Taalportaal - the digital language portal

Dutch
Frisian
Saterfrisian
Afrikaans

Show all

3.3.1.1.Dative alternation with aan-phrases (recipients)

quickinfo

The first type of dative/PP alternation is found with ditransitive verbs like geven'to give' and aanbieden'to offer' in (322), in which the dative object has the semantic function of (future/intended) recipient. The PPs in the periphrastic indirect object constructions are headed by the preposition aan. The double object and periphrastic indirect object construction further differ in that, in the unmarked case, non-pronominal dative phrases precede non-pronominal direct objects in the middle field of the clause, whereas periphrastic aan-PPs normally follow them; see Section N8.1.3, sub IE, for a more detailed discussion of the word order in double object constructions.

322

a.		Marie heeft	Peter	een boek	gegeven.
		Marie has	Peter	a book	given

a'.		Marie heeft	een boek	aan Peter	gegeven.
		Marie has	a book	to Peter	given

b.		Marie heeft	Peter	het boek	aangeboden.
		Marie has	Peter	the book	prt.-offered

b'.		Marie heeft	het boek	aan Peter	aangeboden.
		Marie has	the book	to Peter	prt.-offered

The discussion of the dative/PP alternation in (322) is organized as follows, subsection I briefly reviews the dual meaning approach to this alternation, according to which double object constructions and their periphrastic counterparts are associated with different semantic representations. Although it seems true that the two constructions tend to differ semantically in a more or less systematic way, we will see that the semantic representations that have been proposed are certainly not unproblematic. Furthermore, Subsection II shows that an appeal to the supposed meaning difference certainly does not suffice to fully determine whether or not the alternation is possible: there are a number of other factors that may favor one of the two constructions. The interaction of these factors makes it very hard to predict for individual verbs whether or not the alternation will be available and Subsection III will therefore simply indicate for a small sample of double object verbs whether or not they allow it, subsection IV concludes with a brief digression on the syntactic status of the periphrastic indirect object and will show that there are reasons for assuming that it functions not as an argument but as a complementive (predicative complement) of the verb.

I. Meaning differences
II. Other factors affecting the alternation
III. A sample of double object verbs (not) allowing the alternation
IV. The syntactic status of the periphrastic recipient

[+] I. Meaning differences

Since the seminal work by Green (1974) and Oehrle (1976), it is normally assumed that double object constructions and their periphrastic counterparts are semantically similar but not semantically equivalent; see also Balk-Smit Duyzentkunst (1968) for a similar claim based on Dutch. Although it has turned out that it is not an easy task to provide a fully adequate description of the meaning difference between the two constructions, it is generally described in terms of change of possession and location; the examples in (322) all express that the theme is relocated, but the double object construction expresses in addition that the referent of the indirect object becomes (or is expected/intended to become) the new possessor of the theme. The meanings attributed to the double object and periphrastic indirect object construction can be schematized as in (323), which is a somewhat adapted version of the semantic representations suggested by Gropen et al. (1989:241); we will return in Subsection IV to proposals that provide syntactic structures that can be paired with the semantic representations proposed in (323).

323

Double object construction: [Subject cause [IO to have DO]]

Periphrastic indirect object construction: [Subject cause [DO to be at IO]]

The dual meaning approach has recently been criticized by Rappaport Hovav & Levin (2008) by pointing out that periphrastic indirect objects of certain verbs can in fact also express that the referent of the indirect object becomes the new possessor of the theme. This can be illustrated by means of the examples in (324): the fact that (324a) is odd and (324b) fully acceptable irrespective of the form of the indirect object shows that the meaning difference between the two alternants cannot be expressed by means of the notion of possession.

324

a.	$	Jan gaf	<Els>	het boek	<aan Els>,	maar	zij	heeft	het	nooit	gekregen.
		Jan gave	Els	the book	to Els,	but	she	has	it	never	gotten
		'Jan gave <Els> the book <to Els >, but she never got it.'

b.	Jan wierp	< Els >	de bal	<naar Els >	toe,	maar	die	werd	onderschept.
	Jan threw	Els	the ball	to Els	toe,	but	it	was	intercepted
	'Jan threw <Els> the ball <to Els>, but it was intercepted.'

