English Ditransitive Verbs: Aspects of Theory, Description and a Usage-Based Model (Language and Computers 53) (Language & Computers)

Acknowledgements There are many people from whose help and comments I have benefitted considerably. First and foremost, I would like to thank Jürgen Esser for his advice throughout the project and his support way beyond the call of duty, without which this book would never have materialised. To him this book is dedicated. I would also like to thank Manfred Kohrt, Winfried Lenders, Karl Reichl and Klaus Peter Schneider who read earlier drafts of the manuscript and provided me with detailed feedback. For comments and discussions on individual examples and analyses, arguments and conclusions, I am grateful to Bas Aarts, Jan Aarts, the late Ruth Brend, Sylviane Granger, Sebastian Hoffmann, Rolf Kreyer, Geoffrey Leech, Jacqueline Monschau and the audiences at various conferences, in particular at the LACUS Forum 2001 in Montreal and the ICAME Conference 2002 in Gothenburg. Special thanks are due to my native-speaker informants Anne Barron, Rosemary Bock, Shalini Gupta, Sach Mukherjee and Sally Schmiesing. I would also like to express my thanks to the series editors for including this book in Language and Computers. Christian Mair in particular gave me invaluable advice at various stages of the editorial process. The proof-reading of the final version of the manuscript was taken over by Rosemary Bock, for which I am most grateful. Naturally, I remain responsible for all remaining blunders and infelicities. Finally, I owe an extreme debt of gratitude to my wife, Nicole, for her unfailing support and love.

Chapter 1 Ditransitive verbs in previous research and in the present work In spite of the vast literature that ditransitive verbs have spawned, linguists still do not unanimously agree on what ditransitive verbs are. Even the viability and scope of the concept of ditransitivity in general are a matter of dispute. Presumably this is why there are so many different models for the description of ditransitivity. Thus, an overview of various existing models is an appropriate starting-point for the present study. 1.1

Aims of the present study

The differences between existing models of ditransitivity can be systematised according to various dimensions. For instance, some linguistic approaches to ditransitivity are inherently lexical and focus on lexical features of ditransitive verbs (e.g. in terms of valencies as in valency theory, see section 1.2.3), while other models place special emphasis on the syntactic nature of ditransitivity (e.g. in terms of the ditransitive construction as in construction grammar, see section 1.2.7). Furthermore, models of ditransitivity may be functionalist (as in systemicfunctional grammar, see section 1.2.4) or formalist (as in generative grammar, see section 1.2.2). Also, different models have been derived from different kinds of data, drawing on different methodologies. With regard to the quantity of data, the corpus revolution has no doubt led to “data resources never available to linguists before” (J. Aarts 2000: 35), which provide an unprecedented mass and variety of empirical evidence for or against the plausibility of descriptive models. But even if we confine ourselves to linguistic research before the advent of modern, computerised corpora, it is obvious that fundamentally different kinds of data have been used. On the one hand, there is a well-established tradition of introspection and the use of invented and decontextualised sample sentences (most prominently in formalist schools such as generative grammar). On the other hand, functional grammarians have always placed special emphasis on the context of language use and, thus, on the use of attested and authentic language data (e.g. in British contextualism). Mention should also be made of completely different objects of inquiry in different linguistic schools: while, for example, generative grammar and cognitive grammar have been concerned with abstract competence, functional grammar and corpus linguistics have been interested in language as performance. Because of such different perspectives, methodologies and databases in the linguistic sciences, it does not come as a surprise that a multitude of models compete with each other for the best account of ditransitivity. Before I present my

2

Chapter 1

own approach, it is therefore necessary to critically review existing linguistic frameworks in order to identify useful points of reference on the one hand and crucial shortcomings on the other. Such a comparative analysis of major theories of ditransitivity is still lacking. I feel that linguistic research is often too closely associated with a particular linguistic school of thought from the outset, whereas it would be useful to integrate concepts and suggestions made in other linguistic schools. Therefore, the present chapter provides an overview of several relevant theories and identifies important conceptual overlaps and descriptive correspondences. In this, I regard the theoretical and methodological diversity in previous research into ditransitive verbs as a goldmine for a pluralist theory that should unite relevant aspects of different theories and combine them with an empirically sound methodology. As pointed out by Halliday et al. (1964: 301) and Stubbs (1986: 3), theoretical pluralism is needed because different linguistic models may account for different facts in language, depending on the specific descriptive goal and purpose. Thus, a pluralist framework, which is intended to account for various interrelated facts of a linguistic phenomenon, ought to integrate plausible concepts from various frameworks without being biased towards a specific model from the outset. More specifically, the pluralist theory of ditransitivity that will be described at the end of this chapter (and that will be at the basis of the present study) will be lexicogrammatical, semantically-oriented and functional. The overarching plan of the present study is as follows: • Firstly, the present chapter is intended to assess the viability of existing accounts of ditransitive verbs (see section 1.2) and to derive from this analysis a pluralist theory that makes it possible to come to grips with the phenomenon of ditransitivity more comprehensively than before (see section 1.3). • Secondly, this theory will be combined with modern corpus-linguistic methodology. The methodology – and some of its theoretical implications – will be discussed in Chapter 2. Chapter 3 will then provide a corpus-based description of ditransitive verbs in language use. • Thirdly, I will suggest a framework in which the traditionally established gap between competence-related models of language cognition and performancerelated descriptions of language use can be bridged. In particular, I will argue that corpus evidence not only tells us important things about actual language use, but also about the cognitive entrenchment (i.e. speakers’ linguistic knowledge) of ditransitive verbs. In chapter 4, some major aspects of such a usage-based model of speakers’ linguistic knowledge of ditransitive verbs will be discussed and exemplified. • Finally, chapter 5 will provide a summary of the results and conclusions of the present study. It will be rounded off by suggestions for important future research.

Ditransitive Verbs in Previous Research and in the Present Work 1.2

3

Previous approaches to ditransitive verbs: an overview and a critical review

I will start off by discussing some important descriptive grammars of English, representing the – largely European – structuralist tradition in its widest sense (see section 1.2.1). Afterwards, the explanatory power of the American generative paradigm will be explored (see section 1.2.2). Sections 1.2.3, 1.2.4, 1.2.5 and 1.2.6 are devoted to different perspectives on grammatical structures and relations which are more restricted in scope, that is, valency theory, functional grammar, corpus-based grammar and corpus-driven lexicogrammar respectively. Finally, I will discuss findings from more cognitive approaches, namely construction grammar and cognitive grammar (see section 1.2.7) and experimental cognitive sciences (see section 1.2.8). At the end of this chapter, all linguistic frameworks and models will be evaluated with regard to the main theoretical and descriptive objectives of the present work. It will emerge that, generally speaking, a modified version of the structuralist framework, combined with a corpus-based and empirical methodology, will be pursued in the present study. As will become clear from the following sections, this non-generative descriptive apparatus can be easily reconciled with plausible assumptions and results in cognitive linguistics. 1.2.1 Descriptive grammar The classic reference grammars of the early 20th century, in particular Poutsma (1904-1926), Kruisinga (1909-1932) and Jespersen (1909-1949), mark the beginning of a structurally-oriented, descriptive English grammar, replacing the then prevailing prescriptive tradition. Numerous concepts, terminologies and analyses of grammatical phenomena and constructions in the more recent grammars of the ‘Quirk fleet’ (Görlach 2000: 260) can be traced back to those classic reference grammars. It is therefore entirely appropriate to begin with an examination of the ways in which early descriptive grammarians tried to come to grips with ditransitive verbs. Jespersen (1927) does not explicitly use the term ‘ditransitive’, but describes the corresponding verb class as follows: Some verbs frequently or even regularly have two objects; we shall first mention the type: he gave the boy a shilling. Here it is customary to speak of the boy as the indirect, and a shilling as the direct object. (Jespersen, 1927: 278) Here, it becomes obvious that ditransitive verbs do not necessarily require two objects. As Jespersen puts it, they are only “frequently or even regularly”

4

Chapter 1

complemented with two objects.1 Thus, Jespersen implicitly raises the question of frequencies in authentic language use (say, with regard to the ditransitive use of the verb give), but as a matter of fact, an empirically sound answer to that question can only be obtained from large, machine-readable corpora by drawing on modern corpus-linguistic methods. Furthermore, what Jespersen (1927: 278ff.) has to say about verb complementation is interesting for two reasons: (1) his discussion of the suitability of the term ‘dative’ for present-day English; (2) his description of the tophrase which may replace the indirect object. These points deserve more detailed treatment. Jespersen (1927: 278) rejects outright the continued use of the term ‘dative case’ for a grammar of modern English, largely due to language-historical reasons: “it is just as unhistorical as it would be to speak of Normandy and New England as parts of the British Empire.”2 Nevertheless, he insists on the point that the distinction of direct and indirect object remains relevant to modern English grammar: Still, there is a real distinction between the direct and the indirect object in present day English. One important sign of the distinction is the possibility of substituting a to-phrase for an indirect object ... . (Jespersen, 1927: 279) In addition, Jespersen mentions further criteria for a clear differentiation between direct and indirect object. Of particular importance here is the fact that a ditransitive verb, e.g. offer, can be used with the direct object alone (e.g. they offered a reward), but not with the indirect object only (e.g. *they offered the man). The to-phrase and its systematic correspondence to the indirect object is also a matter of detailed discussion in Jespersen’s grammar. He argues that the indirect object is defined by its position before the direct object (and immediately behind the verb). Jespersen (1927) thus draws the conclusion that if the indirect object – by virtue of its realisation as a to-phrase – follows the direct object, one should no longer speak of an indirect object: In spite of the fact that “I gave the boy an apple” and “I gave an apple to the boy” are practically equivalent, it would be wrong to say, as is often said, that the boy and to the boy are the same “case” (dative) or 1

As far as the issue of frequency is concerned, Kruisinga (1925) is much less exact. However, he observes that, unlike the direct object, the entity in indirect-object position habitually belongs to an animate gender class: “Some verbs are used with two objects. In that case the first (indirect) object nearly always denotes a person ..., rarely a thing ... . The second (direct) object is usually non-personal, but it may denote a person ... .” (Kruisinga, 1925: 158). 2 Note that in generative grammar, the concept of ‘dative case’ is still implicitly present (most notably in notions such as ‘dative movement’, see section 1.2.2).

