Cover not available

In:Ugandan English: Its sociolinguistics, structure and uses in a globalising post-protectorate
Edited by Christiane Meierkord, Bebwa Isingoma and Saudah Namyalo
[Varieties of English Around the World G59] 2016
► pp. 201–226

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

The use of ditransitive constructions in Ugandan English

Published online: 20 October 2016
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/veaw.g59.09isi
The chapter shows substantial divergences between Ugandan English and Standard British/American English in the use of ditransitive constructions. For example, while a benefactive double object construction and its equivalent prepositional phrase construction, e.g. I’ve poured you some tea and I’ve poured some tea for you respectively are widespread in Standard British/American English, the double object construction is dispreferred and quintessentially regarded as ungrammatical in Ugandan English. Moreover, the prepositional phrase construction is frequently used in its non-canonical ordering (e.g. I’ve poured for you some tea) in Ugandan English, without necessarily being conditioned by pragmatic requirements, as is the case in Standard British/American English. The study shows that the divergences are mainly caused by substrate influence from Ugandan Bantu languages.
References (47)
References
Arka, I.W., Dalrymple, M., Mistica, M., Mofu, S., Andrews, A. & Simpson, J. 2009. A linguistic and computational morphosyntactic analysis for the applicative -i in Indonesian.In International Lexical Functional Grammar Conference (LFG 2009), M. Butt & T.H. King (eds), 85–105. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beavers, J. 2011. An aspectual analysis of ditransitive verbs of caused possession in English. Journal of Semantics 28: 1–54. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blevins, J.P. & Blevins, J. 2009. Analogy in Grammar. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bowers, J. 2010. Arguments as Relations. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Branchadell, A. 1991. Against argument augmentation. Catalan Working Papers in Linguistics 1991: 1–32.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. & Nikitina, T. 2009. The gradience of the dative alternation. In Reality Exploration and Discovery: Pattern Interaction in Language and Life, L. Uyechi & L.H. Wee (eds), 161–184. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
British National Corpus (BNC). <[URL]> (30 March 2015).
Colleman, T. & de Clerck, B. 2011. Constructional semantics on the move: A diachronic view on the polysemy of the English double object construction. Cognitive Linguistics 22(1): 183–209. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA). <[URL]> (30 March 2015).
Corpus of Historical American English (COHA). <[URL]> (30 March 2015).
Fellbaum, C. 2005. Examining the constraints on the benefactive alternation by using the World Wide Web as a corpus. In Linguistic Evidence: Empirical, Theoretical, and Computational Perspectives, M. Reis & S. Kesper (eds), 209–240. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fisher, E.C.A. 2000. Assessing the state of Ugandan English. English Today 16: 57–61. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gerwin, J. 2013. Give it me!: Pronominal ditransitives in English dialects. English Language and Linguistics 17(3): 445–463. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Golluscio, L. 2010. Ditransitives in Mapudungun. In Studies in Ditransitive Constructions: A Comparative Handbook, A. Malchukov, M. Haspelmath & B. Comrie (eds), 711–756. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoffmann, S. & Mukherjee, J. 2007. Ditransitive verbs in Indian English and British English: A corpus linguistic study. Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik 32: 5–24.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huddleston, R. 2002. The clause: Complements. In The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, R. Huddleston & G.K. Pullum (eds), 213–322. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hughes, A. & Trudgill, P. 1979. English Accents and Dialects: An Introduction to Social and Regional Varieties of British English. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Isingoma, B. 2013. Innovative pragmatic codes in Ugandan English: A relevance-theoretic account. Argumentum 9: 19–31.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1990a. Semantic Structures. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1990b. On Larson’s treatment of the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 21: 427–456.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jeong, Y. 2006. The Landscape of Applicatives. PhD dissertation, University of Maryland.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kato, J. no date. How chicken rearing in a small Ugandan town got him a name among tycoons. Africa-Uganda Business Travel Guide. <[URL]> (20 March 2015).
Koch, C. & Bernaisch, T. 2013. Verb complementation in South Asian English(es): The range and frequency of “new” ditransitives. Language and Computers 77(1): 69–89.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krifka, M. 2004. Semantic and pragmatic conditions for the dative alternation. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics 4: 1–32.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuha, M. 1997. Competing motivations for NP order in Kenyan English. World Englishes 17(1): 61–70. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ladefoged, P., Glick, R. & Griper, C. 1972. Language in Uganda. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Larson, R. 1990. Double objects revisited: Reply to Jackendoff. Linguistic Inquiry 21: 589–632.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levin, B. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. <[URL]> (27 March 2015).
McFadden, T. 2002. The rise of to-dative in Middle English. In Syntactic Effects on Morphological Change, D. Lightfoot (ed.), 107–123. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Monitor. <[URL]> (27 March 2015).
New Vision. <[URL]> (27 March 2015).
Nyaggah, L.B. 1990. Cross-linguistic Influence in Kenyan English: The Impact of Swahili and Kikuyu on Syntax. PhD Dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Observer. <[URL]> (28 March 2015).
Ocen, L.L. 2002. Ruins of a Star. Kampala: Fountains Publishers.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oh, E. & Zubizarreta, M. 2005. L2 acquisition of English double object constructions: What individual analysis can tell us. LSA Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 31(1): 214–252.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (OALD). <[URL]> (31 March 2015).
Pinker, S. 1989. Learnability and Cognition. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, M. & Levin, B. 2008. The English dative alternation: The case of verb sensitivity. Journal of Linguistics 44: 129–167.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schmied, J. 1991. English in Africa. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2004. East African English (Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania): Morphology and syntax. In A Handbook of Varieties of English, Vol. 2: Morphology and Syntax, B. Kortmann, K. Burridge, R. Mesthrie, E.W. Schneider & C. Upton (eds), 929–947. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schneider, W.E. 2007. Postcolonial English: Varieties Around the World. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vision Group. 2013. Annual Report: <[URL]> (23 March 2015).
van Valin, D.R. & LaPolla, J.R. 1997. Syntax: Structure, Meaning, and Function. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Yikiru, Peace & Bebwa Isingoma
2023. The use of ditransitive constructions among L1 Lugbarati speakers of English in Uganda: A preliminary study. Studies in Linguistics, Culture, and FLT 11:1 ► pp. 33 ff. DOI logo
Deborah Mirembe, Dorica & Bebwa Isingoma
2022. The Use of Conjunctions Among L1 Luganda Speakers of English. Studies in Linguistics, Culture, and FLT 10:1 ► pp. 7 ff. DOI logo
Isingoma, Bebwa & Christiane Meierkord
2022. Between exonormative traditions and local acceptance: A corpus-linguistic study of modals of obligation and spatial prepositions in spoken Ugandan English. Open Linguistics 8:1 ► pp. 87 ff. DOI logo
Meierkord, Christiane & Bebwa Isingoma
2022. Between first language influence, exonormative orientation and migration. English World-Wide. A Journal of Varieties of English 43:2 ► pp. 220 ff. DOI logo
Amarorwot, Sarah & Bebwa Isingoma
2021. Order of adjectives and adverbs in L2 English: Evidence from L1 Acholi speakers of Ugandan English. Studies in Linguistics, Culture, and FLT 9:3 ► pp. 44 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 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