Rappaport Hovav & Levin (2008) conclude from this that the choice between the double object and the periphrastic indirect object construction does not fully determine the interpretation, but that the interpretation is also sensitive to the type of verb that enters the construction, in the way indicated in Table (325).

325

	dative object	periphrastic object
give-type verb	caused possession	caused possession
throw-type verb	caused motion or caused possession	caused motion or caused possession

Rappaport Hovav & Levin (2008) refer to their proposal as the verb-sensitive approach in order to express that the interpretation of the double object and periphrastic indirect object construction is largely determined by the verb's meaning. That the verb's meaning is relevant is also clear from the fact that only a subset of the verbs exhibiting the dative alternation with aan-PPs inherently express caused possession: verbs like geven'to give', lenen'to lend', overhandigen'to hand', verhuren'to rent out' do have this property, whereas verbs denoting future having like beloven'to promise', nalaten'to bequeath', aanbieden'to offer' and toewijzen'to assign' and verbs of communication like vertellen'to tell', leren'to teach' and schrijven'to write' do not. This is illustrated by means of the contrast between example (324a) and the examples in (326).

326

a.	Jan bood	<Els>	het boek	<aan Els>	aan,	maar	ze	wou	het	niet.
	Jan offered	Els	the book	to Els	prt.	but	she	wanted	it	not
	'Jan offered <Els> the book <to Els>, but she didnʼt want to have it.'

b.	Jan schreef	<Els>	een brief	<aan Els>,	maar	hij	heeft	hem	niet verstuurd.
	Jan wrote	Els	a letter	to Els	but	he	has	him	not sent.away
	'Jan wrote <Els> a letter <to Els>, but he didnʼt send it.'

Let us return to the two verb types in Table (325). From a Dutch perspective, it seems uncontroversial to distinguish these two types; the examples in (327) show that periphrastic indirect objects take the preposition aan'to' with verbs of the give-type but the preposition naar'to' with verbs of the throw-type. This observation supports yet another claim made by Rappaport Hovav & Levin, namely that constructions with verbs of the give- and the throw-type differ in that the latter, but not the former, involve the notion of path; aan-PPs belong to the set of adpositional phrases that merely indicate a change of location, whereas naar-PPs are always directional; cf. Schermer-Vermeer (2001:29) and references cited there. For a more extensive discussion of the distinction between these notions, we refer the reader to Section P1.3.1.1.

327

a.		Jan gaf	<Els>	het boek	<aan Els>.
		Jan gave	Els	the book	to Els

b.		Jan wierp	<Els>	de bal	<naar Els>	toe.
		Jan threw	Els	the ball	to Els	toe

Now consider the examples in (328), which are run-of-the-mill cases of constructions with a spatial complementive. These examples exhibit a similar contrast as the examples in (327); the change of location construction in (328a) strongly suggests that the referent of the direct object occupies its new position at the end of the time interval at which the event took place, whereas this implication clearly does not hold for the directional construction in (328b) given the option of adding the adverbial phrase within parentheses.

328

a.		Marie hing	het schilderij	aan de muur.	change of location
		Marie hung	the painting	to the wall

b.	Jan reed	Els naar Groningen	(toen	zij	verongelukten).	directional
	Jan drove	Els to Groningen	when	they	were.killed.in.an.accident
	'Jan was driving Els to Groningen (when they were killed in an accident).'

This difference between the two examples in (328) is even more conspicuous in their non-causative counterparts in (329): the locational construction implies that the painting was located at the wall during the complete event time interval, whereas the directional construction implies that Peter was not in Groningen during that time interval; see also P3.1.4, sub II for relevant discussion.

329

a.	Het schilderij	hangt	al jaren	aan de muur.	location
	the painting	hangs	already years	to the wall
	'The painting has been hanging on the wall for years.'

b.	Jan reed	naar Groningen	(toen	hij	verongelukte).	directional
	Jan drove	to Groningen	when	he	was.killed.in.an.accident
	'Jan was driving to Groningen (when he was killed in an accident).'