Ditransitive Verbs in Previous Research and in the Present Work

5

that to the boy is a dative-equivalent. Two constructions may mean the same, or nearly the same thing, and yet be grammatically different ... . The to-phrase is placed in another relation to the verb than the indirect object ... . (Jespersen, 1927: 291f.) Note that the attempt is made here to establish a clear boundary between syntax and semantics (which, as will be discussed later in this section, appears to be doomed to failure from today’s functionalist and corpus-linguistic perspective). Jespersen is certainly right in calling into question the appropriateness of the term ‘dative’ for present-day English. However, the to-phrase can still be seen as an ‘object’, which represents a predominantly semantically-defined functional category. I would contend that any definition of ditransitive verbs that is based on functional categories should not restrict the term ‘object’ to a specific formal realisation of objects (without a preposition, that is). It seems to be doubtful whether one should really insist on a rigid separation of syntactic relations from their implicit semantic values, as envisaged by Jespersen. The merely syntactic definition of the indirect object leads Jespersen (1927) to establish a separate type of ditransitive complementation with two direct objects: ask John ask a question

ask John a few questions

... it is therefore better here, where the to-phrase cannot be used, and where each of the two objects can stand by itself without the other, to speak of two direct objects. (Jespersen, 1927: 295f.) To regard both objects in such constructions as direct objects is a somewhat peculiar solution (and has, to my knowledge, not attracted wide-spread attention). If the functional categories of direct and indirect object are taken as primarily semantically defined categories, there is no reason why John (as the ‘affected entity’) and a few questions (as the ‘transferred entity’) could not be labelled as indirect object and direct object respectively. Furthermore, the question arises whether and to what extent the two objects of ask may really stand on their own, which is the main argument underpinning Jespersen’s hypothesis of two direct objects. It seems much more plausible to me to analyse the phenomenon at hand differently. I would argue that, in principle, the ditransitive verb ask requires two objects (which correspond to two different entities in the outside world, i.e. the question and the person being questioned). If, however, an object is inferrable from the context (situational or textual), it need not be mentioned explicitly. Consequently, the seemingly ‘monotransitive’ use of ask in ask John would then be interpreted as an ellipsis with the omission of the direct object. In Jespersen’s

6

Chapter 1

decontextualised examples, this hypothesis is not testable – but it remains a viable alternative interpretation.3 Unlike Jespersen, Kruisinga (1925) does go into details about the usual semantic roles of the indirect object: The indirect object usually expresses the person or thing that is benefited by the action (e.g. do, spare, allot), often combined with direction of place (e.g. bring, less clearly give) ... . (Kruisinga, 1925: 159) Additionally, two further aspects of Kruisinga’s description are particularly noteworthy because they can, by and large, still be found in the much more recent Quirk-grammars: (1) the concept of ‘prepositional object’; (2) the clausal realisation of the object (and the subject). That ‘plain objects’ (i.e. without initial preposition) and so-called ‘prepositional objects’ are in fact quite similar syntactically and semantically is described by Kruisinga (1925) as follows: Some prepositional adjuncts present peculiar features. When we say I laughed at him we have indeed a prepositional adjunct at him as far as form goes. But it is evident that the verb is not laugh but laugh at. The form him is, therefore, in much the same relation to the verb as in I saw him. This is also shown by the fact that him can become the subject in both cases: He was seen; He was laughed at ... . Hence these adjuncts are called prepositional objects. The prepositional objects are identical in function with what may be called the plain objects ... . The same distinctions with respect to meaning may be made here. (Kruisinga, 1925: 164) Kruisinga thus suggests that a prepositional phrase can, in principle, fulfil the same syntactic function as a noun phrase. With regard to the alternation between ditransitive variants such as I gave the boy the penny and I gave the penny to the boy, however, Kruisinga does not label the to-phrase as a prepositional object, but as a ‘an adjunct’ that is ‘equivalent’ to the indirect object (Kruisinga 1925: 160). This is only a small step away from calling the to-phrase in I gave the penny to the boy a prepositional object too – a step that Quirk et al. (1985) do take in the Comprehensive Grammar, as will be discussed later on. Kruisinga (1925) also explicitly states that the direct object, but not the indirect object, may be realised as a clause (Kruisinga 1925):4 3

This hypothesis is very much in line with Matthews’s (1981: 125f.) concept of ‘latent’ objects, which will be taken up in section 1.2.4. 4 Kruisinga’s explanation of why indirect objects cannot be realised as clauses remains unclear. As a matter of fact, one can easily think of clausal realisations of the indirect object as well, e.g. in She gave whoever entered the room a winning smile.

Ditransitive Verbs in Previous Research and in the Present Work

7

Object clauses: I expect he will come. I laughed at what he said. ... English has no clauses serving the function of an indirect object, because the relative pronoun, which would open such a sentence, is never used at the beginning of a sentence ... . (Kruisinga, 1925: 188f.) Even though Kruisinga (1925: 187) only allows for finite object clauses functioning as direct objects, his categorisation is innovative in that objects – defined semantically as well as syntactically – are now taken to be associated with a wide range of potential formal realisations, which is particularly relevant to the analysis of ditransitive complementation. The attempt to systematically integrate different formal realisations on functional grounds has exerted an enormous influence on structuralist grammars. This key concept is also at the basis of Quirk et al.’s (1985) Comprehensive Grammar – the culmination of the so-called ‘Great Tradition’ (F. Aarts 1975) –, to which I will now turn. With regard to ditransitive verbs, Quirk et al. (1985: 54) give the following, apparently clear-cut definition: “DITRANSITIVE VERBS occur in type SVOO”. This statement highlights the fact that ditransitive verbs are defined by means of the clause pattern in which they are used. It is the clause pattern in which both a direct and an indirect object (and a subject) are obligatorily required by the verb.5 Quirk et al. (1985: 56) give the following example: (1)

Type SVOO

S V (ditransitive) We all wish

Oi you

Od a happy birthday

The strictly clause-pattern-related definition of ditransitive verbs has clear advantages. First, whenever a verb requires a subject and two different objects, it is considered a ditransitive verb. Thus, a clear distinction is made between ditransitive verbs, bound to the clause pattern SVOO, and other trivalent verbs and clause patterns such as SVOC in which the complement is co-referential with the (only) object. Second, the definition of ditransitivity in terms of functional categories required by the verb makes it possible to cover a wide range of possible formal realisations of the functional category of (direct) object, e.g. noun phrase, wh-clause, that-clause. 6 Generally speaking, this consistent distinction of formal structures and functional categories seems to me to be one of the major 5

This is made even more explicit in the definition given in Quirk et al.’s (1972: 843) earlier grammar: “Ditransitive complementation involves two objects that are not in a coreferential, intensive relation”. This definition is clearly intended to demarcate the clause pattern SVOO from the clause pattern SVOC. 6 This general approach has not remained unchallenged. With regard to verb complementation, for example, Standop (2000) criticises many structural analogies drawn by Quirk et al. (1985). This criticism will be reviewed later in this section.

8

Chapter 1

strong points in the Comprehensive Grammar because it makes it possible to subsume different but analogous formal realisations into one and the same functional category. Before delving more deeply into Quirk et al.’s (1985) account of ditransitive verb complementation, it is necessary to point out two problems that are caused by their exclusively clause-pattern-related definition of ditransitive verbs.7 The following example sheds light on the first problem in the line of argumentation of the Comprehensive Grammar: (2)

May I inform you that your order is ready for collection?

Many verbs are said to be ditransitive which may occur in the clause pattern SVOO, but certainly not in the classic ditransitive realisation of the two objects as two noun phrases. Thus, Quirk et al. (1985: 1212) also ascribe the label ‘ditransitive’ to verbs such as inform which require an indirect object and a that-clause functioning as a direct object, cf. (2). This has to do with the fact that the notion of object in the Comprehensive Grammar is defined extremely broadly and refers to a wide range of formal realisations (from noun phrases to clauses) and even to prepositional objects. The solely clause-pattern-related definition of ditransitive verbs together with the broad understanding of the category of object automatically leads Quirk et al. (1985: 1211) to consider many verbs ditransitive which, in fact, cannot be complemented with two noun phrases (e.g. convince, inform) or which do not occur in the clause pattern SVOiOd at all, e.g. address to and communicate to. But even Quirk et al. (1985: 1208) themselves argue that the clause pattern SVOiOd with both objects realised as noun phrases represents the basic pattern of ditransitive verb complementation: “Ditransitive complementation in its basic form involves two object noun phrases …”. In my view, any definition of ditransitive verbs ought to take into account this basic formal realisation of the underlying clause pattern. This is not to say that many (if not all) verbs which are used ditransitively may not also occur in other types of complementation, especially in the monotransitive clause pattern. This phenomenon is described by Quirk et al. (1985) as the ‘multiple class membership of verbs’: It must be borne in mind that a given verb can belong, in its various senses, to a number of different classes ..., and hence enter into a number of different clause types. (Quirk et al., 1985: 720)

7

Note that (owing to this shortcoming, I suspect) it is not always clear whether the lexical verb in particular or the verb phrase in general is considered ditransitive. Usually, the Comprehensive Grammar makes implicit use of the former definition, but at times the complex verb phrase in its entirety is given the label ‘ditransitive’, for example the verb phrase must send in the example I must send my parents an anniversary card (Quirk et al. 1985: 721).

