Cover not available

In:Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar
Edited by Lotte Sommerer and Elena Smirnova
[Constructional Approaches to Language 27] 2020
► pp. 167–211

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

Constructional networks and the development of benefactive ditransitives in English

 | University of York
 | Stanford University
Published online: 13 May 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.27.05zeh
Abstract
In this paper, we address the question of how to model syntactic alternations in Diachronic Construction Grammar terms. We argue that positing horizontal links between constructions in addition to vertical ones is particularly beneficial in accounting for change. Our case study is the emergence of the English “benefactive alternation”, with focus on its relation to the more pervasive and more thoroughly studied “dative alternation”. Based on a quantitative investigation of ditransitive benefactive verbs in Early English Books Online (EEBO), we locate the emergence of the benefactive alternation in Early Modern English later than the dative alternation, which arose in Middle English. We conclude that the benefactive alternation can be modelled as complex networks featuring both horizontal and vertical links on various levels of schematicity.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical background
    • 2.1A constructional taxonomic model
    • 2.2Accounting for constructional alternations
  • 3.Ditransitives, benefactives, and the benefactive alternation
    • 3.1Benefactives in Present Day English
    • 3.2Benefactives in Old and Middle English
  • 4.Data and methodology for a corpus-based study of benefactives in Early Modern English
  • 5.Findings of the corpus study
    • 5.1All verbs
    • 5.2Selected benefactive verbs
  • 6.Constructional networks in the history of English
    • 6.1Modelling the emergence of the English benefactive alternation
    • 6.2The value of postulating horizontal links
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
References (73)
References
Corpora and other primary resources and tools
ARCHER = A Representative Corpus of Historical English Registers version X. 1990-1993/2002/2007/2010/2013/2016. [URL]
COCA = Davies, M. (2008–). The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 560 million words, 1990-present. [URL]
EEBO = Davies, M. (2017). Early English Books Online. Part of the SAMUELS project. [URL]
Glossary, Old English Aerobics = Baker, P. (2003–2012). Supplementary online material to Baker, Peter. 2012. Introduction to Old English. (3rd edn.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. [URL]
OED = Oxford English Dictionary. 2018. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [URL]
PPCEME = Kroch, A., Santorini, B. & Delfs, L. (2004). The Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Early Modern English (PPCEME), first edition, release 3. [URL]
PPCME2 = Kroch, A. & Taylor, A. (2000). Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English, second edition. [URL]
Randall, B. (2009). CorpusSearch 2: A tool for linguistic research. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania. [URL]
R Development Core Team. (2014). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna. [URL]
Secondary sources
Allen, C. (1995). Case marking and reanalysis: Grammatical relations from Old to Early Modern English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). Case syncretism and word order change. In A. Van Kemenade & B. Los (Eds.), The handbook of the history of English (pp. 201–223). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Allerton, D. (1978). Generating indirect objects in English. Journal of Linguistics, 14, 21–33. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barðdal, J. & Gildea, S. (2015). Diachronic Construction Grammar: Epistemological context,basic assumptions and historical implications. In J. Barðdal, E. Smirnova, L. Sommerer & S. Gildea (Eds.), Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 1–50). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bresnan, J., Cueni, A., Nikitina, T. & Baayen, H. (2007). Predicting the dative alternation. In G. Bouma, I. Kraemer, & J. Zwarts (Eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation (pp. 69–94). Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. & Ford, M. (2010). Predicting syntax: Processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English. Language 86(1), 168–213. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cappelle, B. (2006). Particle placement and the case for “allostructions”. In D. Schönefeld (Ed.), Constructions Special Volume 1 – Constructions all over: Case studies and theoretical implications. <hal-01495786>Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Colleman, T. (2010a). Lectal variation in constructional semantics: Benefactive ditransitives in Dutch. In D. Geeraerts, G. Kristiansen & Y. Peirsman (Eds.), Advances in cognitive sociolinguistics (pp. 191–221). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010b). The benefactive semantic potential of ‘caused reception’ constructions: A case study of English, German, French, and Dutch. In F. Zúñiga & S. Kittilä (Eds.), Benefactives and malefactives: Typological perspectives and case studies (pp. 219–244). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Colleman, T. & De Clerck, B. (2008). Accounting for ditransitives with envy and forgive. Functions of Language, 15, 187–215. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). Constructional semantics on the move: On semantic specialization in the English double object construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 22(1), 183–209. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2003). Lexical rules vs. constructions: A false dichotomy. In H. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven & K. Panther (Eds.), Motivation in language: Studies in honour of Guenter Radden (pp. 49–68). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Cuypere, L. (2010). The Old English double object alternation: A discourse-based account. Sprachwissenschaft, 35, 337–68.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015a). A multivariate analysis of the Old English ACC+DAT double object alternation. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 11(2), 225–254. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015b). The Old English to-dative construction. English Language and Linguistics, 19(1), 1–26. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Diessel, H. (2015). Usage-based construction grammar. In E. Dąbrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 295–321). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fellbaum, C. (2005). Examining the constraints on the benefactive alternation by using the World Wide Web as a corpus. In S. Kepser & M. Reis (Eds.), Linguistic evidence: Empirical, theoretical and computational perspectives (pp. 209–240). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D. (1998). The semantic structure of the indirect object in Dutch. In W. Van Langendonck & W. Van Belle (Eds.), The Dative. Vol. 2: Theoretical and contrastive studies (pp. 185–210). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gerwin, Johanna. (2014). Ditransitives in British English Dialects. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2002). Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics, 13(4), 327–356. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Green, G. (1974). Semantics and syntactic regularity. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gries, S. (2014). Coll.analysis 3.5. A script for R to compute perform collostructional analyses.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gries, S. & Stefanowitsch, A. (2004). Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9(1), 97–129. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gropen, J., Pinker, S., Hollander, M., Goldberg, R. & Wilson, R. (1989). The learnability and acquisition of the dative alternation in English. Language, 65(2), 205–257. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Herbst, T., & Uhrig, P. (2009). Erlangen Valency Patternbank. A corpus-based research tool for work on valency and argument structure constructions. [URL]
Hilpert, M. (2018). Three open questions in Diachronic Construction Grammar. In E. Coussé, P. Andersson & J. Olofsson (Eds.), Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar. (pp. 21–39) Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. & Gries, S. (2009). Assessing frequency changes in multi-stage diachronic corpora: Applications for historical corpus linguistics and the study of language acquisition. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 24(4), 385–401. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T. (2007). Complements versus adjuncts? A construction grammar account of English prepositional phrases. Occasional Papers in Language and Linguistics (University of Nairobi) 3, 92–119.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). Preposition placement in English: A usage-based approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kay, P. (1996). Argument structure: Causative ABC-constructions. (unpublished ms.). University of California, Berkeley. [URL]
(2005). Argument structure constructions and the argument-adjunct distinction. In M. Fried & H. Boas (Eds.), Grammatical constructions: Back to the roots (pp. 71–100). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kay, P. & Fillmore, C. (1999). Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What’s X Doing Y? construction. Language, 75, 1–33. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kittilä, S. (2005). Recipient-prominence vs. beneficiary-prominence. Linguistic Typology, 9(2), 269–297. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koopman, W. (1990). Word order in Old English. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McFadden, T. (2002). The rise of the to-dative in Middle English. In D. Lightfoot (Ed.), Syntactic effects of morphological change (pp. 107–123). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mitchell, B. (1985). Old English syntax, Vol. 1. Oxford: Clarendon. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mukherjee, J. (2005). English ditransitive verbs: Aspects of theory, description and a usage- based model. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mustanoja, T. (1960). A Middle English syntax, Vol. 1. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Newman, J. 1996. Give: A cognitive linguistic study. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nisbet, T. (2005). Benefactives in English: Evidence against argumenthood. Reading Working Papers in Linguistics, 8, 51–67.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perek, F. (2012). Alternation-based generalizations are stored in the mental grammar: Evidence from a sorting task experiment. Cognitive Linguistics, 23(3), 601–635. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reddy, W. (1979). The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 284–324). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schmid, H.-J. & Mantlik, A. (2015). Entrenchment in historical corpora? Reconstructing dead authors’ minds from their usage profile. Anglia, 133(4), 583–623. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. (2006). Negative evidence and the raw frequency fallacy. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 2(1), 61–77. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. & Gries, S. (2003). Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2), 209–243. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, S. (2018). Variable benefactive ditransitive constructions: Probabilistic syntax in spoken British and Canadian English. International Congress of Linguists 20. Cape Town, South Africa. July 2–6, 2018.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Theijssen, D., van Halteren, H., Fikkers, K., Groothoff, F., van Hoof, L., van de Sande, E., Tiems, J., Verhagen, V. & van der Zande, P. (2010). A regression model for the English benefactive alternation: An efficient, practical, actually usable approach. In B. Plank, E. Tjong Kim Sang & T. van de Cruys (Eds.), Computational Linguistics in the Netherlands 2009 (pp. 115–130). Utrecht.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, E. (2016). Do semantic modal maps have a role in a constructionalization approach to modals? In B. Cappelle & I. Depraetere (Eds.), Modal Meaning in Construction Grammar, special issue of Constructions and Frames, 8(1), 98–125. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). Modeling language change with constructional networks. In S. Pons Bordería, & Ó. Loureda (Eds). Beyond Grammaticalization and Discourse Markers: New Issues in the Study of Language Change (pp. 17–50). Leiden: Brill. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vázquez-González, J. G. & Barðdal, J. (Forthcoming). Reconstructing the ditransitive construction for Proto-Germanic: Gothic, Old English and Old Norse-Icelandic. ERC-funded Project: EVALISA (The Evolution of Case, Alignment and Argument Structure in Indo-European).
Van de Velde, F. (2014). Degeneracy: The maintenance of constructional networks. In R. Boogaart, T. Colleman & G. Rutten (Eds.), Extending the scope of Construction Grammar (pp. 141–180). Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Valin, R. & LaPolla, R. (1997). Syntax: Structure, meaning, and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Visser, F. (1963). An historical syntax of the English language. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wolk, C., Bresnan, J., Rosenbach, A. & Szmrecsanyi, B. (2013). Dative and genitive variability in Late Modern English. Diachronica, 30(3), 382–419. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zehentner, E. (2018). Ditransitives in Middle English: on semantic specialisation and the rise of the dative alternation. English Language and Linguistics, 22(1), 149–175. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019). Competition in language change: The rise of the English dative alternation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (17)