The discussion of the similarities between the examples in (327), on the one hand, and the examples in (328) and (329), on the other, shows that Table (325) can be adapted as in (330) and strongly suggests that the implications concerning possession are no more than pragmatic inferences based on the aspectual properties of the constructions in question: constructions that express a change of location imply that the located object occupies the position indicated by the locational PP or the dative noun phrase at the end of the event time interval, whereas directional constructions do not.

330

	dative indirect object	periphrastic object
give-type verb	change of location	change of location
throw-type verb	directional	directional

Rappaport Hovav & Levin's (2008) critique on the dual meaning approach seems to be devastating for any attempt to describe the difference between the double object and periphrastic indirect object construction in terms of possession. In our view this does not necessarily imply, however, that the dual meaning approach must be fully given up.
Putting aside the precise substantive content of the two predicates involved, the core intuition behind the semantic representations in (323) is that the two constructions differ with respect to whether the action performed by the causer affects the referent of the indirect or the referent of the direct object of the construction: the latter holds for the periphrastic construction which can be said to simply express that the direct object undergoes a change of location; the former holds for the double object construction which can be said to express that it is the referent of the indirect object that undergoes some change of state by, e.g., becoming the possessor of the located object; the remainder of this subsection will show that this intuition may still be close to the mark.
Consider the examples in (331), in which the direct object does not refer to some tangible entity that can be physically located in space. However, since it still can be said that the referents of the indirect objects are affected by the action performed by the subjects of the clauses, we correctly predict that these double object constructions are possible.

331

a.	Marie	gaf	Peter een kus/trap.
	Marie	gave	Peter a kiss/kick
	'Marie kissed/kicked Peter.'

b.		Jan gaf	de auto	een flinke poetsbeurt.
		Jan gave	the car	a thorough shine

The corresponding periphrastic indirect object constructions in (332), on the other hand, are normally considered marked as they lead to the anomalous interpretation that the referents of the direct objects are located in space (hence tangible) and are actually undergoing a change of location by being transferred to the referent of the indirect object; this was the core intuition expressed by Balk-Smit Duyzentkunst (1968), Green (1974) and Oehrle (1976) that underlies the dual meaning approach.

332

a.	??	Marie	gaf	een kus/trap	aan Peter.
		Marie	gave	a kiss/kick	to Peter

b.	??	Jan gaf	een flinke poetsbeurt	aan de auto.
		Jan gave	a thorough shine	to the car

A similar but somewhat sharper contrast is found in the (a)-examples in (333), in which it is not the doctor but his treatment that causes Marie to have soft skin; the primed example is unacceptable due to the fact that the met-PP expressing the cause strongly disfavors the change of location reading associated with the periphrastic indirect object construction. Something similar holds for the (b)-examples in which the cause is expressed as the subject of the clause.

333

a.		De dokter gaf	Marie een zacht velletje	met zijn behandeling.
		the doctor gave	Marie a soft skin	with his treatment

a'.	*	De dokter gaf	een zacht velletje	aan Marie	met zijn behandeling.
		the doctor gave	a soft skin	to Marie	with his treatment

b.		De behandeling van de dokter	gaf	Marie een zacht velletje.
		the treatment by the doctor	gave	Marie a soft skin

b'.	*	De behandeling van de dokter	gaf	een zacht velletje	aan Marie.
		the treatment by the doctor	gave	a soft skin	to Marie

In the examples in (334), on the other hand, the action of the subject does not so much affect the referent of the indirect object as the referent of the direct object; it simply locates (the responsibility for) the failure of the plan at the referent of the indirect object; cf. Oehrle (1976). The semantic representations suggested in (323) therefore correctly predict example (334b) to be degraded.

334

a.	Jan schreef	het falen van het plan	aan Peter	toe.
	Jan attributed	the failure of the plan	to Peter	prt.
	'Jan attributed the failure of the plan to Peter.'

b.	??	Jan	schreef	Peter	het falen van het plan	toe.
		Jan	attributed	Peter	the failure of the plan	prt.