Ditransitive Verbs in Previous Research and in the Present Work

9

Besides the overextension of the concept of ditransitive verbs, a second problem stems from the fact that the Comprehensive Grammar largely neglects the semantics of ditransitive verbs and their corresponding clause pattern SVOO. Quirk et al. (1985: 740ff.) do account for ‘semantic roles of clause elements’ (e.g. with regard to the ‘affected indirect object’, which is particularly relevant to the issue at hand), but the general relations between syntactic categories and their semantic roles are not precisely mapped onto the different clause patterns in particular. However, ditransitive verbs share considerable similarities in their underlying propositions. In other words, the ditransitive clause pattern SVOO has an abstract meaning itself. This is pointed out, among others, by Jackson (1990), who sets out to develop a semantically-oriented syntax by explicitly drawing on the descriptive apparatus of the Comprehensive Grammar:8 The sixth pattern of complementation contains two Objects in addition to the Subject and the Predicator (6. SPOO), e.g. (two instances) [93] He – gives – the gen (and) we – give – him – the publicity [N04:131] The propositions expressed by sentences with this pattern commonly refer to accomplishments of transferring goods from one person to another. (Jackson, 1990: 159) A functional analysis of syntactic structures should take into account such correspondences between syntax and semantics whenever possible.9 As far as the complementation of ditransitive verbs is concerned, there is a general distinction of four main types of verb complementation in the Comprehensive Grammar: ‘copular’ [A], ‘monotransitive’ [B], ‘complex transitive’ [C] und ‘ditransitive’ [D]. With regard to the ditransitive type, Quirk et al. (1985) provide the following list of subtypes [D1] to [D6]:10 DITRANSITIVE (Type SVOO) [D1] Noun phrases as Oi & Od [D2] With prepositional O [D3] Oi + that-clause 8

They offered her some food. Please say something to us. They told me that I was ill.

Jackson uses ‘P’ (for ‘predicator’) instead of ‘V’ (for ‘verb’). The sentence-tag in brackets following the example refers to its position in the Lancaster-Oslo/Bergen Corpus of British English (LOB). 9 Recent corpus-linguistic studies provide ample testimony of the fact that such correspondences between syntactic patterns and their semantic values (which may be more or less abstract in nature) can be found in many fields of language use, which calls into question the widely held, formalist view of an autonomous syntax (see section 1.2.5). 10 Note that in many approaches to verb complementation in English the letter ‘D’ is used as an iconic symbol for the ditransitive type, e.g. on the back-cover of the Dictionary of Contemporary English (Procter, 1978). However, subtypes [D1], [D5] and [D6] to be found there are not identical with the subtypes in the Comprehensive Grammar.

10

Chapter 1 [D4] [D5] [D6]

Oi + wh-clause Oi + wh-infinitive clause Oi + to-infinitive

He asked me what time it was. Mary showed us what to do. I advised Mark to see a doctor. (Quirk et al., 1985: 1171)

These subtypes of ditransitive complementation are then discussed in detail and exemplified in the Comprehensive Grammar (Quirk et al., 1985: 1208ff.).11 Their account is surely the most elaborated attempt to characterise ditransitive verbs and their complementation from a descriptive and structuralist point of view.12 The overview of ditransitive complementation patterns above indicates that Quirk et al. pick up on Kruisinga’s wide understanding of objects (including plain objects, prepositional objects and object clauses). The Comprehensive Grammar thus systematises the variability of ditransitive complementation by drawing structural analogies (and, to a lesser degree, by sketching semantic similarities) between different formal realisations. Let us first turn to ditransitive complementations without clausal realisations of clause elements. It is subtype [D1], with both objects realised as noun phrases, which is usually considered the basic form of ditransitive complementation, as for example in She gave the girl a doll. According to Quirk et al. (1985: 1208f.), both the indirect object and the direct object may also be realised as prepositional phrases. If the indirect object is realised as a prepositional phrase, the clause element is called a ‘prepositional object’ (i.e. subtype [D2a] as in She gave a doll to her; but also in She addressed her remarks to the children, although this sentence has no [D1] counterpart). Similarly, the direct object may also be realised as a prepositional phrase (i.e. subtype [D2b] as in He reminded him of the agreement, which has no [D1] counterpart either). Subtypes [D2a] and [D2b], which include prepositional objects, are thus taken to be ditransitive complementation patterns because of structural analogies drawn between the basic form [D1] and subtypes [D2a] and [D2b] at the level of functional categories:

11 Also, some other marginal cases are covered, e.g. the subtype [D3pr], in which the verb is followed by a prepositional object and a that-clause, as for example in I ask of you that you will keep this secret (Quirk et al., 1985: 1213). 12 Not only does the Comprehensive Grammar provide the most comprehensive account of ditransitive verbs, but it also differs from previous grammars in that, for the very first time, the description of grammatical phenomena is complemented with authentic data obtained from large and representative corpora. However, the corpus data from the Survey of English Usage (SEU), the Brown University Corpus and the Lancaster-Oslo/Bergen Corpus (LOB) are not taken into consideration systematically, let alone statistically, so that the Comprehensive Grammar certainly does not represent a corpus-based grammar (cf. Sinclair’s (1991: 100f.) and Stubbs’s (1993: 9) critical remarks on the vague relation between the grammar and corpus data). Truly corpus-based grammars such as Sinclair (1990) and Biber et al. (1999) will be dealt with in section 1.2.5.

Ditransitive Verbs in Previous Research and in the Present Work (3)

a) She (S) b) She (S) c) She (S) d) He (S)

gave (V) gave (V) addressed (V) reminded (V)

11

the girl (Oi:NP) a doll (Od:NP) to her (Oi:PP) a doll (Od:NP) her remarks (Od:NP) to the children (Oi:PP) of the agreement (Od:PP) him (Oi:NP)

The analysis of the examples given in (3) makes it clear that the Comprehensive Grammar views the functional categories of direct and indirect object as independent of their formal realisations (as noun phrase or prepositional phrase) and of their position.13 The structural analogies sketched out in (3) are semantically motivated. This is the actual reason for the establishment of subtypes [D2a] and [D2b] as ditransitive complementation patterns. This functional approach, however, is strongly criticised, among others, by Standop (2000: 223), who argues that none of the sentences (3b), (3c) and (3d) represents ditransitivity of the verb. More specifically, he regards the prepositional phrase to her in (3b) as an obligatory adverbial, but not as an object of any kind. He also rejects the structural analogy that is drawn between (3b) and (3c) because, unlike sentence (3b), She addressed her remarks to the children in (3c) has no equivalent sentence with two noun phrases functioning as objects (that is to say, *She addressed the children her remarks is not possible). Accordingly, he does not subsume sentence (3d) into the ditransitive category either (again, because *He reminded him the agreement is not permissible). In effect, Standop’s line of argumentation boils down to a very narrow and exclusively syntactic definition of ditransitivity: he suggests that the label ‘ditransitive’ be used only for verbs which are complemented by two objects realised as two noun phrases (which is, by the way, in line with Huddleston and Pullum’s (2002) recent, more generatively-oriented Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, see section 1.2.2). In my view, Standop’s criticism of the classification scheme in the Comprehensive Grammar is not entirely implausible, but in the end unjustified because the fundamental differences in linguistic description between him and Quirk et al. are largely based on conflicting premises. While Standop (cf. 2000: 230) seeks to separate syntax and semantics altogether (thus suggesting entirely syntactic criteria for a categorisation of verb complementation patterns), the Quirk-grammars are in principle aimed at a functional description of syntactic relations which are always taken to be semantically motivated (perhaps most overtly in Leech and Svartvik’s (1975) Communicative Grammar). If we follow the assumption that syntax and semantics are virtually inseparable in a ‘grammar in use’, Standop’s remarks appear largely unsatisfactory. With regard to the object of inquiry at hand, it does not make any sense to me to consider give in 13

Note that Quirk et al. (1985: 59) also mention an alternative analysis along the lines of the clause pattern SVOA: “There is a further correspondence by which SVOO clauses can be converted into SVOA clauses by the substitution of a prepositional phrase following the direct object for the indirect object preceding it: She sent Jim a card ~ She sent a card to Jim.” However, in the section on ditransitive verbs, they stick to the analysis in which the prepositional phrases “are described as prepositional objects, and are regarded as grammatically equivalent to indirect objects.”

12

Chapter 1

(3a) a ditransitive verb, but not in (3b) just because the indirect object is now placed behind the direct object and realised as a prepositional phrase. The formal differences between (3a) and (3b) do not change anything about the fact that in both sentences, the verb give requires two obligatory objects, which correspond to semantically defined entities in the outside world.14 However, I agree with Standop that an overextension of systematic correspondences, resulting in the inclusion of a very heterogeneous group of prepositional verbs such as compare with, convict of and refer to (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 1211) in the ditransitive type, is rather extreme and not very useful. However, my stance on this issue is not based on syntactic considerations, but on semantic ones. In my view, these prepositional verbs have nothing in common with the shared abstract meaning of genuinely ditransitive verbs, namely an underlying proposition denoting an event type in which a provided entity is transferred to an affected entity.15 It is therefore reasonable to ascribe the label ‘ditransitive’ only to those verbs which are attested in the basic form of ditransitive complementation, i.e. subtype [D1] in the Comprehensive Grammar. Once a given verb occurs in the basic form, variations of this basic complementation pattern are also considered ditransitive. For the purposes of the present study, this means that a verb is considered ditransitive whenever it occurs in the basic ditransitive complementation pattern [D1]. It is only then that all occurrences of the given verb in other ditransitive subtypes, i.e. [D2] to [D6], are also taken to be instances of a ditransitive complementation. This approach excludes all the prepositional verbs which the Comprehensive Grammar subsumes into the ditransitive category. On the other hand, a clear disadvantage is that verbs which are very similar to ditransitive verbs in terms of their syntax and semantics but which cannot be complemented by Oi:NP and Od:NP are also excluded. This, for example, holds true for the verb address in She addressed her remarks to the children. It goes without saying that the structural analogy between She gave a doll to her and She addressed her remarks to the children drawn in the Comprehensive Grammar (and criticised by Standop, see above) is certainly plausible from a semanticosyntactical point of view. Unfortunately, though, the form *She addressed the 14

Note that Standop (2000: 223) himself repeatedly discusses semantic aspects in order to clarify the boundaries of syntactic categories. For example, he refers to the example She gave a doll which is possible but has a meaning that is quite different from She gave a doll to her. From this semantic comparison, he then draws the conclusion that to her in She gave a doll to her is an obligatory clause element. It seems then that even for Standop syntactic analysis without consideration of semantics is not possible. 15 As will be discussed in section 1.2.7, this event type is, of course, a good example of ‘gradience’ in grammar (cf. e.g. B. Aarts, 2004), i.e. a category with central members, peripheral members and fuzzy boundaries. The most prototypical member of this event type would be a GIVE-event. More peripheral members would be events of the ENVYtype, which Gropen et al. (1989: 241) relate to the central GIVE-type by subsuming envy under verbs of ‘future not having’. Note that this extension of the ditransitive event type is only compatible with the double-object construction, i.e. subtype [D1], but not with the prepositional variant, i.e. subtype [D2].

