Ditransitive constructions and dative shift

Verbs such as give and put that require two objects, as shown in examples ((106))-((109)), are termed ditransitive.

(105)0(105

(106)

Christy gave a cannoli to Beth Ann .  (106)0(106

(107)

$\ast$Christy gave Beth Ann .  (107)0(107

(108)

Christy put a cannoli in the refrigerator .  (108)0(108

(109)

$\ast$Christy put a cannoli . 

The indirect objects Beth Ann and refrigerator appear in these examples in the form of PP's. Within the set of ditransitive verbs there is a subset that also allow two NP's as in ((110)). As can be seen from ((110)) and ((111)) this two NP, or double-object, construction is grammatical for give but not for put.

(109)0(109

(110)

Christy gave Beth Ann a cannoli .  (110)0(110

(111)

$\ast$Christy put the refrigerator the cannoli . 

The alternation between ((106)) and ((110)) is known as dative shift.^10.1 In order to account for verbs with dative shift the English XTAG grammar includes structures for both variants in the tree family Tnx0Vnx1Pnx2. The declarative trees for the shifted and non-shifted alternations are shown in Figure 10.1.

   

Figure: Dative shift trees: $\alpha$nx0Vnx1Pnx2 (a) and $\alpha$nx0Vnx2nx1 (b)

(a)		(b)

The indexing of nodes in these two trees represents the fact that the semantic role of the indirect object (NP₂) in Figure 10.1(a) is the same as that of the direct object (NP₂) in Figure 10.1(b) (and vice versa). This use of indexing is consistent with our treatment of other constructions such as passive and ergative. Verbs that do not show this alternation and have only the NP PP structure (e.g. put) select the tree family Tnx0Vnx1pnx2. Unlike the Tnx0Vnx1Pnx2 family, the Tnx0Vnx1pnx2 tree family does not contain trees for the NP NP structure. Other verbs such as ask allow only the NP NP structure as shown in ((112)) and ((113)).

(111)0(111

(112)

Beth Ann asked Srini a question .  (112)0(112

(113)

$\ast$Beth Ann asked a question to Srini . 

Verbs that only allow the NP NP structure select the tree family Tnx0Vnx1nx2. This tree family does not have the trees for the NP PP structure. Notice that in Figure 10.1(a) the preposition to is built into the tree. There are other apparent cases of dative shift with for, such as in ((114)) and ((115)), that we have taken to be structurally distinct from the cases with to.

(113)0(113

(114)

Beth Ann baked Dusty a biscuit .  (114)0(114

(115)

Beth Ann baked a biscuit for Dusty . 

[#!mccawley88!#] notes:

A ``for-dative'' expression in underlying structure is external to the V with which it is combined, in view of the fact that the latter behaves as a unit with regard to all relevant syntactic phenomena.

In other words, the for PP's that appear to undergo dative shift are actually adjuncts, not complements. Examples ((116)) and ((117)) demonstrate that PP's with for are optional while ditransitive to PP's are not.

(115)0(115

(116)

Beth Ann made dinner .  (116)0(116

(117)

$\ast$Beth Ann gave dinner . 

Consequently, in the XTAG grammar the apparent dative shift with for PP's is treated as Tnx0Vnx1nx2 for the NP NP structure, and as a transitive plus an adjoined adjunct PP for the NP PP structure. To account for the ditransitive to PP's, the preposition to is built into the tree family Tnx0Vnx1tonx2. This accounts for the fact that to is the only preposition allowed in dative shift constructions. [#!mccawley88!#] also notes that the to and for cases differ with respect to passivization; the indirect objects with to may be the subjects of corresponding passives while the alleged indirect objects with for cannot, as in sentences ((118))-((121)). Note that the passivisation examples are for NP NP structures of verbs that take to or for PP's.

(117)0(117

(118)

Beth Ann gave Clove dinner .  (118)0(118

(119)

Clove was given dinner (by Beth Ann) .  (119)0(119

(120)

Beth Ann made Clove dinner .  (120)0(120

(121)

?Clove was made dinner (by Beth Ann) . 

However, we believe that this to be incorrect, and that the indirect objects in the for case are allowed to be the subjects of passives, as in sentences ((122))-((123)). The apparent strangeness of sentence ((121)) is caused by interference from other interpretations of Clove was made dinner .

(121)0(121

(122)

Dania baked Doug a cake .  (122)0(122

(123)

Doug was baked a cake by Dania .