The discussion in this subsection suggests that the dual meaning approach was probably wrong in claiming that the difference between the double object and the periphrastic indirect object must be expressed by means of the abstract predicate have (possession). This approach may have been correct, however, in assuming that the two constructions differ with respect to which object is (primarily) affected by the action of the subject. This leads to the semantic representations in Table (335), which, of course, abstract away from the semantic contributions of the verbs that enter the constructions. In the periphrastic indirect object construction it is the direct object that is undergoing a change of state: with verbs of the give-type it undergoes a change of location (here expressed by cause to be at) and with verbs of the throw-type it traverses a certain path (here expressed by cause to go to). In the double object construction, on the other hand, it is the indirect object that is affected by the action of the subject, which we have indicated by means of the abstract predicate be affected by because we have seen that the abstract predicate have may not be the most appropriate choice for expressing the resultant state of the referent of the indirect object (although it may still be the case that, depending on the actual verb used, it is one of the options).

335

	dative indirect object	periphrastic indirect object
give-type verb	[S cause [IO to be affected by DO]]	[S cause [DO to be at IO]]
throw-type verb	[S cause [IO to be affected by DO]]	[S cause [DO to go to IO]]

When we consider the literature on Dutch since Balk-Smit Duyzentkunst (1968), which mainly focuses on give-type verbs, it seems hardly controversial to assume that the dative and periphrastic construction differ semantically in the way indicated in Table (335). We illustrate this here with a small number of examples while ignoring the details of the individual proposals; see Schermer-Vermeer (1991:ch.9) for a more extensive review. Balk-Smit Duyzentkunst already noted that the periphrastic construction expresses transfer of the referent of the direct object. Kooij (1975) accounts for the meaning difference in terms of "affectedness of IO" and "transfer of DO". Jansen (1976: Section 3.3) seems to have a similar contrast in mind: whereas the periphrastic construction is said to focus on the action/process itself and the periphrastic aan-PP is taken to be a "local destination", the dative construction expresses that the action/process has a specific function for the referent of the indirect object. Finally, the abstract predicate be at is clearly related to Schermer-Vermeer's (1991:ch.7) notion of contact, which she correctly claims to constitute the core meaning of the preposition aan (cf. Section P1.3.1.2.3) and the abstract predicate be affected by seems to come close to what she calls reactief'responsive'.

[+] II. Other factors affecting the alternation

The interpretations attributed to the double object and periphrastic indirect object construction in Table (335) seem real but should probably be considered as tendencies and not as absolute rules; there are various other factors that may affect the acceptability of the two alternating syntactic structures; see Den Hertog (1973:62) for some early remarks in this respect. That this is the case is immediately clear from the fact discussed in Section N1.3.1.2, sub IIIC, that det-inf nominalizations of double object constructions in which the theme argument is realized as a postnominal van-phrase require the periphrastic indirect object to be used; cf. Van den Toorn (1971). The examples in (336) show that this also holds for nominalizations of een trap geven'to give a kick' and een poetsbeurt geven'to give a shine' in (331) and (332), which normally involve a dative object.

336

a.	het	<*Peter>	geven	van een trap	<aan Peter>
	the	Peter	give	of a kick	to Peter
	'the giving of a kick to Peter'

b.	het	<*de auto>	geven	van	een flinke poetsbeurt	<aan de auto>
	the	the car	give	of	a thorough shine	to the car
	'the giving of a thorough shine to the car'

The relative length of the objects may also affect the acceptability of the two constructions. The primed examples in (332), for instance, considerably improve if the nominal part of the aan-PP is a larger noun phrase.

337

a.	(?)	Marie gaf	een kus/trap	aan de man	die	haar	in de trein	aansprak.
		Marie gave	a kiss/kick	to the man	who	her	in the train	prt.-addressed
		'Marie gave a kiss/kick to the man who addressed her in the train.'

b.	(?)	Jan gaf	een flinke poetsbeurt	aan de auto	die	hij	wou	verkopen.
		Jan gave	a thorough shine	to the car	that	he	wanted	to.sell

Stowell (1983: 333) further pointed out for English that Latinate verbs do not readily enter the double object construction and the contrast between the semantically nearly equivalent (a)- and (b)-examples in (338) suggests that the same thing holds for Dutch.

