In linguistics, dative shift refers to a pattern in which the subcategorization of a verb can take on two alternating forms, the oblique dative form or the double object construction form. In the oblique dative (OD) form, the verb takes a noun phrase (NP) and a dative prepositional phrase (PP), the second of which is not a core argument.
(1) John gave [NP a book ] [PP.DATIVE to Mary ].
In the double object construction (DOC) form the verb takes two noun phrases, both of which are core arguments, with the dative argument preceding the other argument.
(2) John gave [NP.DATIVE Mary ] [NP a book ].
Synonyms used in the literature Terms used in literature on dative shift can vary. The chart below provides terms used in this article along with common synonyms used elsewhere.
Pattern:John gave [NP.DATIVE Mary] [NP a book]John gave [NP a book] [PP.DATIVE to Mary] term used in this articledouble object construction (DOC)oblique dative (OD)dative alternationterms used elsewhere dative shift simple dative dative constructionverb phrase complementation structuredative complement structuredative transformation
Distribution of dative shift in English Traditional grammar suggests (as a "rule of thumb") that only single-syllable verbs can be in the double object construction (DOC).
(3a) John bought [ Mary] [ a cake ] (3b) John bought [ a cake ] [ for Mary ]
(4a) *John acquired [ Mary ] [ a new car ] (4b) John acquired [ a new car ] [ for Mary ]
One explanation for this lies with the origin of the verbs that allow the double object construction. Generally, native (Anglo-Saxon) verbs allow the DOC form, whereas Latinate verbs do not. This is thought to be primarily due to the stress associated with native verbs, rather than etymological conditions, as native verbs often have a single metrical foot as opposed to multiple metrical feet common of Latinate verbs. Therefore, a morphological constraint on the distribution of verbs participating in dative alternation is influenced by phonological properties. Pinker (1989) supports this observation with examples of Latinate verbs with one metrical foot (e.g. promise, offer, assign, award) that allow the DOC.
An additional semantic component constrains some native verbs further. These verbs must have the theta-role of thematic relation recipient/goal/beneficiary in their theta grid when in DOC form. A theta grid is where theta roles are stored for a particular verb (see Section 2 on the theta role page). In example (5), the DOC form is not permitted, despite the verb root being single syllable, because [wash] lacks the theta-role of recipient. One explanation for why the verb lacks this theta-role is that there is no possessive relationship between the direct object and the indirect object).
(5a) *[John] washed [Mary] [the dishes] (5b) [John] washed [the dishes][for Mary]
The double object construction requires a possessor/possessed relationship. This means the indirect object in the oblique dative construction must have the theta-role of beneficiary (PP introduced by [for]) or recipient/goal (PP introduced by [to]) to be a candidate for the dative alternation. This theory suggests verbs chosen for the double object construction are done so before syntactic processes take place. The knowledge of the relationship of possession/possessed (the semantic constraint) is learned prior to the class constraint of the verbs (native vs. Latinate). The table below demonstrates verbs that do and do not allow the DOC form, verbs have been underlined for clarity.
Examples of verb that allow the DOC form Examples of verbs that do not allow the DOC formTell me your idea *Expose them your answerToss me the ball *Recount me a storyMake me a sandwich *Donate her the moneySend me a letter ?Purchase her a birthday cakeMail me a letter *Explain me the solution
Analyses of dative shift Chomsky 1955 Noam Chomsky, in The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory (1955, 1975) provides a proposal about dative structure using transformational grammar.
Chomsky's argument suggests that an oblique dative example like [John sent a letter to Mary] derives from an underlying form.Larson, Richard K. (1988). "On the Double Object Construction". Linguistic Inquiry. Summer 19 (3).
In this oblique dative sentence [John sent a letter to Mary], the verb, [sent], and its indirect object, [to Mary], make up a constituent that excludes the direct object [a letter]. The OD form therefore involves an underlying verb phrase (VP) whose subject is [a letter] and whose object is [(to) Mary]. The VP [sent to Mary] is considered an inner constituent. This inner constituent is clear to see in the D-Structure, but is obscured in the S-Structure after V-Raising.
Examples (6) and (7) show the oblique dative form as it appears in its underlying representation before V-Raising (6) and in its surface representation after V-Raising (7):
(6) John [VP a letter [V' send to Mary]] (D-Structure) (7) John send [VP a letter [V' to Mary]] (S-Structure)
Kayne 1983 In his book, Connectedness and Binary Branching, Richard S. Kayne proposed that an empty preposition is the source of the double-object construction. In his analysis, English prepositions have the ability to assign objective grammatical case. Kayne argues that an empty preposition is responsible for allowing a double object construction.
(8) John bought [ pp Pe [Mary]] a book.
Kayne continues with the notion that an empty preposition (Pe) cannot be the source of case role. Instead the empty preposition transfers the case assigned by the verb. He further stipulates that case may only be transferred via prepositions that normally assign object case. Therefore, languages that do not assign object case via prepositions (such as French) cannot have the double-object form.
Barss and Lasnik 1986 In their 1986 paper "A Note on Anaphora and Double Objects", Barss and Lasnik point out a number of asymmetries in the behaviour of the two NPs in double object construction. All of their findings point to the same conclusion: in constructions involving a verb phrase of the form V-NP1-NP2, the first NP c-commands the second NP, but not vice versa.Barss, A; Lasnik (1986). "A Note on Anaphora and Double Objects". Linguistic Inquiry 17 The paper provides significant evidence for rejecting linear phrase structure trees.
Larson 1988 Larson builds off of the original proposal made by Chomsky, stating that the Oblique Dative form is derived from an underlying structure. Larson suggests that both the oblique dative form and the double object construction are surface representations. He relates the oblique dative and double object structures derivationally.
Oblique datives To account for oblique datives, Larson adopts a proposal originally made by Chomsky (1955, 1975), where the verb in the deep structure is raised in the surface structure (S-structure) (see Figure 1).
Deep structure of VP: Empty V: e VP complement: a letter send to Mary The specifier: a letter Head: send PP complement: to Mary
The correct ordering of the oblique dative surfaces through head to head movement. See Figure 2. The verb [send], which moves to the empty V position, has two thematic roles that are assigned to the internal arguments theme: [a letter] and goal [to Mary]. The movement leaves a trace at the original V and creates a sequence of co-indexed V positions. Raising is attributed to case and Inflectional Agreement.
Before raising After raising V is not the head of a projection governed by inflection The head of the topmost VP, (V) is governed by inflection NP is not governed by the verb and cannot receive case The verb can assign objective case to the NP
Larson's motivations for V' Raising are the same motivations used to derive the surface order of raising in VSO languages, such as Irish. Specifically, the subject NP can receive case from the V, when V governs the NP. Citing Chomsky (1975, 55) in the process, Larson provides an intuitive explanation of oblique datives. He argues that [to send] forms the small predicate [send-to-Mary.] It can be said of this small predicate that it has the inner subject [a letter]. This forms a clause-like VP [a letter send to Mary]
Double object construction
Larson states that the double object construction can be explained under a derivational approach. He proposes an operation he names “passive derivation” defined as: NP movement that promotes an argument to the subject position of an inflectional phrase or verb phrase.
First, Larson strengthens the argument that the two NPs in Figure 1 above, relate to subject and object position. He states that the governed preposition to has the status of dative case case marking. This is similar to case marking appearing on indirect object in more highly inflected languages. Secondly, Larson extends operations that apply between subjects and objects to structures such as those shown in Figure 1. Specifically, he looks the two main effects of passive derivation occurring in the inner VP:
Withdrawal of case from object position Suppression of thematic role assignment in subject position
Larson makes one amendment to the derivation of passives called argument demotion that states that a theta role must be assigned to a V' adjunct. Argument demotion: If α is a ɵ-role assigned by Xi, then α may be assigned (up to optionality) to an adjunct of Xi
With this amended view of passive formation, Larson derives the double object construction surface representation. When the indirect object NP is moved to the VP subject position, the application of passive derivation results in the absorption of the case assigned to the indirect object, and hence the absorption of to. The theta role assigned to the subject of VP undergoes demotion, reducing the position to non-thematic status. The direct object is realized as a V' adjunct and receives its theta-role from V', consistent with argument demotion. The changes from the underlying form to derive the surface structure of the DOC are depicted in Figure 3 and summarized below.
Deep structure Surface structure Indirect object is caseless in its deep position Indirect object undergoes NP movement to VP subject position VP subject position is nonthematic and empty Verb raises to V-head position, assigning Case to VP subject
Contemporary theories At present, there are two major classes of analyses for dative shift; these two classes have been called the Uniform Multiple Meaning Approach (Levin, 2008) and the Single Meaning Approach (Hovav & Levin, 2008), with the former being considered the dominant approach.
Uniform Multiple Meaning Approach In most variants of the Uniform Multiple Meaning Approach (Beck & Johnson 2004, Harley 2003, Pinker 1989), it is assumed that the relationship between the double object construction and the oblique dative forms is non-derivational. That is to say that the alternation arises not purely from syntactic factors, but from semantic ones as well; each variation is associated with its own meaning, and hence, each meaning has its own realization of arguments. This shows a clear departure from some of the main beliefs in Larson's 1988 analysis. In most realizations of this approach, dative verbs have both the caused motion meaning, expressed by the OD form and the caused possession meaning, expressed by the DOC form (Goldberg, 1995).
Single Meaning Approach