Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa

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.

Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

Jóhanna Barðdal . 2009. The development of case in Germanic. In Jóhanna Barðdal & Shobhana Chelliah (eds.), The role of semantic, pragmatic, and discourse factors in the development of case, 123–59. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Jóhanna Barðdal , Kristian E. Kristoffersen & Andreas Sveen . 2011. West Scandinavian ditransitives as a family of constructions: With a special attention to the Norwegian V-REFL-NP construction. Linguistics 49 (1), 53104.

Jóhanna Barðdal , Elena Smirnova , Lotte Sommerer & Spike Gildea (eds.). 2015. Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Laurel Brinton & Minoji Akimoto (eds.). 1999. Collocational and idiomatic aspects of complex predicates in the history of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Joan Bybee . 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Timothy Colleman . 2011. Ditransitive verbs and the ditransitive construction: A diachronic perspective. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 59 (4), 387410.

Timothy Colleman & Bernard De Clerck . 2008. Accounting for ditransitives with envy and forgive . Functions of Language 15, 187215.

Timothy Colleman & Bernard De Clerck . 2009. ‘Caused motion’? The semantics of the English to-dative and the Dutch aan-dative. Cognitive Linguistics 20 (1), 542.

Timothy Colleman & Bernard De Clerck . 2011. Constructional semantics on the move: On semantic specialization in the English double object construction. Cognitive Linguistics 22 (1), 183209.

William Croft . 2003. Lexical rules vs. constructions: A false dichotomy. In Hubert Cuyckens , Thomas Berg , René Dirven & Klaus-Uwe Panther (eds.), Motivation in language: Studies in honour of Guenter Radden, 4968. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Ewa Dąbrowska . 1997. Cognitive semantics and the Polish dative. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Bernard De Clerck , Martine Delorge & Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen . 2011. Semantic and pragmatic motivations for constructional preferences: A corpus-based study of provide, supply, and present . Journal of English Linguistics 39, 359–91.

Ludovic De Cuypere . 2013. Debiasing semantic analysis: The case of the English preposition to . Language Sciences 37, 122–35.

Ludovic De Cuypere . 2015a. A multivariate analysis of the Old English ACC+DAT double object alternation. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 11 (2), 225–54.

Ludovic De Cuypere . 2015b. The Old English to-dative construction. English Language and Linguistics 19 (1), 126.

Olga Fischer . 1992. Syntax. In Norman Blake (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, vol. 2, 207408. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Martin Hilpert . 2013. Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word formation, and syntax, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Seppo Kittilä . 2006. The anomaly of the verb ‘give’ explained by its high (formal and semantic) transitivity. Linguistics 44 (3), 569612.

Thomas. McFadden 2002. The rise of the to-dative in Middle English. In David W. Lightfoot (ed.), Syntactic effects of morphological change, 107–23. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bruce Mitchell . 1985. Old English syntax, vol. 1. Oxford: Clarendon.

Joybrato Mukherjee . 2001. Principles of pattern selection: A corpus-based case study . Journal of English Linguistics 29 (4), 295314.

John Newman . 1996. Give: A cognitive linguistic study. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Günter Rohdenburg . 1995. Betrachtungen zum Auf- und Abstieg einiger praepositionaler Konstruktionen im Englischen. NOWELE 26, 67124.

Armin Schwegler . 1990. Analyticity and syntheticity: A diachronic perspective with special reference to Romance languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Anatol Stefanowitsch & Stefan Th. Gries . 2003. Collostructions: Investigating the interaction between words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8 (2), 209–43.

Elizabeth C. Traugott 1992. Syntax. In Richard Hogg (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, vol. 1, 168289. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Elizabeth C. Traugott & Graeme Trousdale . 2013. Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Christoph Wolk , Joan Bresnan , Anette Rosenbach & Benedikt Szmrecsanyi . 2013. Dative and genitive variability in Late Modern English. Diachronica 30 (3), 382419.

Nuria Yáñez-Bouza & David Denison . 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: 40 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 209 *
Loading metrics...

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