338

a.		Zij geven	het Leger des Heils	elk jaar	een flink bedrag.
		they give	the Salvation Army	each year	a substantial sum

a'.		Zij geven	elk jaar	een flink bedrag	aan het Leger des Heils.
		they give	each year	a substantial sum	to the Salvation Army

b.	*?	Zij	doneren	het Leger des Heils	elk jaar	een flink bedrag.
		they	donate	the Salvation Army	each year	a substantial sum

b'.		Zij	doneren	elk jaar	een flink bedrag	aan het Leger des Heils.
		they	donate	each year	a substantial sum	to the Salvation Army

Other factors that may affect the actual choice between the double object and the periphrastic indirect object construction are related to the information packaging of the clause; see Huddleston & Pullum (2002) for similar claims for English. Although speakers will normally prefer the double object construction in (339a) to the periphrastic indirect object construction in (339b), the latter is fully acceptable if the referent of the direct object is part of the presupposition of the clause, for example, when (339b) is used as an answer to the question Wat deed Jan met het water uit de regenton?'What did Jan do with the water from the rain barrel?'. The same thing holds if the direct object is contrastively focused and stands in opposition to, e.g., some quantity of tap water that will be used in some other way.

339

a.	Jan gaf	de kamerplanten	het water uit de regenton.
	Jan gave	the houseplants	the water from the rain.barrel
	'Jan gave the houseplants the water from the rain barrel.'

b.	Jan gaf	het water uit de regenton	aan de kamerplanten.
	Jan gave	the water from the rain.barrel	to the houseplants
	'Jan gave the water from the rain barrel to the house plants.'

Furthermore, a dative object often seems to be preferred if the direct object is a clause, which is especially common in the case of verbs of communication. A Google search (1/12/2011) showed that the periphrastic indirect object examples in the primed examples in (340) are much less common than the primeless double object constructions. The numbers in square brackets refer to the number of hits for the search strings [V hem dat] and [V aan hem dat].

340

a.	Ik	vertelde	hem	[dat	Peter	niet	komt].	> 1,000,000
	I	told	him	that	Peter	not	comes
	'I told him that Peter wonʼt come.'

a'.	Ik	vertelde	aan hem	[dat	Peter	niet	komt].	16,400
	I	told	to him	that	Peter	not	comes
	'I told to him that Peter wonʼt come.'

b.	Ik	beloofde	hem	[dat	ik	zou	komen].	29,400
	I	promised	him	that	I	would	come
	'I promised him that I would come.'

b'.	Ik	beloofde	aan hem	[dat	ik	zou	komen]	3
	I	promised	to him	that	I	would	come
	'I promised to him that I would come.'

The contrast between the primeless and primed examples in (340) may again be due to information packaging as the embedded clause will normally contain the relevant new information expressed. This seems to be supported by the fact that the use of periphrastic indirect object constructions is very natural in questions such as (341), in which the indirect object is questioned and thus part of the "new" information of the clause; we tend to think that the periphrastic indirect object is even preferred to the dative one, but the results of our Google search on the string [(aan) wie heb je V dat] were insufficient to substantiate this claim here.

341

a.	Aan wie heb je verteld	[dat	Peter	niet	komt]?
	to whom did you tell	that	Peter	not	comes
	'To whom did you tell that Peter wonʼt come?'

b.	Aan wie	heb	je	beloofd	[dat	je	zal	komen]?
	to whom	have	you	promised	that	you	will	come
	'To whom did you promise that youʼll come?'

The examples in (342), finally, illustrate the fact that double object constructions are often less felicitous with inanimate indirect objects.

342

a.		Peter gaf	Jan/?de bibliotheek	het boek.
		Peter gave	Jan/the library	the book

b.		Peter gaf	het boek	aan Jan/de bibliotheek.
		Peter gave	the book	to Jan/the library

Bresnan et al. (2007) investigated the interfering factors in more detail for English and found that inanimate, non-pronominal, indefinite and informational structurally "new" indirect objects are much more likely to surface as PPs than their animate, pronominal, definite or presuppositional counterparts. The nature of the direct object also seems to affect the choice between the two alternants: pronominal, definite and presuppositional direct objects favor the periphrastic indirect object construction more than their non-pronominal, indefinite or non-presuppositional counterparts. The results are summarized in (343), in which the ">" sign must be interpreted as "is more likely to appear in a double object than in a periphrastic indirect object construction".