Ditransitive Verbs in Previous Research and in the Present Work

13

children her remarks does not exist. One could hypothesise a ‘syntactic gap’ here. That is to say that the language system as such would allow for this formal realisation – because of the aforementioned structural and semantic analogies – but, for no apparent reason, it runs counter to the actual norm in language use and is thus not attested.16 Speaking of syntactic gaps, the ditransitive verb provide is an even more interesting example. Quirk et al. (1985: 1210) include this verb in the basic subtype [D1], but this usage is labelled ‘’. From a large-scale analysis of four 1-million-word corpora and the 100-million-word British National Corpus (BNC), I have drawn the conclusion that in present-day American English, the verb provide is only used sporadically in subtype [D1] (cf. Mukherjee 2001: 299ff.) so that the question arises whether this complementation of provide is already a generally accepted and relevant norm in American usage. One could easily hypothesise in the light of the clear quantitative prevalence of subtypes [D2a] and [D2b] that there is a diachronic development going on in American English which could result in the establishment of the basic ditransitive complementation of provide, i.e. subtype [D1], in the foreseeable future. In other words, we are perhaps observing the closing of a syntactic gap as defined before.17 In a wider setting, this very example makes it clear that a categorisation of verbs into different types of complementation and/or transitivity which is also based on formal realisations will never cover all verbs which might fit in the categories from a semantic point of view. This disadvantage of introducing a formal component in the definition of ditransitive verbs is, however, largely outweighed by the advantage of not having to include verbs which do not at all meet the underlying semantic criteria of ditransitivity. Let us now turn to ditransitive subtypes [D3] to [D6] established in the Comprehensive Grammar. What they have in common is the realisation of the direct object as a finite clause (that-clause, wh-clause) or a non-finite clause (whinfinitive clause, to-infinitive). In particular, the special subcategory [D3pr] should be mentioned in which the ditransitive verb is said to be complemented with a prepositional object and a that-clause: Quirk et al. (1985: 1213) illustrate this pattern with constructions such as He wrote to me that ... and He reported to me that ... . It is obvious from Standop’s chain of argumentation outlined above that he calls into question the suitability of this category for a plausible linguistic description of ditransitive complementation. Since to me is a prepositional phrase, he does not consider such cases to be examples of ditransitivity (cf. Standop 16

In general, a ‘syntactic gap’ would then be a structurally possible syntactic form which, for whatever reasons, is not used. To a certain extent, such syntactic gaps resemble the ‘lexical gaps’ which Kjellmer (2003) has recently suggested. An example of a lexical gap would be the structurally possible but non-existent form *ancience, which might have been derived from the adjective ancient and which might mean “antiquity” or “ancient times”. 17 The plausibility of the hypothesis that the [D1]-complementation of provide is probably coming in was pointed out to me by Christian Mair (personal communication). To be precise, the [D1]-complementation of provide has probably been marginal for centuries, is steadily gaining acceptance in recent American English and is now spreading from there.

14

Chapter 1

2000: 254). As far as the clausal realisation of direct objects is concerned, note in this context that, unlike Quirk et al. (1985), F. Aarts and J. Aarts (1982: 138ff.) do not allow for a that-clause or a to-infinitive as direct objects since these constituents cannot become the subject of the corresponding passive sentence. I have already stated above that the present work is informed by the belief that Quirk et al.’s (1985) systematic correspondences between different formal realisations are in general useful (notwithstanding some problems involved, especially with regard to prepositional verbs) since they represent structural analogies which are symptomatic, as it were, of underlying semantic similarities. As will become clear at the end of this chapter, the present study is clearly to be seen in the descriptive tradition of the Quirk-grammars, but it is also an attempt to achieve a more balanced trade-off between syntactic and semantic criteria of ditransitivity. More specifically, I subscribe to the point of view that a definition of ditransitivity should unite syntactic and semantic aspects because the ditransitive syntax is indicative of ditransitive semantics. Thus, verbs should be considered ditransitive if they require a specific number and range of formal elements in order to attain syntactic completeness; the number and range of those formal elements, however, is largely conditioned by the meaning of the ditransitive verb. Thus, it makes sense to regard both I told him the story and I told him what happened as sentences with a ditransitive verb tell (which would be in line with the Comprehensive Grammar). The direct object may be realised as a noun phrase in the first sentence and as a wh-clause in the second one, but they are equally required by the ditransitive verb tell and have the same semantic role.18 This semantic analogy between the different syntactic structures is explained, for example, by Verspoor and Sauter (2000): Subjects and objects are the main participants in an event or situation and are usually persons or things. Therefore, they are commonly realized by a noun phrase. ... Sometimes a whole event or situation is seen as a 'thing' and can be seen as a participant. An event or situation is expressed by means of a clause. The type of clause that may function like an NP, often called a noun clause, may be finite or nonfinite. (Verspoor and Sauter, 2000: 154) In sum, there are many good reasons to base the description of ditransitive verbs on the categories and principles of the Comprehensive Grammar. However, in the present study the classification scheme in the Quirk-grammar is modified in one major respect since only those verbs are considered ditransitive which occur in the basic type of ditransitive complementation [D1] – with the formal realisation Oi:NP and Od:NP – in actual language use. If this is the case, all other variant complementations of a given verb are also taken to be ditransitive complementations of that verb. This procedure ensures that only verbs are taken into account 18

This is also very much in line with cognitive-linguistic concepts (see section 1.2.7).

Ditransitive Verbs in Previous Research and in the Present Work

15

which imply the ‘ditransitive meaning’, or – in Verspoor and Sauter’s (2000) terminology – display the ‘giving/buying pattern (ditransitive verbs)’: Sentences with the giving/buying pattern consist of a subject, predicator, indirect or benefactive object, and direct object. Therefore, for this pattern to occur, there must be an event involving at least three participants, a person who gives something to someone or does something for someone (the subject), then the thing that is given or done (the direct object), and the receiver (the indirect or benefactive object). (Verspoor and Sauter, 2000: 26) As will be shown later in this chapter, the notion of a ‘giving/buying pattern’ largely corresponds to descriptions of ditransitivity in valency theory and functional grammar (see sections 1.2.3 and 1.2.4). It also shows that the event type encoded by ditransitive verbs implies a transfer in the outside world which may be concrete or more abstract in nature. While a concrete transfer is linked to a proper ‘indirect object’, an abstract transfer is often associated with a ‘benefactive object’: The difference between an indirect object and a benefactive object is that an indirect object has the thing given in hand after the transfer, whereas the benefactive object does not … . John gave Peter the ball. The sentence implies that Peter now has the ball in his possession. John bought Peter the ball. This sentence does not necessarily imply that Peter now has the ball in his possession. (Verspoor and Sauter, 2000: 26f.) It will thus be necessary to include various types of transfer events in a model of ditransitivity so that both indirect objects and benefactive objects are accounted for.19 1.2.2 Generative grammar While descriptive and structurally-oriented grammars have paid particular attention to the systematisation of actual language use, the generative-transformational school of thought has exclusively focused on ideal speaker-hearers’ abstract competence, that is, on the development of a model of linguistic competence (or internal language, I-language). It is beyond the scope of the present work to review the history of generative approaches to language in its entirety. Rather, I am interested in the question whether the Chomskyan paradigm may offer more 19

Note again that the notion of transfer also includes instances of ‘negative transfer’, accounting for the ‘deprived’ object of verbs like envy.

16

Chapter 1

plausible and fine-tuned alternatives to the description and analysis of ditransitive verbs (and their complementation) than the descriptive grammars which have been dealt with in section 1.2.1. In this context, I will discuss in particular the most recent trend in generative grammar, for which the term ‘Minimalist Program’ (MP) has been coined (cf. e.g. Chomsky 1995, Radford 1997a and Radford 1997b).20 It should be noted, though, that despite the abundance of new concepts and terminologies, the Minimalist Program has to be seen in the tradition of previous generative theories such as the ‘Government-and-Binding’ (GB) and the ‘Principles-and-Parameters’ (P&P) theory in that all theories are intended to offer models of speakers’ abstract grammatical competence. In the Minimalist Program, the emphasis is shifted more towards ‘economy conditions’ so that the model can be represented as economically and with as few redundancies as possible. Thus, Culicover (1997) writes: The approach of MP is to account for the structure of language as the consequence of what are assumed to be intuitively natural ‘economy conditions’ on the computational mechanism that comprise grammars. (Culicover, 1997: 347) In pursuing the Minimalist Program, generativists dispense with a considerable number of concepts which were inherent in previous generative models. However, the subcomponents linked to those concepts are developed further and continue to be of pivotal importance for the minimalist approach, even though new technical terms are now introduced. For instance, the dichotomy of ‘deep structure’ and ‘surface structure’ is now extended by the ‘spell-out’ component, which makes it possible to proceed to the ‘phonetic form’ (PF) at any stage in the generation of language (Chomsky, 1995: 189). Also, the terminology of ‘government and binding’ is no longer used explicitly, but the underlying concept remains implicitly relevant (for example, when it comes to case assignment).21 In the Minimalist Program, a major “key assumption [is] that syntax is binary-branching” (Radford, 1997a: 379). Thus, any constituent is said to consist of a central ‘head’ and an extension of the head, i.e. the ‘specifier’. The constituent itself is the ‘projection’ of the head. Furthermore, a distinction is made only between two levels of projection. For example, in between the verb (V) and its maximal projection (the verb phrase, VP), there is only one additional level of projection, which is V'. The symbols for these categories (e.g. VP, V', V) are to be found at the ramifications and ends of the complex tree diagrams that evolve. Notwithstanding the similarities between minimalist tree diagrams and the diagrams in previous generative theories, there are two new categories in MP that are 20 Note, for example, that I am not going into details about Relational Grammar, the key interest of which is typological in nature: “in what ways do natural languages differ, and in what ways are they alike?” (Perlmutter, 1980: 195). 21 Interestingly enough, Chomsky (1995: 162), in reviewing previous generative theories such as the Government-and-Binding theory, speaks of a “misleading term that should be abandoned, in my view”.

Ditransitive Verbs in Previous Research and in the Present Work

17

particularly noteworthy: (1) the ‘determiner phrase’ (DP), replacing, by and large, the traditional concept of noun phrase (NP); (2) the ‘inflectional phrase’ (IP), which, among other things, is intended to replace the traditional notion of sentence (S) on top of a tree diagram. In fact, IP is a highly heterogeneous notion: “a category devised by Chomsky whose members include finite auxiliaries (which are INFLected for tense/agreement), and the INFinitivaL to)” (Radford, 1997b: 263). Figure 1-1, taken from Radford et al. (1999), visualises the way in which a simple sentence with a monotransitive verb (i.e. in the clause pattern SVO) is analysed minimalistically.

Figure 1-1:

An MP analysis of We do envy you (Radford et al., 1999: 316)

In Figure 1-1, IP comprises a determiner (D), which is the pronoun we functioning as subject, and I' (or Ī). I' comprises the auxiliary do, marked for tense and inflection (I), and a verb phrase (VP). Finally, VP consists of the lexical verb envy (V) and a determiner, which is the pronoun you functioning as direct object. Thus, the traditionally established unit of verb phrase is being analysed on two different levels: first, the lexical verb together with its object is considered a projection of the auxiliary do; second, the object itself is a projection of the lexical verb. Note that the tree diagram in Figure 1-1 does not indicate any functional categories of traditional clause elements. Furthermore, this example illustrates that the concept of transitivity obviously does not play a major role at the level of syntax in the Minimalist Program. The categorisation of verbs, say into intransitive and transitive ones (with the usual sub-classifcations), is not a matter of syntax in the Minimalist Program, which thus keeps to the generative tradition of viewing syntax as autonomous (and context-free). Rather, transitivity of verbs continues to be an issue to be tackled at the level of lexicon. In Figure 1-1 it is thus the lexical ‘complement feature’ [Obj] of the verb envy (referring to the necessity of an object) that comes into operation.22 22

Radford et al. (1999: 302) note that “complement features ... determine the range of complements which they [words] can or can’t take”. Of course envy may also be used as a ditransitive verb. Then, other complement features would be taken to come into operation.

18

Chapter 1

It is quite obvious that the minimalist approach poses a serious problem for the description of ditransitive verbs and their relation to both obligatorily required objects: the generative axiom that syntax is binary-branching does not allow for an analysis in which the ditransitive verb is equivalently associated with the direct object and the indirect object. If this axiom is to be upheld, one is forced to superordinate one object to the other object in the hierachy of constituents, which would imply that one object is in closer proximity to the verb than the other one. This not only refers to the tree diagram, but also to the underlying model of competence since such tree diagrams are believed to represent physically existent aspects of language-psychological reality: “The grammar represented in the mind is a real object” (Chomsky, 1980: 120); its “constructs and principles can properly be ‘termed mental’” (Chomsky, 2000: 168). The proximity to the verb is of pivotal importance to generativists because in the current ‘checking theory’ it is assumed that case assignment is only possible if the verb and the object (to be case-marked by the verb) are within one constituent, that is, if they display a local specifier-head relation. In this context, the superordinate node of the constituent is considered an invincible ‘barrier’.23 How then are sentences analysed in the Minimalist Program that imply ditransitive verbs and, thus, ditransitive complementation? Larson (1988), who introduces the concept of ‘vp-shells’, has been among the first generativists to delve more deeply into the ‘double object construction’ and its variation. Thus, vp-shells are often also called ‘Larsonian shells’ (cf. Culicover 1997: 364ff.), to which I now turn.24 Figure 1-2, which is taken from Culicover (1997), gives the design of the generative tree diagram of a syntactic structure in which a ditransitive verb is complemented with an indirect and a direct object.25 The problem now is that the verb is in the ‘wrong’ position, as it were. Following generative tenets, case assignment with regard to the indirect object is only possible if the verb is positioned immediately to its left (an assumption which mirrors a major aspect of the older concept of government). Thus, the verb has to be moved leftward, which is done by hypothesising an additional verb phrase (VP) on top of the given tree 23

Note that the programmatic title Barriers of Chomsky’s (1986) book refers to this very assumption. However, in some cases an ‘external checking’ is possible from the generative point of view, but continues to be seen as the exception rather than the rule. Accordingly, such verbs are called ‘exceptional case marking’ (ECM) verbs (Culicover, 1997: 31). Yet, there is no empirical evidence whatsoever for the exceptional status that is ascribed to ECM verbs. 24 It is not necessary here to go into detail about all the modifications and refinements of the Larsonian model that have been offered, for example, by den Dikken (1995: 109ff.) and Brandt (2001). 25 The tree diagram in Figure 1-2 goes back to the ‘c-command’ rule (with ‘c’ standing for ‘constituent’): “A node X c-commands another node Y if the mother of X dominates Y, and X and Y are disconnected (X and Y are disconnected if X ≠ Y and neither dominates the other)” (Radford, 1997a: 112). With regard to the double object construction, this rule leads to the analysis given in Figure 1-2 since – as Culicover (1997: 368) states – “the indirect object must c-command the direct object”.

Ditransitive Verbs in Previous Research and in the Present Work

19

diagram, cf. Figure 1-3. The ditransitive verb, which in Figure 1-3 is give, can then be raised to the empty V-position of the outer ‘vp-shell’.

Figure 1-2:

The starting-point for a Larsonian analysis of the double object construction (Culicover, 1997: 368)

Figure 1-3:

The Larsonian vp-shell analysis (Culicover, 1997: 369)

Broadly, the analysis offered in Figure 1-3 is based on the assumption that there is an outer vp-shell to which the verb moves from its original position because it is said to be merged with a hypothetical ‘light verb’ in the vp-shell (cf. Culicover, 1997: 419 and Radford, 1997b: 201). This light verb is believed to be in the empty V-slot [e] and to have a ‘light’ meaning along the lines of “an abstract causative light verb ∅ – i.e. a null verb with much the same causative interpretation as a verb like make” (Radford 1997b: 201). As for the sentence She gave her a doll, the theory of light verbs in vp-shells results in the analysis given in Figure 1-4. In the tree diagram in Figure 1-4, the ditransitive verb gave is in the wrong position initially (i.e. to the right of the indirect object). It is moved leftward (and simultaneously upward) so that it merges with the hypothetical light verb made in

20

Chapter 1

IP D

I' I [e]

VP Spec [e]

V' V [made]

VP V'

DPio V

DPobj

gave She Figure 1-4:

gave

her

a doll

A vp-shell analysis of She gave her a doll

a newly introduced vp-shell. This light verb has a causative interpretation in the sense of ‘someone/something makes her give...’, which is said to be the semantic contribution of the outer vp-shell to the meaning of the sentence. In principle, this very vp-shell is needed because of the additional V-slot it provides (initially filled with the light verb made) and to which the ditransitive verb gave can be moved: this movement makes it possible, then, to map the tree diagram onto the sentence She gave her a doll. However, for theory-internal reasons it is also considered necessary to move the indirect object leftward (and upward), so that the diagram in Figure 1-4 does not yet provide the complete analysis according to the Larsonian-shell hypothesis. At this stage, Figure 1-4 is just intended to visualise the movement of the ditransitive verb and how it is merged with a light verb. To recapitulate, a solution to the initially wrong position of the verb is thus to draw on abstract light verbs in hypothetical vp-shells. With regard to ditransitive complementation with the indirect object realised as a prepositional phrase, this solution results in a somewhat less complex tree diagram and is therefore visualised first here. Figure 1-5, taken over from Culicover (1997), refers to the verb phrase send a letter to Mary. The corresponding double object construction with both objects realised as noun phrases (i.e. the verb phrase send Mary a letter) is analysed similarly. However, as Figure 1-6, also taken over from Culicover (1997), shows, it is considered necessary to also move the indirect object Mary to the DP-slot of a superordinated constituent in order to meet the generative criteria for case assignment. Figure 1-6 thus visualises the raising of both the ditransitive verb and the indirect object.

