Which comes first in the double object construction?

Abstract

Competition between two methods of marking recipient/beneficiary and theme has figured in much recent research:(1)Jim gave the driver £5. (indirect object before direct object)(2)Jim gave £5 to the driver. (direct object before prepositional phrase)A reverse double object variant is often ignored or treated as a minor and highly restricted variant:(3)(a)?Jim gave £5 the driver. (direct object before indirect object)(b)Jim gave it him.However, pattern (3) was much more widespread even in late Modern English, while there is clear dialectal variation within present-day British English.In this article we investigate the pronominal pattern (3b), mainly in relation to pattern (1), tracking its progressive restriction in distribution. We mine three of the Penn parsed corpora for the general history in English of double object patterns with two pronoun objects. We then add a further nine dialect and/or historical English corpora selected for coverage and representativeness. A usage database of examples in these corpora allows more detailed description than has been possible hitherto. The analysis focuses on verb lemmas, objects and dialect variation and offers an important corrective to the bulk of research on the so-called Dative Alternation between patterns (1) and (2). We also examine works in the normative grammatical tradition, producing a precept database that reveals the changing status of variants as dialectal or preferred. In our conclusion we show the importance of prefabricated expressions (prefabs) in the later history of (3), sketching an analysis in Construction Grammar terms.

Ditransitives in Middle English: on semantic specialisation and the rise of the dative alternation

“…Ditransitive verbs such as to give , to send , or to sell and their complementation pattern(s) in Present-day English (as well as in other languages) have been studied extensively and are frequently drawn on to assess models of argument structure and the interrelations between syntax and semantics (Colleman & De Clerck 2011: 186). The history of these verbs and the construction(s) available to them in English has, however, only rather recently received more attention (with the exception of Cassidy 1938; Visser 1963; see, among others, Allen 1995; McFadden 2002; De Cuypere 2010, 2015a, 2015b; Colleman 2011; Colleman & De Clerck 2011; Wolk et al 2013; Gerwin 2014; Yáñez-Bouza & Denison 2015). A number of issues, such as the range of verb classes used in ditransitive constructions in various periods, remain to be dealt with on the basis of empirical data.…”

“…Essentially, this led to the PDE dative alternation as we know it today, although the canonical orders are still subject to change (e.g. due to issues like heavy-noun shift) and regional variation (Gast 2007; Gerwin 2014; Yáñez-Bouza & Denison 2015).…”

“May Depend on Me Sending It You”

“…In the Late Modern English period (c.1700-c.1950, LModE) we witness a change in preferences, with two turning points, as reported by Yáñez-Bouza and Denison (2015): the beginning of the eighteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth century. The rising frequency of the pronominal pattern (3) send it her during EModE comes to a halt and starts to decline from the late seventeenth century to the early eighteenth century, this being the first shift in trends.…”

“…With nominal objects the established pattern is now send my sister the book (1) or the prepositional variant send the book to my sister (2), and it has also been noted that the combination of type (3) send it my sister (V–O d -pronoun–O i -noun) is, if not already dead, then “at least moribund” in the sixteenth century, except for biblical language (Allen 1995:421). On the other hand, with pronominal objects, word order (3) V–O d –O i is still dominant, as in send it her (Visser 1963:I.623; Fischer & van der Wurff 2006:190), while the presence of the present-day canonical order send her it (1) is negligible and the prepositional type sent it to her (2) increases in frequency slowly (Yáñez-Bouza & Denison 2015).…”

“…Bearing in mind that previous studies on double objects have suggested that syntactic variation underwent change during the nineteenth century (Fischer & van der Wurff 2006:190; Yáñez-Bouza & Denison 2015), and that there is evidence of morphological and syntactic change being triggered by normative grammars during the Late Modern English period (see Yáñez-Bouza 2016 and references therein), it seems natural to consider the potential influence of early grammars in the history of the double object construction, in particular with regard to pattern (3). Porter’s self-correction may well respond to eighteenth-century comments such as Lewis Brittain’s (1788:22) that “The dative sign, to , after verbs of giving, lending, pardoning , &c. is often understood; as, he gave it me ; that is, to me ,” echoed in nineteenth-century grammars such as that of William Allen (1824 [1813]:91): “This [ me in ‘Send me some money’] is the Saxon dative; and it is placed between the verb and its accusative:—except when that accusative is a pronoun; as, ‘You gave it me.’”…”