343

pronominal > non-pronominal

a'.

non-pronominal > pronominal

definite > indefinite

b'.

indefinite > definite

presuppositional > focus

c'.

focus > presuppositional

short > long

d'.

long > short

animate > inanimate

We believe that more or less the same thing holds for Dutch, but to our knowledge this has not been tested so far and we therefore have to leave this for future research.

[+] III. A sample of double object verbs (not) allowing the alternation

The discussion in the previous subsections shows that it is hard to give lists of verbs that allow or disallow the dative noun phrase to alternate with a periphrastic aan-PP. Example (344) nevertheless indicates this for a small sample of double object verbs: in order to eliminate as much as possible the interference of information structure of the clause, we have checked all cases by means of interrogative clauses of the type in (341), in which the indirect object is questioned and thus part of the "new" information of the clause: Aan wie/Wie heeft hij dat Vparticiple?'To whom./Whom has he V that?'. The number sign # indicates that the periphrastic form is not possible in such questions and a question mark indicates that we are not sure of our judgments and that speaker variation may be expected to be found.

344

Verbs taking a nominal direct object: afstaan'to hand over', #benijden'to envy', betalen'to pay', #besparen'to spare', bezorgen'to deliver', geven'to give', lenen'to lend', leveren'to deliver', nalaten'to bequeath', overhandigen'to hand', schenken'to give', sturen'to send', toewijzen'to assign', uitleggen'to explain', uitreiken'to hand', vergoeden'to indemnify', verhuren'to rent out', verkopen'to sell', zenden'to send'Verbs taking a nominal direct object: afstaan'to hand over', #benijden'to envy', betalen'to pay', #besparen'to spare', bezorgen'to deliver', geven'to give', lenen'to lend', leveren'to deliver', nalaten'to bequeath', overhandigen'to hand', schenken'to give', sturen'to send', toewijzen'to assign', uitleggen'to explain', uitreiken'to hand', vergoeden'to indemnify', verhuren'to rent out', verkopen'to sell', zenden'to send'

Verbs taking a nominal or a clausal direct object: ?aanbevelen'to recommend', aanbieden'to offer', aanraden'to recommend', ?afraden'advise against', beloven'to promise', doorbellen'to tell by phone', gunnen'to grant', leren'to teach', meedelen'to inform', schrijven'to write', #vergeven'to forgive', vertellen'to tell', #verwijten'to reproach', voorlezen'to read', vragen'to ask/request'Verbs taking a nominal or a clausal direct object: ?aanbevelen'to recommend', aanbieden'to offer', aanraden'to recommend', ?afraden'advise against', beloven'to promise', doorbellen'to tell by phone', gunnen'to grant', leren'to teach', meedelen'to inform', schrijven'to write', #vergeven'to forgive', vertellen'to tell', #verwijten'to reproach', voorlezen'to read', vragen'to ask/request'

Verbs taking a clausal direct object: antwoorden'to answer', #beletten'to prevent', berichten'to notify', bevelen'to order', #gelasten'to order', melden'to report', #smeken'to beg', toestaan'to allow', verzoeken'to request', voorstellen'to propose', #zweren'to vow'Verbs taking a clausal direct object: antwoorden'to answer', #beletten'to prevent', berichten'to notify', bevelen'to order', #gelasten'to order', melden'to report', #smeken'to beg', toestaan'to allow', verzoeken'to request', voorstellen'to propose', #zweren'to vow'

Since this will become relevant in Subsection IV, we want to note that most of the verbs in (344) are particle verbs or verbs prefixed by be- or ont-, albeit that in the latter case the verb is often the result of a historical process as is clear from the fact that the original input verb is often no longer used: bevelen'to order' - *velen; vertellen'to tell' - #tellen. Many of the remaining simple verbs in (344) also occur as double object verbs with a verbal particle. The examples in (345) show that the use of the particle terug'back' is especially productive in this respect; although not all cases in (345) are listed in Dutch dictionaries, they are all abundantly used on the internet. The question marks in (345) again indicate that we are not sure of our judgments and that we expect speakers to vary with respect to the question as to whether they do or do not allow periphrastic forms.