Cited by 17 other publications

Becker, Israela & Mira Ariel
2025. Scaffolding the sentential Ultimate construction into a word. Constructions and Frames 17:1 ► pp. 92 ff. DOI logo
Chen, Alvin Cheng-Hsien
2025. From sequentiality to schematization: network-based analysis of covarying collexemes in Mandarin degree adverb constructions. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 21:3 ► pp. 475 ff. DOI logo
Liu, Meili, Hubert Cuyckens & Fangqiong Zhan
2025. Language change in a constructional network: the emergence of Mandarin [bi N hai N] comparative constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 36:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Sommerer, Lotte & Freek Van de Velde
2025. Constructional Networks. In The Cambridge Handbook of Construction Grammar, ► pp. 220 ff. DOI logo
Ungerer, Tobias
2024. Vertical and horizontal links in constructional networks. Constructions and Frames 16:1 ► pp. 30 ff. DOI logo
Norde, Muriel & Graeme Trousdale
2023. Issues in Diachronic Construction Morphology. Constructions and Frames 15:2 ► pp. 145 ff. DOI logo
Zehentner, Eva, Melanie Röthlisberger & Timothy Colleman
2023. Ditransitive constructions in Germanic languages. In Ditransitives in Germanic Languages [Studies in Germanic Linguistics, 7], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Maekelberghe, Charlotte
2022. From noun to verb. In English Noun Phrases from a Functional-Cognitive Perspective [Studies in Language Companion Series, 221], ► pp. 135 ff. DOI logo
Hilpert, Martin, Bert Cappelle & Ilse Depraetere
2021. Modality in Diachronic Construction Grammar. In Modality and Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 32], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Smirnova, Elena
2021. Horizontal links within and between paradigms. In Modality and Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 32], ► pp. 185 ff. DOI logo
Pijpops, Dirk
2020. What is an alternation?. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 34 ► pp. 283 ff. DOI logo
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
2020. The intertwining of differentiation and attraction as exemplified by the history of recipient transfer and benefactive alternations. Cognitive Linguistics 31:4 ► pp. 549 ff. DOI logo
Zehentner, Eva
2020. Cognitive reality of constructions as a theoretical and methodological challenge in historical linguistics. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 34 ► pp. 371 ff. DOI logo
Zehentner, Eva
2021. Alternations emerge and disappear: the network of dispossession constructions in the history of English. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 17:3 ► pp. 525 ff. DOI logo
Zehentner, Eva
2022. Revisiting Gradience in Diachronic Construction Grammar: PPs and the Complement-Adjunct Distinction in the History of English. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 70:3 ► pp. 301 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2022. Discourse Structuring Markers in English [Constructional Approaches to Language, 33], DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2023. Structural Priming in the Grammatical Network [Constructional Approaches to Language, 35], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue