Cover not available

Article published In: Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism
Vol. 11:6 (2021) ► pp.817–845

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

The syntactic status of English dative alternation structures in bilingual and in monolingual acquisition data

ORCiD logo with link | University of Valladolid Language Acquisition Lab
 | University of Valladolid Language Acquisition Lab
Published online: 15 May 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.18093.fer
Abstract
This study deals with the syntactic (non-)derivational relationship of English dative alternation (DA) –double object constructions (DOCs) and to/for-datives–, as seen in the spontaneous production of English-Spanish bilinguals when compared to English monolinguals. While a chronological progression and a difference in use between the two English DA constructions could suggest a syntactic-derivational relationship between DOCs and to/for-datives, a fairly similar emergence and a possibly similar rate of use could point to the two constructions not displaying a syntactic-derivational status. We also explore whether English-Spanish bilinguals show divergent developmental paths when compared to English monolinguals. To address these issues, we analyze data from nine English-Spanish bilingual children and twelve English monolingual children, along with the adults interacting with them. The analysis shows that both DA structures emerge at a similar age, which suggests they are not syntactically derived from one another. Despite these differences, the later onset and the lower incidence of to/for-datives could be associated with the case and theta role mediated properties of prepositions as well as with the frequency of exposure to DA in the adults’ speech. As no differences appear between bilinguals and monolinguals, transfer from Spanish does not seem to be an issue.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Syntactic formal accounts on dative alternation structures
  • 3.Dative alternation in acquisition studies
  • 4.English dative alternation in bilingual and in monolingual acquisition data
    • 4.1Research questions
    • 4.2Participants and corpora selection
    • 4.3Codification criteria
    • 4.4Statistical tests used for data analyses
    • 4.5Data analysis
    • 4.6Discussion
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (45)
References
Aoun, J., & Li, A. Y. (1989). Scope and constituency. Linguistic Inquiry, 20(2), 141–172.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Arnold, J. E., Wasow, T., Losongco, A., & Ginstrom, R. (2000). Heaviness versus newness: The effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering. Language, 761, 28–55. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bel, A., & Rosado, E. (2009). Person and number asymmetries in child Catalan and Spanish. In J. Grinstead (Ed.), Hispanic Child Languages (pp. 195–214). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Borer, H., & Wexler, K. (1987). The maturation of syntax. In T. Roeper & K. Wexler (Eds.), Parameter Setting (pp. 123–172). Dordrecht: Reidel. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bruhn de Garavito, J. L. S. (2000). The syntax of Spanish multifunctional clitics and near-native competence (Doctoral dissertation). McGill University, Québec, Canada.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Campbell, A. L., & Tomasello, M. (2001). The acquisition of English dative constructions. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22(2), 253–267. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). On the representation of form and function. The Linguistic Review, 11, 3–40. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, E. V. (2009). First language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cuervo, C. (2003a). Datives at large (Doctoral dissertation). The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Massachusetts, USA.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2003b). Structural asymmetries but same word order: The dative alternation in Spanish. In A. M. Di Sciullo (Ed.), Asymmetry in Grammar. Volume I: Syntax and Semantics (pp. 117–144). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Czepluch, H. (1982). Case theory and the dative construction. The Linguistic Review, 2(1), 1–38. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Houwer, A. (1990). The acquisition of two languages from birth: A case study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005). Early bilingual acquisition: Focus on morphosyntax and the separate development hypothesis. In J. Kroll & A. De Groot (Eds.), The Handbook of Bilingualism (pp. 30–48). Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Demonte, V. (1994). Datives in Spanish. Working Papers in Linguistics, 4(1), 71–96.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1995). Dative alternation in Spanish. Probus, 7(1), 5–30. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dryer, M. S. (1986). Primary objects, secondary objects and antidative. Language, 62(4), 808–845. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Genesee, F., Nicoladis, E., & Paradis, J. (1995). Language differentiation in early bilingual development. Journal of Child Language, 22(3), 611–631. 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, 651, 203–257. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gu, C. C. (2010). Cross-linguistic influence in two directions: The acquisition of dative constructions in Cantonese-English bilingual children. International Journal of Bilingualism, 17(1), 87–103.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (2006). Ditransitive constructions in RRG and some other approaches. International Conference on Role and Reference Grammar, Leipzig, Germany.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hulk, A., & Müller, N. (2001). Bilingual first language acquisition at the interface between syntax and pragmatics. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 3(3), 227–244. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Larson, R. K. (1988). On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry, 191, 335–391.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Legate, J. A., & Yang, C. (2002). Empirical re-assessment of stimulus poverty arguments. The Linguistic Review, 191, 151–162. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk (third edition). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marantz, A. (1984). On the nature of grammatical relations. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1993). Implications of asymmetries in double object constructions. In S. A. Mchombo (Ed.), Theoretical Aspects of Bantu Grammar (pp. 113–150). Stanford: Leland Stanford Junior University PressGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meisel, J. M. (2004). The bilingual child. In T. K. Bathia & W. C. Ritchie (Eds.), The handbook of Bilingualism (pp. 91–113). Oxford: BlackwellGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mulder, R. (1992). The aspectual nature of syntactic complementation. Leiden: Holland Institute of Generative Linguistics.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oehrle, R. T. (1976). The grammatical status of the dative alternation (Doctoral Dissertation), Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Paradis, J., Crago, E., & Genesee, F. (2006). Domain-specific versus domain-general theories of the deficit in SLI: Object pronoun acquisition by French-English bilingual children. Language Acquisition, 13(1), 33–62. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Paradis, J., & Genesee, F. (1996). Syntactic acquisition in bilingual children: Autonomous or interdependent? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 181, 1–25. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Peccei, J. S. (1999). Child language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. M. (1990). Relational grammar. In E. A. Moravcsik & J. R. Wirth (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics: Current Approaches to Syntax 131 (pp. 195–229). Orlando Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, L. (2002). Introducing arguments (Doctoral dissertation). The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Massachusetts, USA.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rowland, C. (2014). Understanding child language acquisition. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ronjat, J. (1913). Le développement du langage observé chez an enfant bilingue. Paris: Librairie Ancienne H. Champion.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rothman, J., González Alonso, J., & Puig Mayenco, E. (2019). Third language acquisition and linguistic transfer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sánchez Calderón, S., & Fernández Fuertes, R. (2016). Dativizable or non-dativizable: That is the question? A syntactic-semantic analysis of English (non)-dativizable constructions in the production of a set of 2L1 English/Spanish simultaneous bilingual twins. Xjenza Online-Journal of the Malta Chamber of Scientists, 41, 44–57.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). Which came first: The chicken or the egg? Ditransitive and passive constructions in the English production of simultaneous bilingual English children. ATLANTIS. A Journal of the Spanish Association for Anglo-American Studies, 40(1), 39–58. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Snyder, W. (1995). A neo-davidsonian approach to resultatives, particles, and datives. In J. Beckman (Ed.), Proceedings of 25 North East Linguistic Society 251 (pp. 457–472). Amherst: Graduate Linguistic Student Association of the University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2001). On the nature of syntactic variation: Evidence from complex predicates and complex word-formation. Language, 771, 324–342. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Snyder, K. (2003). The relationship between form and function in ditransitive constructions (Doctoral dissertation), University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Snyder, W., & Stromswold, K. (1997). The structure and acquisition of English dative constructions. Linguistic Inquiry, 28(2), 281–317.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Torrens, V., & Wexler, K. (2000). The acquisition of clitic doubling in Spanish. In S. M. Powers & C. Hamann (Eds.), The Acquisition of Scrambling and Cliticization. Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics 261 (pp. 279–297). Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yang, C. (2016). The price of linguistic productivity: How children learn to break the rules of language. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Ma, Ruiming, Thomas Van Hoey & Benedikt Szmrecsanyi
2025. Isomorphism-inspired theorising about optionality and variation: no empirical support from English grammar. English Language and Linguistics ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 november 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