345

geven'to give': aangeven'to hand over', doorgeven'to pass on', ?opgeven'to report', teruggeven'to give back/return'

lenen'to lend', teruglenen'to lend back', uitlenen'to lend'

leren'to teach', ?bijleren'to teach something new', ?aanleren'to teach'

leveren'to deliver', naleveren'to deliver at a later date', terugleveren'to deliver back', uitleveren'to extradite'

schenken'to give', terugschenken'to give back'

schrijven'to write', terugschrijven'to write back', toeschrijven'to attribute/accredit'

sturen'to send', ?nasturen'to send after', terugsturen'to return'

zenden'to send', terugzenden'to send back/return'

[+] IV. The syntactic status of the periphrastic recipient

This subsection discusses the syntactic status of the aan-PP in the periphrastic indirect object construction. Early generative grammar followed traditional grammar in assuming that this PP is an alternative realization of the dative object and thus a PP-complement of the verb. More recent research has shown, however, that there are reasons for assuming that this is not correct and that the aan-PP behaves more like a complementive, that is, a predicative locational PP; cf. Den Dikken (1995). An important argument in favor of this claim is based on the interpretation of the periphrastic indirect object construction; the semantic representations given in Table (335) of give-type verbs, repeated here as (346), suggest that the aan-PP has a function similar to that of a locational PP in a copular construction. Since Section 2.2.1, sub IV, has shown that locational PPs in constructions like Jan is op school'Jan is at school' function as complementives, it seems natural to assume the same for aan-PPs in periphrastic indirect object constructions.

346

Double object construction: [Subject cause [IO to be affected by DO]]

Periphrastic indirect object construction: [Subject cause [DO to be at IO]]

The hypothesis that periphrastic aan-PPs function as complementives is perhaps not the most obvious one to formulate given that it predicts that aan-PPs exhibit syntactic behavior similar to that of complementives; this is clearly wrong given that, unlike the prepositional complementives in (347a&b), the aan-PP in (347c) can readily be in extraposed position.

347

a.	dat	Jan het boek	<op de tafel>	legde <*?op de tafel>.
	that	Jan the book	on the table	put
	'that Jan put the book on the table.'

b.	dat	de koningin	Peter	<tot ridder>	sloeg <*?tot ridder>.
	that	the Queen	Peter	to knight	hit
	'that the Queen made Jan a knight.'

c.	dat	Jan zijn boek	<aan Marie>	stuurde <aan Marie>.
	that	Jan his book	to Marie	sent
	'that Jan sent his book to Marie.'

It seems, however, that the problem is less serious than it appears at first sight. First, consider the examples in (348), which show that the ban on extraposition of prepositional complementives is lifted when the clause is headed by a particle verb or a verb affixed with the prefix be-. Given that the Subsection III has shown that many, if not most, periphrastic indirect object constructions are headed by particle verbs or verbs prefixed by be- or ont-, the fact that these constructions do allow extraposition of the aan-PP simply fits in a more general pattern.

348

a.	dat	Jan het boek	<op de tafel>	neer	legt <op de tafel>.
	that	Jan the book	on the table	down	puts
	'that Jan puts the book down on the table.'

b.	dat	de koning	Jan <tot adviseur>	benoemt <tot adviseur>.
	that	the king	Jan to advisor	appoints
	'that the king appoints Jan to advisor.'

This means that we are left with only a smaller subset of verbs without a particle or a prefix, and in this connection the observation in (345) that most of these verbs can also be used with the particle terug'back' may become relevant. We may account for problematic examples such as (347c) by assuming that such examples contain a phonetically empty verbal particle, which perhaps functions as the counterpart of the particle terug'back'; see Den Dikken (1995:ch.3) for an extensive motivation of this assumption. If so, the examples in (349) are structurally parallel to those in (348), and we thus correctly predict extraposition to be possible in both cases.

349

dat Jan zijn boek	<aan Marie>	Ø/terug	stuurde <aan Marie>.
that Jan his book	to Marie	Ø/back	sent
'that Jan sent his book (back) to Marie.'

The discussion above has shown that it is not possible to put aside the hypothesis that periphrastic indirect objects syntactically function as complementives on a priori grounds, but it does not, of course, show that this hypothesis is indeed the correct one. It is not an easy task to provide theory-independent evidence in favor of this hypothesis on the basis of the alternation between recipient objects and aan-PPs, but Section 3.3.1.2 on the shift between indirect object goals and naar-PPs will show that there is much to recommend this hypothesis.

