Cover not available

In:Perspectives on Linguistic Structure and Context: Studies in honor of Knud Lambrecht
Edited by Stacey Katz Bourns and Lindsy L. Myers
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 244] 2014
► pp. 3–16

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

The information structure of ditransitives

Informing scope properties and long-distance dependency constraints

ORCiD logo with link
Published online: 5 March 2014
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.244.01gol
This chapter argues that information structure plays a critical role in explaining the ditransitive construction’s distribution, scope properties, and interaction with long-distance dependency constructions. Specifically, since the recipient argument is a secondary topic and backgrounded in discourse, it tends to have wide scope over the theme argument and also tends to resist extraction when combined with long-distance dependency constructions. An alternative, the to-dative, is favored in these circumstances, since it has a more appropriate information structure.
References (57)
References
Allen, Kachina, Francisco Pereira, Matthew Botvinick, and Adele E. Goldberg. 2012. “Distinguishing Grammatical Constructions with fMRI Pattern Analysis.” Brain and Language 123: 174–182. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ambridge, Ben, and Adele E. Goldberg. 2008. “The island status of clausal complements: Evidence in favor of an information structure explanation.” Cognitive Linguistics 19 (3):357–389. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1971. “On the Role of Deep Structure in Semantic Interpretation.” Foundations of Language 6: 197–219.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Arnold, Jennifer E., Thomas Wasow, Anthony Losongco, and Ryan Ginstrom. 2000. “Heaviness vs Newness: The Effects of Structural Complexity and Discourse Status on Constituent Ordering.” Language 76: 28–55. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Basilico, David. 1998. “Object Position and Predication Forms.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16 (3):541–595. .Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Borkin, Ann. 1974. Problems in Form and Function . University of Michigan.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, and Lioba Moshi. 1990. “Asymmetries in Comparative Bantu Syntax.” Language 21 (2):147–185.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, Anna Cueni, Tatiana Nikitina, and R. Harald Baayen. 2007. “Predicting the Dative Alternation.” In Cognitive Foundations of Interpretation , ed. by Gerlof Boume, Irene Krämer, and Joost Zwarts, 69–94. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, and Ford, Marilyn. 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
Bresnan, Joan, and Nikitina, Tatiana. ms. On the Gradience of the Dative Alternation. Stanford University.
Bruening, Benjamin. 2001. “QR Obeys Superiority: Frozen Scope and ACD.” Linguistic Inquiry 32: 233–73. .Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carlson, Gregory. Ms. Weak Indefinites . University of Rochester
Chafe, Wallace L. 1976. “Giveness, Contrastiveness, Definiteness, Subjects, Topics and Point of View.” In Subject and Topic , ed. by Charles N. Li, 25–56. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1987. “Cognitive Constraints on Information Flow.” In Coherence and Grounding in Discourse , ed. by Russell S. Tomlin, 21–52. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Collins, Peter. 1995. “The Indirect Object Construction in English: An Informational Approach.” Linguistics 33: 35–49. .Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew. 1986. “Primary Objects, Secondary Objects and Antidative.” Language 62 (4):808–845. .Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
DuBois, John W. 1987. “The Discourse Basis of Ergativity.” Language 63 (4):805–855. .Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W., Lorraine E Kumpf, and William J. Ashby, eds. 2004. Preferred Argument Structure: Grammar as Architecture for Function . Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 1979. “Discourse Constraints on Dative Movement.” In Syntax and Semantics 12, ed. by Suzanne Laberge and Gillian Sankoff, 441–467. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1998. “The Syntax-Focus Structure Interface.” In Syntax and Semantics 29:The Limits of Syntax, ed. by Peter Culicover and Louise McNally, 211–240. Emerald Group.
. 2007. Information Structure: the Syntax-discourse Interface . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles. J. 1968. “The Case for Case.” In Universals in Linguistic Theory, ed. by Robert T. Harms, 1–88. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Francis, Hartwell S., L. Michelle Gregory, and Laura. A. Michaelis. 1999. “Are Lexical Subjects Deviant?” Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society .
Givón, Talmy. 1975. “Focus and the Scope of Assertion: Some Bantu Evidence.” Studies in African Linguistics 6: 185–205.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1979. On Understanding Grammar . New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (to appear). “Backgrounded Constituents Cannot be “Extracted.” In Island Effects, ed. by Jon Sprouse, Norbert Hornstein, Brian Dillon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Green, Georgia. 1974. Semantics and Syntactic Regularity . Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gregory, Michelle L., and Laura A Michaelis. 2001. “Topicalization and Left Dislocation: A Functional Opposition Revisited.” Journal of Pragmatics 33 (11):1665–1706. .Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grosz, Barbara J., Joshi, Aravind K., and Scott Weinstein. 1983. “Providing a Unified Account of Definite Noun Phrases in Discourse.” Paper presented at Proceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Cambridge, MA. .
