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.
The alternation between ((106)) and ((110)) is known as dative
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
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.
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.
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.
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 .