eds.), The role of semantic, pragmatic, and discourse factors in the development of case, 123–59. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Barðdal Jóhanna & Kulikov Leonid. 2009. Case in decline. In Malchukov Andrej & Spencer Andrew (eds.), The Oxford handbook of case, 470–8. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Barðdal Jóhanna, Kristoffersen Kristian E. & Sveen Andreas. 2011. West Scandinavian ditransitives as a family of constructions: With a special attention to the Norwegian V-REFL-NP construction. Linguistics 49 (1), 53104.
Barðdal Jóhanna, Smirnova Elena, Sommerer Lotte & Gildea Spike (eds.). 2015. Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Brinton Laurel & Akimoto Minoji (eds.). 1999. Collocational and idiomatic aspects of complex predicates in the history of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bybee Joan. 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cappelle Bert. 2006. Particle placement and the case for ‘allostructions’. In Schönefeld Doris (ed.), Constructions 1, special volume: Constructions all over: Case studies and theoretical implications. (accessed 24 December 2016).
Cassidy Frederic G. 1938. The background in Old English of the Modern English substitutes for the dative-object in the group verb + dative-object + accusative-object. PhD thesis, University of Michigan.
Colleman Timothy. 2010. Lectal variation in constructional semantics: Benefactive ditransitives in Dutch. In Geeraerts Dirk, Kristiansen Gitte & Peirsman Yves (eds.), Advances in cognitive sociolinguistics, 191221. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Colleman Timothy. 2011. Ditransitive verbs and the ditransitive construction: A diachronic perspective. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 59 (4), 387410.
Colleman Timothy & De Clerck Bernard. 2008. Accounting for ditransitives with envy and forgive . Functions of Language 15, 187215.
Colleman Timothy & De Clerck Bernard. 2009. ‘Caused motion’? The semantics of the English to-dative and the Dutch aan-dative. Cognitive Linguistics 20 (1), 542.
Colleman Timothy & De Clerck Bernard. 2011. Constructional semantics on the move: On semantic specialization in the English double object construction. Cognitive Linguistics 22 (1), 183209.
Croft William. 2000. Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. Harlow: Longman.
Croft William. 2003. Lexical rules vs. constructions: A false dichotomy. In Cuyckens Hubert, Berg Thomas, Dirven René & Panther Klaus-Uwe (eds.), Motivation in language: Studies in honour of Guenter Radden, 4968. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Dąbrowska Ewa. 1997. Cognitive semantics and the Polish dative. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
De Clerck Bernard, Delorge Martine & Simon-Vandenbergen Anne-Marie. 2011. Semantic and pragmatic motivations for constructional preferences: A corpus-based study of provide, supply, and present . Journal of English Linguistics 39, 359–91.
De Cuypere Ludovic. 2010. The Old English double object alternation: A discourse-based account. Sprachwissenschaft 35, 337–68.
De Cuypere Ludovic. 2013. Debiasing semantic analysis: The case of the English preposition to . Language Sciences 37, 122–35.
De Cuypere Ludovic. 2015a. A multivariate analysis of the Old English ACC+DAT double object alternation. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 11 (2), 225–54.
De Cuypere Ludovic. 2015b. The Old English to-dative construction. English Language and Linguistics 19 (1), 126.
Dercole Fabio & Rinaldi Sergio. 2008. Analysis of evolutionary processes. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Detges Ulrich. 2009. How useful is case morphology? The loss of the Old French two-case system within a theory of preferred argument structure. In Barðdal & Chelliah (eds.).
Fischer Olga. 1992. Syntax. In Blake Norman (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, vol. 2, 207408. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gast Volker. 2007. I gave it him – on the motivation of the ‘alternative double object construction’ in varieties of British English. Functions of Language 14 (1), 3156.
Geeraerts Dirk. 1997. Diachronic prototype semantics: A contribution to historical lexicology. Oxford: Clarendon.
Gerwin Johanna. 2014. Ditransitives in British English dialects. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Goldberg Adele. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg Adele. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gries Stefan Th. 2010. Useful statistics for corpus linguistics. In Sánchez Pérez Aquilino & Sánchez Moisés Almela (eds.), A mosaic of corpus linguistics: Selected approaches, 269–91. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Herriman Jennifer. 1995. The indirect object in Present-Day English. Gothenburg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
Hilpert Martin. 2013. Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word formation, and syntax, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hoffmann Sebastian & Mukherjee Joybrato. 2007. Ditransitive verbs in Indian English and British English: A corpus-linguistic study. Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik 32 (1), 524.
Kittilä Seppo. 2006. The anomaly of the verb ‘give’ explained by its high (formal and semantic) transitivity. Linguistics 44 (3), 569612.
Koopman Willem. 1991–3. The order of dative and accusative objects in Old English. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 25–27, 109–21.
Kroch Anthony & Taylor Ann. 2000. Penn–Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English, second edition. (accessed 24 December 2016).
Lambert Silke. 2010. Beyond recipients: Towards a typology of dative uses. PhD thesis, The State University of New York at Buffalo.
McFadden Thomas. 2002. The rise of the to-dative in Middle English. In Lightfoot David W. (ed.), Syntactic effects of morphological change, 107–23. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mitchell Bruce. 1985. Old English syntax, vol. 1. Oxford: Clarendon.
Mukherjee Joybrato. 2001. Principles of pattern selection: A corpus-based case study . Journal of English Linguistics 29 (4), 295314.
Mukherjee Joybrato. 2005. English ditransitive verbs: Aspects of theory, description and a usage-based model. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Mustanoja Tauno F. 1960. A Middle English syntax, vol. 1. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.
Newman John. 1996. Give: A cognitive linguistic study. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Perek Florent. 2015. Argument structure in usage-based construction grammar: Experimental and corpus-based perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Pinker Steven. 1989. Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Quirk Randolph, Greenbaum Sidney, Leech Geoffrey & Svartvik Jan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
R Development Core Team. 2014. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna. (accessed 24 December 2016).
Randall Beth. 2009. CorpusSearch 2: A tool for linguistic research. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. (accessed 24 December 2016).
Rappaport Hovav Malka & Levin Beth. 2008. The English dative alternation: The case of verb sensitivity. Journal of Linguistics 44 (1), 129–67.
Rohdenburg Günter. 1995. Betrachtungen zum Auf- und Abstieg einiger praepositionaler Konstruktionen im Englischen. NOWELE 26, 67124.
Rostila Jouni. 2007. Konstruktionsansaetze zur Argumentmarkierung im Deutschen. Tampere: Juvenes Print.
Schwegler Armin. 1990. Analyticity and syntheticity: A diachronic perspective with special reference to Romance languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Stefanowitsch Anatol & Gries Stefan Th.. 2003. Collostructions: Investigating the interaction between words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8 (2), 209–43.
Szmrecsanyi Benedikt. 2012. Analyticity and syntheticity in the history of English. In Nevalainen Terttu & Traugott Elizabeth C. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of the history of English, 654–65. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Torrent Tiago T. 2015. On the relation between inheritance and change: The Constructional Convergence and the Construction Network Reconfiguration Hypotheses. In Barðdal, Smirnova, Sommerer & Gildea (eds.).
Traugott Elizabeth C. 1992. Syntax. In Hogg Richard (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, vol. 1, 168289. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Traugott Elizabeth C. & Trousdale Graeme. 2013. Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
University of Michigan Regents. 2013. The electronic Middle English dictionary. (accessed 24 December 2016).
Van de Velde Freek. 2014. Degeneracy: The maintenance of constructional networks. In Boogaart Ronny, Colleman Timothy & Rutten Gijsbert (eds.), Extending the scope of Construction Grammar, 141–80. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Vincent Nigel. 1997. Synthetic and analytic structures. In Maiden Martin & Parry Mair (eds.), The dialects of Italy, 99105. London: Routledge.
Visser Fredericus. Th. 1963. An historical syntax of the English language, vol.1: Syntactical units with one verb. Leiden: Brill.
Wolk Christoph, Bresnan Joan, Rosenbach Anette & Szmrecsanyi Benedikt. 2013. Dative and genitive variability in Late Modern English. Diachronica 30 (3), 382419.
Yáñez-Bouza Nuria & Denison David. 2015. Which comes first in the double object construction? Diachronic and dialectal variation. English Language and Linguistics 19 (2), 247–68.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

English Language & Linguistics
  • ISSN: 1360-6743
  • EISSN: 1469-4379
  • URL: /core/journals/english-language-and-linguistics
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 9
Total number of PDF views: 64 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 326 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 26th January 2017 - 23rd November 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.