Taalportaal - the digital language portal

Dutch1
Frisian
Saterfrisian
Afrikaans

Show all

3.3.1.2.Dative alternation with naar-phrases (goals)

quickinfo

In the literature on English, the alternation that will be discussed in this section is normally discussed under the same heading as the one discussed in Section 3.3.1.1: the reason is that periphrastic indirect objects are headed by the preposition to in both cases in English. The examples in (350) show, however, that the two cases are clearly distinct in Dutch, given that the preposition involved is different in the two cases: whereas the alternation discussed in 3.3.1.1 involves the preposition aan, the alternation that will be the topic of this section involves the preposition naar'to'. Ignore the element toe for the moment, but we will return to it later in this section.

350

a.	Jan gooide	Peter	de bal	*(toe).
	Jan threw	Peter	the ball	toe
	'Jan threw Peter the ball'

b.	Jan gooide	de bal	naar Peter	(toe).
	Jan threw	the ball	to Peter	toe
	'Jan threw the ball to Peter.'

The alternation of dative noun phrases and naar-PPs so far seems to have received little attention from linguists who work on the dative alternation, although we have seen in Section 3.3.1.1 that Rappaport Hovav & Levin (2008) were able to make the correct distinction on semantic grounds. The discussion is organized as follows: Subsection I begins by briefly repeating some basic facts about the interpretation of the two alternants that were more extensively discussed in Section 3.3.1.1, subsection II subsequently shows that the alternation of dative objects and naar-PPs provides quite convincing evidence in favor of the hypothesis discussed in Section 3.3.1.1, sub IV, that periphrastic indirect objects function syntactically as complementives, subsection III argues that the alternation of dative objects and naar-PPs also sheds new light on an old question in generative grammar by showing that the double object and periphrastic indirect object construction are likely to be syntactically derived from a common underlying structure, subsection IV concludes by providing a small sample of verbs exhibiting the alternation.

I. Meaning differences
II. The syntactic function of the naar-PP
III. The element toe
IV. A sample of double object verbs (not) allowing the alternation
V. Conclusion

[+] I. Meaning differences

Verbs that allow the dative alternation with aan-PPs differ semantically from verbs that allow the dative alternation with naar-PPs in that the former denote an actual, intended or future change of location, whereas the latter are directional in nature. The difference can be made explicit by considering the implication relations. The change of location construction in the first conjunct of (351a) refers to the act of actual transfer of the referent of the direct object to the referent of the indirect object, and thus contradicts the second conjunct which expresses that the transfer did not take place. The directional construction in the first conjunct of (351b), on the other hand, expresses that the referent of the direct object traverses a certain path but does not imply that it actually reaches the intended goal as is clear from the fact that (351b) is perfectly coherent; see also Schermer-Vermeer (2001:29) who claims that the notion of contact, which constitutes the core meaning of the preposition aan, is lacking in naar. In what follows, we will use the term recipient to refer to the indirect object in the change of location construction and the term goal to refer to the indirect object in the directional construction.

351

a.	$	Jan gaf	de bal	aan Peter,	maar	Peter heeft	hem	niet	gekregen.
		Jan gave	the ball	to Peter,	but	Peter has	him	not	gotten
		'Jan gave the ball to Peter, but Peter didnʼt get it.'

b.	Jan gooide	de bal	naar Peter	(toe),	maar	Peter heeft	hem	niet	gekregen.
	Jan threw	the ball	to Peter	toe,	but	Peter has	him	not	gotten
	'Jan threw the ball towards Peter, but Peter didnʼt get it.'

The double object and the periphrastic indirect object constructions in (350) seem to differ in a way similar to those discussed in Section 3.3.1.1: whereas the periphrastic construction in (350b) seems especially concerned with the way the action of the subject affects the referent of the direct object, the double object construction in (350a) seems more concerned with the way it affects the referent of the indirect object. Section 3.3.1.1 has already shown, however, that this difference cannot be adequately expressed in terms of possession: neither the periphrastic nor the double object construction in (350) necessarily implies that Peter will come into possession of the ball. Nevertheless, it still seems plausible that some notion of affectedness is relevant as is implied by the semantic interpretations proposed in Table (335) for throw-type verbs, repeated here as (352).

352

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

Periphrastic indirect object construction: [S cause [DO to go to IO]]

The semantic representation in (352a) expresses that the referent of the indirect object in the double object construction is somehow (potentially) affected by the action of the subject. Since this may hold for the referent of the animate indirect object Jan, but clearly not for the inanimate indirect objects Amsterdam/de korf in the primeless examples in (353), the contrasts indicated there provide additional support for the semantic representations in (352).