Gundel, Jeanette. 1985. “Shared Knowledge and Topicality.” Journal of Pragmatics 9 (1):83–107. .Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K. 1998. “Centering Theory and Givenness Hierarchy.” In Centering Theory in Discourse , ed. by Marilyn A. Walker, Aravind K. Joshi and Ellen Prince, 183–198. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, A.K. 1967. “Notes on Transitivity and Theme in English. Part II .” Journal of Linguistics 3: 199–244. .Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer, and Jyoan Bresnan. 2006. “Spoken Syntax: The Phonetics of giving a hand in New Zealand English. Linguistic Review 23 (3): 321–349. 10.1515/TLR.2006.013 Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hovav, Malka Rappaport, and Beth Levin. 2008. “The English Dative Alternation: The Case for Verb Sensitivity.” Journal of Linguistics , 44 (01):129–167. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ioup, Georgette. 1975. “Some Universals of Quantifier Scope.” Syntax and Semantics , ed. by John P. Kimball, 37–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnson, Matthew, and Adele E. Goldberg. 2012. “Evidence that Constructional Meaning is Accessed Automatically: Jabberwocky Sentences Prime Associated Verbs.” Language and Cognitive Processes October 1–14.
Kuno, Susumu. 1991. “Remarks on Quantifier Scope.” In Current English Linguistics in Japan , ed. by Werner Winter, 261–88. New York: Mouton. .Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. .Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2001. “A Framework for the Analysis of Cleft Constructions.” Linguistics 39 (3):463–516. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Larson, Richard. 1990. “Double Objects Revisited: Reply to Jackendoff.” Linguistic Inquiry 21: 589–632.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langendoen, D. Terence, Nancy Kalish-Landon, and John Dore. 1973. “Dative Questions: A Study in the Relation of Acceptability to Grammaticality of an English Sentence Type.” Cognition 2 (4):451–478. .Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations . Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian. 1977. “Starting Points.” Language 53: 152–68. .Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A. 2012. ”Complementation by Construction.” In The Proceedings of the Thirty-second Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: Parasession on Theoretical Approaches to Argument Structure , ed. by M.J. Hauser et al., 80–101. Berkeley: BLS, Inc.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A., and S. Francis Hartwell. 2007. ”Lexical Subjects and the Conflation Strategy.” In Topics in the Grammar-Pragmatics Interface: Papers in Honor of Jeanette K. Gundel , ed. by N. Hedberg and R. Zacharski, 19–48. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oehrle, Richard. 1975. “Discourse Constraints on Dative Movement.” Syntax and Semantics 12: 46–70.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H. 1965. Subject and Object in Modern English . New York: Garland.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Polinsky, Maria. 1998. “A Non-Syntactic Account of Some Asymmetries in the Double Object Construction.” In Conceptual Structure and Language: Bridging the Gap , ed. by Jean-Pierre Koenig, 403–422. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. 1990. “Information Flow and Dative Shift in English Discourse.” In Development and Diversity: Linguistic Variation Across Time and Space, ed. by Jerold Edmondson, Crawfor Feaq, and Peter Muhlhausler, 239–253. Dallas, TX: SIL.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Oosten, Jeanne. 1984. The Nature of Subjects, Topics and Agents: A Cognitive Explanation . University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. 1998. “The Acquisition of Wh-Questions and the Mechanisms of Language Acquisition.” In The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure , ed. by Michael Tomasello, 221–49. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wasow, Thomas. 2002. Postverbal Behavior . Stanford: Center for Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wasow, Thomas, and Jennifer Arnold. 2005. “Intuitions in Linguistic Argumentation.” Lingua 115(11): 1481–1501. .Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (6)

Cited by six other publications

Leclercq, Benoît & Cameron Morin
2025. The Meaning of Constructions, DOI logo
Riches, Nick
2025. Developmental Language Disorder: A Consequence of Exemplar-Based Learning?. First Language DOI logo
Bruening, Benjamin
2021. Implicit arguments in English double object constructions. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 39:4 ► pp. 1023 ff. DOI logo
JERRO, KYLE
2021. Applied Objects and the Syntax–Semantics Interface. Journal of Linguistics 57:2 ► pp. 365 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2014. Exploring Functional-Cognitive Space [Studies in Language Companion Series, 157], DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2019. Reference point and case [Human Cognitive Processing, 68], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 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