Ditransitive Verbs in Previous Research and in the Present Work

21

Figure 1-5:

An analysis of the verb phrase send a letter to Mary (Culicover, 1997: 370)

Figure 1-6:

An analysis of the verb phrase send Mary a letter (Culicover 1997, 370)

The analysis of the corresponding passive constructions requires even more positional shifts of the object for it to become the subject because many more vpshells are now necessary between the original position of the object and the target position of the subject. For the purpose of the present study, the general question arises whether and to what extent the concept of ditransitivity can be integrated into the generative model of light verbs and vp-shells. Is the actual verb (in the inner vp-

22

Chapter 1

shell) ditransitive, or is the hypothetical verb in the outer vp-shell ditransitive, or is ditransitivity inherent in and/or conditioned by both verbs? In a wider setting, one has to wonder whether ditransitivity can be reconciled with strictly binarybranching generative models at all. In particular, the fact that the ditransitive verb equally requires a direct and an indirect object is largely at odds with the generative assumption that case assignment only applies to one object which, then, is more closely related to the verb than the other object. The conclusion must be drawn that the analysis of both objects as mandatory clause elements cannot be adequately mapped onto a generative tree diagram. As already pointed out by Dixon (1965: 169), “insistence on binary splits will tend to obscure the correlations originally recognised, and unnecessarily reduce the faithfulness of a description without significantly adding to its simplicity.” However, this is not so much a problem of graphic representation but of the underlying language theory since tree diagrams are believed to represent the cognitive reality of language in generative grammar. A further theoretical problem that generative grammar poses for a viable description and analysis of ditransitive verbs is the fact that, for the most part, generative grammarians deliberately abstain from taking into consideration functional categories (such as direct and indirect object), let alone semantic roles of the functional categories, but confine themselves to the level of formal realisations at phrase level (and their ‘thematic roles’). In the Comprehensive Grammar, ditransitive complementation is primarily defined in terms of the clause pattern SVOO, that is, by referring to the functional categories that are required by the verb and that correlate with a range of different formal realisations (see section 1.2.1). In generative grammar, on the other hand, objects and all other functional categories are seen as “universal syntactically primitive elements of grammar” (Bresnan 1982: 283).26 They are not systematically applied to syntactic analysis and are thus not represented in the corresponding tree diagrams because a careful consideration of the level of functional categories runs counter to the basic generative view that syntax should be described by means of a strictly formal set of rules.27 26

This has not changed in the Minimalist Program. It is telling that Radford (1997a) uses the term ‘object’ only very sporadically. Furthermore, he explicitly points out in the context of ditransitive verb complementation that ‘object’ is a concept associated with ‘traditional grammar’: “Since complement DPs are referred to as objects in traditional grammar, structures like (35) [They will get the teacher a present, Could you pass me the salt, James Bond showed her his credentials] are said to be instances of the double-object construction” (Radford, 1997a: 377). 27 Note, however, that in Lexical-Functional Grammar (LFG), grammatical relations are no longer treated as primitives (cf. van Valin, 2001: 191). What is taken over from the established generative tradition, though, is the exclusive focus on isolated sentences and on syntactic constraints and features (with a significant role ascribed to the lexicon) as well as a particular interest in the typological variety of syntactic structures across languages. Thus, the ‘functionalism’ of LFG does not refer to the context-dependent discourse function of syntax, but to the consideration of semantic restrictions in a context-independent model of syntax. For an overview of LFG see Bresnan (1982, 2000).

Ditransitive Verbs in Previous Research and in the Present Work

23

The suggestion that ditransitive verbs (and also complex-transitive verbs) are merged with abstract light verbs in vp-shells has found wide-spread acceptance in generative grammar and can be found in standard introductions to the Minimalist Program such as Radford (1997a, 1997b). In my view, however, the whole chain of argumentation is based on a very shaky foundation. In general, since performance data are considered irrelevant to the understanding of the internalised competence, it is quite clear that the Minimalist Program as such has little to offer to descriptive linguists who are predominantly interested in actual language use, as for example the use of ditransitive verbs in real contexts by real speakers. In particular, the vp-shell argument outlined above brings to light the fact that generative models of competence can never be verified or falsified empirically as long as they are not based on large amounts of observable and testable data but only on very few invented and decontextualised sentences. But not only the lack of linguistic data is a problem; even more serious is the lack of neurobiological evidence, as generative grammar is in fact an attempt to develop a model of language cognition, of language in the mind, i.e. ‘I-language’. This being so, it is somewhat puzzling to see the rise of the vp-shell hypothesis without any cognitive data supporting this assumption. As things stand, I do not see any compelling reason for adopting the highly speculative and merely intuition-based vp-shell hypothesis because there nothing in the data to make its adoption plausible. Rather, it appears to me as though the vp-shell and the light verb in it have been suggested largely in order to overcome an analytical problem caused by the generative model itself. That it is virtually impossible to verify or falsify any generative account on the basis of observable data is also corroborated by the generative notion of ‘dative shift’ or ‘dative movement’. In early transformational grammar, ‘dative movement’ served as a classic example (besides, say, the active-passive alternation) of a transformational rule by means of which two surface structures were shown to be derived from one and the same deep structure. Baker (1978), for example, analyses the transformation between examples (4) and (5). (4) (5)

Alice sent a book to Alfred Alice sent Alfred a book

Baker (1978) formulates the transformational rule to be applied here as follows: Dative Movement X – V – NP – to – NP 1 2 3 4 5 => 1, 2 + 5, 3, 0, 0 (Optional)

28

(Baker, 1978: 248)28

In the formula for the transformational rule, the first zero refers to the omission of the preposition to. The second zero indicates that the old position of ‘5’ remains empty because the NP in ‘5’ is now placed before the NP in ‘3’.

24

Chapter 1

He does not ignore the fact that some verbs, such as report, convey and say, do not allow for dative movement. This problem can be solved, Baker (1978: 249) writes, “if we include the rule feature in the lexical entries of the verbs report, convey and say.” The important point here is that at the level of syntax, a general transformational rule of dative movement continues to be postulated while exceptional cases are dealt with in the lexicon. One may approve of this transformational rule or not: what is surprising is the fact that other generative models offer completely different accounts. Ouhalla (1994: 145), for example, discusses a very similar pair of examples:29 (6)

Mary gave the book to John Mary I [VP gave [NP the book] [PP to John]]

(7)

Mary gave John the book Mary I [VP gave [NP John] [NP the book]]

Ouhalla (1994) holds the view that the syntactic changes involved here are not a matter of transformation because they cannot be captured by a generally applicable transformational rule: There is evidence which suggests that the pattern [V NP NP] shown in (64) [here 10b], called Dative Shift, is unlikely to be derived by a transformational rule from an underlying structure with the order [V NP PP]. Although a substantial number of verbs which select two internal arguments, e.g. give, send, buy, allow the Dative Shift pattern, there are verbs which do not. For example, although the verb donate is close in meaning to the verb give, it does not tolerate the Dative Shift pattern ... . Transformational rules are usually not sensitive to individual lexical items, given that they operate on (classes of) categories. (Ouhalla, 1994: 145f.) Specifically, while Baker (1978) suggests a transformational rule that is responsible for the so-called dative movement, Ouhalla (1994) rejects such a rule on grounds of its inapplicability to all ditransitive verbs. In my view, the two fundamentally different positions highlight a methodological and a related theoretical problem, both of which are typical, I feel, of mainstream generativism in general. The methodological problem refers to the fact that there is no empirical and/or testable evidence for either position.30 Why does Baker speak of a transform29

Note that both Baker (1978) and Ouhalla (1994) still use the term ‘noun phrase’ (NP) which has recently been replaced with ‘determiner phrase’ (DP). 30 Consider in this context also van Valin’s (2001: 191) comparison of different generative approaches to dative shift and active-passive alternation. He points out that both phenomena have been described in terms of lexical rules (e.g. in Lexical-Functional Grammar) and in terms of syntactic rules (e.g. in Relational Grammar).

Ditransitive Verbs in Previous Research and in the Present Work

25

ational rule at work here and try to come to terms with obvious exceptions at the level of the lexicon? Is it because the exceptions are exceptions in quantitative terms? This appears doubtful since frequency in text has never been considered relevant in the generative paradigm. In fact, Givón (1984) calls into question the usefulness of the concept of dative shift because the syntactic arrangement with a seemingly shifted dative turns out to be the unmarked case in actual language use: It is normally taken for granted that the promotion of DAT/BEN [dative/ benefactive] objects to DO [direct object] via Dative Shifting is an ‘optional’, ‘stylistic’ device in English and other languages (Indonesian). However, a careful study of frequency distributions in live text reveals that in such unsolicited discourse the overwhelming bulk of DAT/BEN objects appear as DO rather than IO. (Givón, 1984: 155) In the light of these findings, it may well be argued that – contrary to the dativeshifting hypothesis – it is (7) rather than (6) which is more basic. On the other hand, why does Ouhalla reject the applicability of a transformational rule to the dative shift altogether? In his line of argumentation it seems as if he suggests that one cannot speak of transformation whenever the postulated requirements of transformational rules are not met. However, he takes for granted that transformational rules as defined by generativists do exist in the psychological reality of language. This leads us to the theoretical problem mentioned above. Many concepts and categories, e.g. transformation, which have been posited in generative grammar on the basis of invented and isolated sentences (and the intuition-based judgment on their grammatical well-formedness) prove irrelevant when it comes to the careful analysis of large amounts of authentic data. In this context, Gross (1979) is perfectly to the point: ... when one possesses an extensive picture of a language, i.e. a categorization of the great bulk of the lexical elements and their local constraints, one sees that the formal notion of transformation, as promulgated by GG [generative grammar], is of marginal importance. GG bears only on insignificant and arbitrary parts of the materials. Moreover, it has never developed the means to verify its limitations. (Gross, 1979: 873) Other concepts in generative grammar as well, for example vp-shells and light verbs, represent mere speculation about linguistic competence: their existence, let alone their suitability for grammatical description, is a matter of belief rather than of linguistic evidence and descriptive plausibility. Note that in the Minimalist Program, vp-shells and light verbs are also drawn on in order to account for the systematic correspondence between ditransitive variants, i.e. [V NP NP] and [V NP PP]. Chomsky (1995) writes:

26

Chapter 1 V [gave] raises to the empty main verb position of the higher VP shell, yielding John gave a book to Bill. Alternatively, operations similar to those yielding the passive construction could ‘absorb’ the Case of Bill, forcing it to raise to the subjectlike position of a book, which in turn becomes an adjunct, yielding John gave Bill a book. (Chomsky, 1995: 62f.)