353

a.		Peter stuurt	Jan/*Amsterdam	het boek	toe.
		Peter sends	Jan/Amsterdam	the book	prt.

a'.		Peter stuurt	het boek	naar Jan/Amsterdam	(toe).
		Peter sends	the book	to Jan/Amsterdam	prt.

b.		Marie gooide	Jan/*de korf	de bal	toe.
		Marie threw	Jan/the basket	the ball	prt.

b'.		Marie gooide	de bal	naar	Jan/de korf	(toe).
		Marie threw	the ball	to	Jan/the basket	prt.

[+] II. The syntactic function of the naar-PP

Directional PPs are invariably used as complementives; cf. Section P1.1.2.2, sub III. This means that examples such as (350b) provide strong evidence for the hypothesis discussed in Section 3.3.1.1, sub IV, that periphrastic indirect objects function syntactically as complementives. This hypothesis is also supported by the examples in (354), which show that the naar-PP in (350b) behaves like other PP-complementives in that it can only be in extraposed position if a verbal particle like over is present.

354

a.	Jan heeft	de bal	< naar Peter>	gegooid <*?naar Peter>.
	Jan has	the ball	to Peter	thrown
	'Jan has thrown the ball to Peter.'

b.	Jan heeft	de bal	<naar Peter>	over	gegooid <naar Peter>.
	Jan has	the ball	to Peter	over	thrown
	'that Jan threw the ball over to Peter.'

Note that the examples in (355) show that the use of particles like over blocks the dative alternation; we will return to this, but before we can do this we first have to discuss the function of the element toe.

355

a.		Jan	heeft	Peter	de bal	toe	gegooid.
		Jan	has	Peter	the ball	toe	thrown

b.	*	Jan heeft	Peter	de bal	toe	over gegooid.
		Jan has	Peter	the ball	toe	over thrown

[+] III. The element toe

This subsection discusses the element toe that is found in the examples in (350), repeated here as (356). The starting point of our discussion will be the observation that this element is optional in the periphrastic indirect object construction but obligatory in the double object construction.

356

a.	Jan gooide	Peter	de bal	*(toe).
	Jan threw	Peter	the ball	toe
	'Jan threw Peter the ball'

b.	Jan gooide	de bal	naar Peter	(toe).
	Jan threw	the ball	to Peter	toe
	'Jan threw the ball to Peter.'

There are apparent counterexamples against the claim that the element toe must be realized in the double object construction, but it seems that these can normally be traced back to the fact that the indirect object can alternate with either an aan- or a naar-PP. One example is the verb sturen'to send' in (357), which is apparently compatible both with a recipient and a goal.

357

a.		Jan stuurde	zijn ouders	een brief	(toe).	recipient or goal
		Jan sent	his parents	a letter	toe

b.		Jan stuurde	een brief	aan zijn ouders.	recipient
		Jan sent	a letter	to his parents

b'.		Jan stuurde	een brief	naar zijn ouders.	goal
		Jan sent	a letter	to his parents

The contrast in (356) is surprising and therefore in need of an explanation. The explanation that we argue for here supports the transformational approach to the dative/PP alternation by suggesting that the double object construction is derived from a structure that is more or less identical to the one assigned to the periphrastic indirect object construction; see Janssen (1976:12) for an early proposal of this type and Den Dikken (1995) for a detailed analysis that is fully compatible with our findings here; see Schermer-Vermeer (2001) for an alternative lexico-grammatical approach. The first step in our argument is to establish that the element toe is not always optional in the periphrastic construction. This is illustrated in the examples in (358), which show that the element toe must be realized when the nominal complement of the naar-PP is moved into clause-initial position; see Section P5.2 for more detailed discussion.

358

a.	Jan heeft	de bal	naar Peter	(toe)	gegooid.
	Jan has	the ball	to Peter	toe	thrown
	'Jan has thrown the ball to Peter.'

b.	de jongen	waari	Jan de bal [PP	naar ti	*(toe)]	gegooid	heeft
	the boy	where	Jan the ball	to	toe	thrown	have
	'the boy to whom Jan has thrown the ball'

Now, assume that the double object construction is derived from a structure similar to that of the periphrastic indirect object construction by eliminating the preposition naar: [PPnaar Peter (toe)]. Den Dikken (1995) claims that this is the result of so-called incorporation of the preposition into the verb, but the precise technical means are not relevant here; the only thing that counts is that as a result the noun phrase Peter can no longer be assigned case within the PP and must therefore be promoted to indirect object (in the same way as the direct object of a verb must be promoted to subject in the passive construction; cf. Section 3.2.1). In order to make this possible the noun phrase must be moved out of the PP and moved into the canonical position of the indirect object preceding the direct object: IOi DO [PPnaarti (toe)]. If so, we may account for the obligatory presence of toe in the double object construction by appealing to the fact that extraction of the nominal complement in (358b) likewise triggers the obligatory presence of toe.
This hypothesis is also interesting in the light of the problem noted in subsection II that the double object construction is excluded if the verb is preceded by a verbal particle; the relevant example is repeated as (359a). If the hypothesis proposed here is on the right track, we expect periphrastic indirect objects of particle verbs to be likewise impossible if toe is present, and example (359b) shows that such cases are indeed degraded.