References:

Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey (eds.)2002The Cambridge grammar of the English languageCambridgeCambridge University Press
Balk-Smit Duyzentkunst, Frida1968Het meewerkend voorwerp, een grammaticale vergissingLevende Talen5-12
Balk-Smit Duyzentkunst, Frida1968Het meewerkend voorwerp, een grammaticale vergissingLevende Talen5-12
Balk-Smit Duyzentkunst, Frida1968Het meewerkend voorwerp, een grammaticale vergissingLevende Talen5-12
Bresnan, Joan, Cueni, Anna, Nikitina, Tatiana & Baayen, R. Harald2007Predicting the dative alternationBouma, Gerlof, Krämer, Irene & Zwarts, Joost (eds.)Cognitive foundations of interpretationAmsterdamRoyal Netherlands Academy of Science69-94
Dikken, Marcel den1995Particles: on the syntax of verb-particle, triadic, and causative constructionsOxford studies in comparative syntaxNew York/OxfordOxford University Press
Dikken, Marcel den1995Particles: on the syntax of verb-particle, triadic, and causative constructionsOxford studies in comparative syntaxNew York/OxfordOxford University Press
Green, Georgia M1974Semantics and syntactic regularityBloomingtonIndiana University Press
Green, Georgia M1974Semantics and syntactic regularityBloomingtonIndiana University Press
Gropen, Jess, Pinker, Steven, Hollander, Michelle, Goldberg, Richard & Wilson, Ronald1989The learnability and acquisition of the dative alternation in EnglishLanguage65203-257
Hertog, C.H. den1973Nederlandse spraakkunst, eerste stuk: de leer van de enkelvoudige zin. Vierde druk, Ingeleid en bewerkt door H.Hulshof.AmsterdamVersluys
Hovav, Malka Rappaport & Levin, Beth2008The English dative alternation: the case for verb sensitivityJournal of Linguistics44129-167
Hovav, Malka Rappaport & Levin, Beth2008The English dative alternation: the case for verb sensitivityJournal of Linguistics44129-167
Hovav, Malka Rappaport & Levin, Beth2008The English dative alternation: the case for verb sensitivityJournal of Linguistics44129-167
Hovav, Malka Rappaport & Levin, Beth2008The English dative alternation: the case for verb sensitivityJournal of Linguistics44129-167
Janssen, Theo1976<i>Hebben</i>-konstrukties en indirekt-objektkonstructiesNijmegenUniversity of NijmegenThesis
Kooij, Jan1975Diachronic aspects of idiom formationKraak, A. (ed.)Linguistics in the Netherlands 1972-1973Amsterdam
Oehrle, Richard Thomas1976The grammatical status of the English dative alternationMITThesis
Oehrle, Richard Thomas1976The grammatical status of the English dative alternationMITThesis
Oehrle, Richard Thomas1976The grammatical status of the English dative alternationMITThesis
Schermer-Vermeer, E.C1991Substantiële versus formele taalbeschrijving: het indirect object in het NederlandsAmsterdamUniversiteit van AmsterdamThesis
Schermer-Vermeer, E.C1991Substantiële versus formele taalbeschrijving: het indirect object in het NederlandsAmsterdamUniversiteit van AmsterdamThesis
Schermer-Vermeer, Ina2001Grammatica, lexicon en de dubbelobject-constructie in het Nederlands en het EngelsNederlandse Taalkunde622-37
Stowell, Tim1983Subjects across categoriesThe Linguistic Review2285-312
Toorn, M.C. van den1971Enkele opmerkingen over het indirect objectLevende Talen 27432-71

⇑ Back to top

About this article

Author(s): Hans Broekhuis, Norbert Corver, Riet Vos

Category: Dutch Syntax

Keywords: AffectednessDativeDative ShiftLatinate VerbLocation Verb

Version: 1.0, January 2016

Version history:

version	editor(s)	date	remarks
1.0	Hans Broekhuis, Norbert Corver, Riet Vos	January 2016

report errorprintcite

Jump to:

introduction
references
related articles