The big imponderable is that, unfortunately, Chomsky does not explain how case can in fact be ‘absorbed’. Furthermore, it remains a mystery to me why a book in John gave Bill a book should be considered an adjunct. It is also telling that in the recent Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, Huddleston and Pullum (2002: 1038) refrain from applying the Larsonian analysis and make use of a ternary analysis although there is a clear preference for binary analyses throughout the grammar (which is strongly influenced by generative concepts and rigidly formalist classifications in general; cf. Leech, 2004). In conclusion, the application of the generative framework to the description of ditransitive verbs is fraught with problems, as the examples discussed in this section reveal. Anagnostopoulous’s (2003) large-scale typologically-oriented study of ditransitive verbs does not solve any of these problems since she does not critically review the theory-internal assumptions and does not call into question existing categories and labels (e.g. vp-shells) which are neither derived from authentic data nor corroborated by any other kind of empirical evidence. As Trotta (2000) points out: ... classifications and labels can be very misleading and create a kind of virtual reality which may blind the researcher and prevent them from open-mindedly studying the one which actually exists. (Trotta, 2000: 6) My impression is that this is precisely what has been happening in mainstream generative grammar for quite some time. 1.2.3 Valency theory Valency theory has evolved from Tesnière’s (1953) dependency theory. In this framework, verbs (but also nouns and adjectives) are seen as items which to a considerable extent govern their syntactic environment because of the valencies that are inherent in these items. In his initial approach to verb valency, Tesnière (1959) takes into account quantitative valencies, i.e. the different number of clause elements required by different verbs. Within this framework, ditransitive verbs such as give are labelled ‘trivalent’ since they must be complemented with a subject and two objects.31 Furthermore, verbs are analysed in terms of their 31

I will, however, continue to speak of ‘ditransitive’ verbs for two reasons. First, this term has found more general acceptance for verbs requiring two objects. Second, the term

Ditransitive Verbs in Previous Research and in the Present Work

27

qualitative valency, i.e. in regard to the kinds of obligatory clause elements (e.g. noun phrase, prepositional phrase, that-clause, to-infinitive).32 Apart from the quantitative and qualitative valency of verbs, particular attention has been paid to the question whether and to what extent clause elements are in fact obligatory (cf. e.g. Allerton, 1982: 61ff. and Klotz, 2000: 11ff.). In bringing together previous attempts to systematise different kinds of valency, Klotz (2000: 14) suggests a gradient with truly obligatory clause elements placed at one end of the gradient (‘obligatorische Ergänzungen’) and entirely optional elements at the other end (‘freie Angaben’). In between obligatory and optional elements we find different kinds of elements that may be omitted for various reasons (‘fakultative Ergänzungen’). For example, clause elements may be deleted (and the corresponding valency of the verb thus suppressed) because they “can be assumed to be contextually evident to the listener” (Allerton, 1982: 69): such elements would be contextually optional (‘kontextuell-fakultative Ergänzungen’). Clause elements may also be omitted because they are easily inferrable from world knowledge (‘stereotyp-fakultative Ergänzungen’). As a matter of fact, there are many problems of demarcation involved. For example, Klotz (2000: 13) mentions instrumental with-PPs, which are principally optional elements (e.g. He destroyed his computer [with a virus-infected disk]) but may become the notional subject of the sentence, which is more typical of obligatory clause elements (e.g. A virus-infected disk destroyed the computer). However, it is not necessary to go into details about such problems of demarcation since ditransitive verbs, which are of interest here, have to be complemented with two obligatory objects. It has to be admitted, though, that many ditransitive verbs can also be used in the monotransitive clause pattern with one object alone (see section 1.2.1). But the in-depth analysis of corpus data in chapter 3 will provide ample testimony of the fact that the deleted object is contextually reconstructible in the vast majority of cases. The working premise at this stage is that neither the indirect nor the direct object (let alone the subject) is to be considered an entirely optional clause element. A particularly important aspect of recent valency theory is the distinction of syntactic and semantic valency. The concept of syntactic valency refers to the range of syntactic structures which are permitted with specific verbs at the level of formal realisations of obligatory clause elements. In a similar vein to the Comprehensive Grammar (see section 1.2.1), Klotz (2000: 14) views Jenny in John gave Jenny a bunch of roses and to Jenny in John gave a bunch of roses to Jenny as variations of one and the same valency slot since the noun phrase Jenny and the prepositional phrase to Jenny are co-referential. From the point of view of valency theory, the two sentences are thus considered equivalent. This example ‘trivalent’ would also refer to complex-transitive verbs in the clause patterns SVOC and SVOA. 32 The necessarily brief overview in this section owes a large debt to previous discussions of verb valency, particularly by Emons (1978), Allerton (1982) and Klotz (2000). Note that Klotz (2000) also provides a corpus-based analysis of some ditransitive verbs by drawing on the Bank of English Corpus. Some of his results and conclusions obtained from corpus data will thus be discussed at a later stage (see chapter 3).

28

Chapter 1

illustrates the fact that in valency theory, too, analogies are drawn between different formal realisations at the level of functional categories. This, of course, implies that in both sentences give is regarded as a ditransitive verb although the clause pattern SVOO is only apparent in the sentence John gave Jenny a bunch of roses, whereas in John gave a bunch of roses to Jenny one might hypothesise a complex-transitive verb give in the clause pattern SVOA (as suggested by Standop (2000), see section 1.2.1). The concept of semantic valency refers to the meaning-side of the clause elements required by the meaning of the verb. In principle, the semantic level of valency is more basic than the syntactic one because syntactic valency is conditioned by the semantic valency of a given verb. With regard to the ditransitive verb give, Klotz (2000: 16) points out that it is the inherent semantic structure of the verb, which he paraphrases as “A causes B to have C”, that leads to the syntactic trivalence of give. Thus, syntactic valency is a secondary phenomenon: syntactic elements are required by the verb because of the meaning of the verb. Also, the syntactic elements can be viewed as formal realisations of underlying ‘semantic roles’. This is in line with Fillmore’s (1968: 24) set of ‘case roles’, which has exerted an enormous influence on many linguistic studies and grammars such as the Comprehensive Grammar with its ‘semantic roles’ (see section 1.2.1). Accordingly, the concept of semantic roles in the argument structure (underlying ditransitive complementation) will play a major part in the definition of ditransitivity in the present study (see section 1.3.1).33 Valency theory has much in common with the structuralist approach of the Quirk-grammars. Although Quirk et al. (1985) use the term ‘valency’ as such only once, the important aspects and implications of the concept of valency are covered by their preferred term ‘complementation’ (see section 1.2.1): the requirement of two objects in the complementation of ditransitive verbs refers to quantitative valency, the range of formal realisations of clause elements that a specific ditransitive verb allows for refers to qualitative valency, and the distinction between clause elements as syntactic categories and the semantic roles that they fulfil mirrors – at least, generally – the distinction between syntactic and semantic valency. Proponents of valency theory have always seen syntax and semantics as closely related. As has been noted before (see section 1.2.1), this interrelation is not made very explicit in the Comprehensive Grammar with regard to ditransitive verbs in particular. The following section is thus devoted to some major approaches in functional grammar that have investigated more closely the interrelation of ditransitive syntax and semantics.

33

The concept of semantic roles plays an important part in virtually all functional grammars (see section 1.2.4). The construction grammar approach goes back to Fillmore’s (1968) seminal article on case roles and will be discussed more closely in section 1.2.7.

Ditransitive Verbs in Previous Research and in the Present Work

29

1.2.4 Functional grammar and semantico-syntactical approaches ‘Functional grammar’ is used here as a generic term to describe a wide range of linguistic approaches to grammatical relations.34 Although many theories and models of grammars have been given the label ‘functional’ or ‘functionalist’, it is important to note that “[t]he term function is not unambiguous” (Daneš, 1987: 4). It is thus necessary to briefly sketch out major aspects of the inherent ambiguity of the term ‘functional’ and to clarify how the term will be used in the present study. Daneš (1987) distinguishes five different types of ‘functional’ approaches to language that can be found both in linguistics in general and in Prague-school linguistics in particular: 1. the methodological device to start from the common needs of communication of expression (= from functions) and to ask by what means these needs are satisfied in the analysed language; a comparison of different languages without regard to their genetic relations is possible chiefly on the basis of the common needs of communication and expression; 2. external functions of language (and/or utterances); 3. functions of the units of a language system; 4. some other cases of the use of the attribute functional [e.g. the ‘functional load’ of minimal pairs in phonology]; 5. functional explanation of language development. (Daneš, 1987: 9) The use of ‘functional’ for methodological (e.g. contrastive and typological), diachronic and other purposes (as for example in the context of ‘functional load’ of linguistic elements) – i.e. definitions 1, 4 and 5 – are of minor relevance to the present study. Of particular importance are definitions 2 and 3: they embrace language-external and language-internal functions respectively. External functions of language – and, thus, of grammar – refer to communicative (or poetic or intellectual) goals that speakers want to achieve by using language in a given discourse context.35 In this category, grammatical structures and devices are viewed as fulfilling communicative and, in the widest sense, pragmatic functions. The use of grammatical structures can be explained, for example, by means of pragmatic principles (such as end-focus and end-weight) as well as considerations of given and new information (or theme and rheme) that may explain why in given contexts language users prefer particular grammatical choices. Internal functions, on the other hand, include the functions that linguistic units of a particular level fulfil at another linguistic level. This category thus picks up on 34

Thus, ‘functional grammar’ in this context is not restricted to – but is meant to include – Dik’s (1978, 1989, 1997) theory of functional grammar. 35 This aspect is closely related to Jakobson’s (1960: 357) discussion of the ‘six basic functions of verbal communication’. See also the discussion offered by König (1977: 1ff.).

30

Chapter 1

Vachek’s (1976: 72) concept of ‘functional complementation’: “the components of a lower level are functionally complemented into a unit of the neighbouring higher level.” At clause level, various formal realisations (e.g. noun phrase, thatclause, to-infinitive) can be taken to be functionally complemented into ‘functional categories’ at the neighbouring higher level, i.e. clause elements (e.g. direct object).36 A third domain of the term ‘functional’, which sits somewhat uneasily on the boundary between language-external and language-internal functions, is the exploration of meaning in language. Sgall et al.’s (1973) model of a ‘functional generative grammar’ is a good example of many frameworks in which ‘functional’ is used in the sense of ‘semantic’: “it appears that the characteristic ‘functional’ in the approach of Sgall’s group only underlies the semantic character of their generative conception” (Daneš, 1987: 22). At the level of ditransitive verb complementation, this meaning of ‘functional’ is closely related to the languageexternal, communicative/pragmatic dimension of ‘functional’ (see above).37 The three relevant dimensions of the notion of ‘function(al)’ are summarised in the upper part of Figure 1-7: (a) in terms of ‘functional categories’; (b) in terms of ‘semantic’; (c) in terms of ‘communicative/pragmatic’. function / functional

(a) function of a linguistic unit on another linguistic level (= ‘internal’ function) => ‘functional category’ (clause elements) Figure 1-7:

(b) function as meaning of linguistic form (= semantics)

(c) communicative/ pragmatic function in discourse (= ‘external’ function)

=> ‘function(al)’ (semantic and pragmatic)

Dimensions of ‘function’/‘functional’

As shown in the lower part of Figure 1-7, the term ‘function(al)’ will be used in the present study for aspects of semantic and language-external (pragmatic) functions of linguistic forms. This is in line with Dik’s (1987) definition of ‘functional’, which embraces semantic and pragmatic aspects:

36

Note that the postulation of language-internal functions is peculiar to Prague-school linguistics and rejected by most American functionalists (cf. Newmeyer, 2001: 113f.). 37 For example, specific realisations (that-clause vs. noun phrase) of a clause element (e.g. direct object) required by a ditransitive verb (e.g. tell) fulfil at the same time semantic and pragmatic functions (see section 3.1.2.2).