359

a.		Jan heeft	Peter	de bal	toe	(*over)	gegooid.
		Jan has	Peter	the ball	toe	over	thrown

b.		Jan heeft	de bal	naar Peter	toe	(*over)	gegooid.
		Jan has	the ball	to Peter	toe	over	thrown

The unacceptability of the verbal particle over may be accounted for if we assume that toe likewise functions as a verbal particle; verbs never combine with two particles at the same time. which in turn may follow from the more general restriction that clauses can contain at most one complementive; see Section 2.2.1, sub IV, for discussion.

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

Given that the periphrastic PP is a directional complementive it does not come as a surprise that the set of double object verbs in which the indirect object functions as a goal is a subset of the verbs that may take a directional PP:

360

Directional verbs: iets gooien (naar)'to throw something (to)', iets sturen (naar)'to send something (to)', iets rollen (naar)'to roll something (to)', iets schoppen (naar)'to kick something (to)', iets spelen (naar)'to play something (to)', iets werpen (naar)'to throw something (at)', etc.Directional verbs: iets gooien (naar)'to throw something (to)', iets sturen (naar)'to send something (to)', iets rollen (naar)'to roll something (to)', iets schoppen (naar)'to kick something (to)', iets spelen (naar)'to play something (to)', iets werpen (naar)'to throw something (at)', etc.

There are also a number of verbs that allow the double object but not the periphrastic indirect object construction. Like with verbs taking a recipient, this holds especially for verbs expressing transfer of propositional content like toebijten/toeblaffen'to snarl at', toefluisteren'to whisper to', toejuichen'to cheer at'; if the particle toe is not present, these verbs sometimes take a PP-complement headed by naar. An example that normally does not involve the transfer of some concrete physical entity is toestoppen'to slip'

361

a.	Zij beet/blafte	(*?naar)	hem toe	[dat	hij	moest	ophouden].
	she bit/barked	at	him toe	that	he	had.to	prt.-stop
	'She scolded at him that he had to stop.'

b.	Zij juichte/fluisterde	(*?naar)	hem toe	[dat	ze	geslaagd	was].
	she cheered/whispered	at	him toe	that	she	passed.the.exam	was
	'She cheered at him that sheʼd passed the exam.'

c.	Ze	stopte	<Peter>	wat extraʼs	<naar Peter>	toe.
	she	put	Peter	something extra	to Peter	toe
	'She slipped Peter something extra.'

For completeness' sake, note that there are also double object constructions with toe that do not allow the periphrastic indirect object with naar, but take periphrastic indirect objects with aan. This simply shows that a large number of (non-directional) particle verbs with the verbal particle toe take a recipient. Some examples are: iemand iets toestaan'to allow someone (to do) something', iemand iets toevertrouwen'to entrust something to someone', iets toewijzen aan iemand'to assign something to someone', iemandiets toezeggen'to promise something to someone', etc. As expected, such double object constructions do alternate with periphrastic indirect object constructions with aan.

362

Jan vertrouwde	<Peter>	het geheim	<aan Peter>	toe.
Jan entrusted	Peter	the secret	to Peter	prt.
'Jan entrusted the secret to Peter.'

Since the dative alternation with naar-PPs has hardly been studied so far, future research will have to make clear which double object constructions with toe do or do not belong to the class of constructions discussed in this section.

[+] V. Conclusion

The previous subsections have discussed a second type of dative/PP alternation in which the periphrastic indirect object surfaces as a naar-PP and which seems to have gone largely unnoticed so far in the otherwise vast literature on dative shift. We have seen that this alternation may shed new light on the analysis of the dative/PP alternation in the sense that it supports the following two hypotheses put forward in Den Dikken (1995): (i) the periphrastic indirect object syntactically functions as a complementive, and (ii) the double object and the periphrastic indirect object construction are derived from similar underlying structures. It therefore seems worthwhile to study this alternation more extensively in the future.

References:

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
Dikken, Marcel den1995Particles: on the syntax of verb-particle, triadic, and causative constructionsOxford studies in comparative syntaxNew York/OxfordOxford University Press
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
Schermer-Vermeer, Ina2001Grammatica, lexicon en de dubbelobject-constructie in het Nederlands en het EngelsNederlandse Taalkunde622-37
Schermer-Vermeer, Ina2001Grammatica, lexicon en de dubbelobject-constructie in het Nederlands en het EngelsNederlandse Taalkunde622-37

⇑ Back to top

About this article

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

Category: Dutch Syntax

Keywords: AffectednessComplementiveDativeDative ShiftVerb

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