Ditransitive Verbs in Previous Research and in the Present Work

31

In the Functional Paradigm, syntax cannot be regarded as autonomous with respect to semantics. Rather, the very essence of syntax is that it provides the means for creating meaningful expressions. And the system of language cannot be regarded as autonomous with regard to pragmatics. Rather, the very essence of language is that it must function properly and effectively in verbal interaction. (Dik, 1987: 82) The only level at which the present study of ditransitive verbs will have to take into consideration language-internal functions of linguistic forms is at the level of clause elements, i.e. subject, direct object, indirect object. In the present study, I will refer to these clause elements as ‘functional categories’. What all grammars that are functional in the sense of Figure 1-7 have in common is the central assumption that grammatical forms are dependent on the functions they fulfil and that, consequently, grammatical forms can be explained in functional terms. In a weaker sense, the Quirk-grammars can also be subsumed into the category of functional grammars. In the present section, however, it is my intention to look more closely at functional grammars in the fullest sense, namely at grammatical descriptions in which the linguistic connection between syntax and semantics provides the main guideline for grammatical analysis. Major examples of what I would like to call ‘semantico-syntactical approaches’ to grammar are Jackson’s (1990) Grammar and Meaning, Dixon’s (1991) New Approach to English Grammar on Semantic Principles and Halliday’s (1994) Functional Grammar. In the following, I will explore in particular what the three studies have to offer with regard to ditransitive verbs.38 Jackson’s (1990: 159) semantic interpretation of the clause pattern SVOO has already been mentioned in section 1.2.1. By scrutinising the sentence Bill offered Jane a chocolate on the bus last night, Jackson (1990) describes why the verb requires specific semantic roles to be filled:39 ... the participants in the drama of ‘offering’ are Bill, Jane and a chocolate. The drama of ‘offering’ has the cast of ‘offerer’, ‘offeree’ and ‘thing offered’; they have the semantic roles of AGENTIVE, RECIPIENT and AFFECTED respectively. ... The participants are more or less obligatory elements in a proposition. A particular

38

Horie and Comrie (2000: 3f.) point out that the borders between functional grammar and typological studies as well as cognitive linguistics are fuzzy. The combination of the three perspectives (i.e. language functions, language typology and language cognition) is at the basis of the chain of argumentation in very influential monographs such as Comrie (1989), Croft (1990) and Givón (1995). Note also that it is beyond the scope of the present study to consider functional grammars in their entirety. Other important works in this field include, for example, Green (1974), Givón (1979), Cattell (1984) and Wierzbicka (1988). 39 The term ‘drama’ is used to denote the abstract features of the underlying proposition: “A proposition ... may be seen as representing a kind of drama” (Jackson, 1990: 46).

32

Chapter 1 situation type, represented by a verb with a particular meaning, expects a certain cast of participants ... . (Jackson, 1990: 46)

While the participants are more or less obligatory, the circumstances – i.e. the adverbials on the bus and last night in the example at hand – are dispensable: “Circumstances, on the other hand, cannot be generally said to be necessary for the completeness of a proposition” (Jackson, 1990: 47). This certainly resembles the distinction of obligatory and optional clause elements in valency theory (cf. section 1.2.3).40 On the strength of his focus on primarily semantic relations and dependencies, Jackson (1990) is now able to explain much more plausibly the possible omission of contextually reconstructible participants, e.g. in the sentence I’ve brought you lovely, lovely presents (i.e. sentence [K28:82] taken from the LOB Corpus) and other bring-sentences: ... a proposition referring to the situation type bring will contain three elements in addition to the ACTION: (1) AGENTIVE, (2) AFFECTED, (3) LOCATIVE (SOURCE/GOAL) or RECIPIENT. The third element may be omitted under certain contextual conditions, viz if it is ‘here’. We may say therefore that these elements are semantically obligatory with bring, which determines their presence and on which they are dependent. (Jackson, 1990: 139) It should be noted in passing that this interpretation could also explicate the example of She gave a doll which Standop (2000: 223) mentions (see section 1.2.1). In this example as well, give remains a ditransitive verb. That is, the underlying situation type is of the usual GIVING type. The recipient is simply omitted because it is inferrable from the context or because a specification of the recipient is irrelevant to the context. Jackson (1990) also refers to the similar case of We’ll give a nice one and argues that the seemingly incomplete syntax can be explained if the actual context is considered so that the meaning (and semantic valency) of the verb give is left intact: [99] We’ll give a nice one A first reaction might be to declare [99] ungrammatical, and to ask ‘Who’ll be given a nice one?’ But if we imagine [99] said in the context of donating prizes for a competition or items for a charity auction, then it begins to sound more grammatical. (Jackson, 1990: 161)

40

Note that Jackson also sees the ‘verb with a particular meaning’ as the item which governs both semantic roles and syntactic structures in the sentence. A comprehensive list of semantic groupings of verbs is provided by Levin (1993: 111-276).

Ditransitive Verbs in Previous Research and in the Present Work

33

In a similar vein, the direct object may also be deleted for contextual reasons, as for example in the following case: 41 [100] We give to Oxfam An appropriate context for [100] might be as a reason for not putting anything in the collecting tin of an alternative charity. (Jackson, 1990: 161) Basically, this functional analysis is an operationalisation of Matthews’s (1981: 125) concept of ‘latent’ objects – that is, objects that are semantically obligatory, but that are dropped syntactically because they are contextually reconstructible. The important thing here is that in such cases there may be an incomplete sentence but not an incomplete utterance due to the latency of the object not explicitly expressed (cf. Matthews 1981: 38ff.). Whether a sentence, say with a ditransitive verb, is in fact an incomplete sentence or an incomplete utterance can be clarified only if the context is looked at. This is where the corpus as a large and representative sample of authentic language use comes into play. By considering the context of language use, corpus analyses may help identify context-dependent factors which may lead to a deletion of otherwise obligatory clause elements. In the light of Jackson’s aforementioned examples (which are taken from the LOB Corpus), it proves necessary to clearly distinguish between syntactically and semantically obligatory elements (or, between syntactic and semantic valency) because the omitted clause element remains semantically obligatory (but is not necessitated syntactically). It is quite obvious that descriptive and structuralist grammars, which are predominantly oriented towards the norm of syntactically well-formed (and, thus, complete) sentences, make it difficult to put such a distinction into practice. It goes without saying that in generative grammar, which is based on the assumption that syntax is autonomous (and, in principle, independent of semantics), it is even more difficult to allow for syntactically incomplete but at the same time semantically complete sentences. Functional grammar, on the other hand, is a particularly useful point of reference since at its heart lies the principal assumption that grammar and meaning are virtually inseparable: “grammar and meaning combine to enable the multitude of communication functions that we call upon language to serve” (Jackson, 1990: 256). From a functionalist point of view, it is reasonable to assume that ditransitive complementation represents not only a syntactic but also a semantic phenomenon. More specifically, ditransitive verbs are semantically similar in that the underlying situation types, including the number and kind of participants involved, are similar. It is due to these semantic commonalities that ditransitive verbs are associated with the ditransitive complementation syntactically. To a certain extent, ditransitivity thus provides an example of iconicity between syntax

41

This makes perfect sense since in corresponding passive constructions the by-agent may also be readily omitted.

34

Chapter 1

and semantics: “language has a general iconic tendency whereby semantic sameness is reflected also by formal sameness” (Anttila 1972: 89).42 The interrelation of syntax and semantics is emphasised to an even larger extent by Dixon (1991: 6), who starts off by classifying nouns, adjectives and verbs into ‘semantic types’, defined as “large classes [of words] that have common meaning components”, in order to identify similarities in grammatical structures that are associated with words of the same semantic type. For the purpose of the present work, what Dixon (1991) has to say about the semantic type of ditransitive verbs is of particular importance: A set of verbs is grouped together as one semantic type partly because they require the same set of participant roles. All GIVING verbs require a Donor, a Gift and a Recipient, as in John gave a bouquet to Mary, Jane lent the Saab to Bill ... . (Dixon, 1991: 9) In a similar vein to Jackson’s approach, Dixon thus assumes that the meaning of the ditransitive verb triggers off the typical ditransitive situation type (or ‘semantic type’). Dixon’s methodology, though, is slightly different from Jackson’s in that he first classifies an amazingly great number of verbs into semantic types and then analyses the differences in verb complementation on semantic principles.43 That is, Dixon proceeds from the level of lexical meaning to syntax and and its semantics. This procedure leads to a variety of semantic types and subtypes of ditransitive verbs. Concerning lexical verbs, Dixon (1991) distinguishes between ‘Primary-A verbs’ and ‘Primary-B verbs’. Primary-A verbs choose an argument structure “with roles filled by NPs that have CONCRETE Heads” (Dixon, 1991: 94).44 On the other hand, Primary-B verbs “can also, unlike Primary-A, have a complement clause as alternative to an NP in one syntactic relation (e.g. John saw that Mary had won)” (Dixon, 1991: 124). Within Primary-A verbs, Dixon (1991: 94ff.) distinguishes between the following semantic types: (a) MOTION and REST (e.g. run, kneel); (b) AFFECT (e.g. hit, cut); (c) GIVING (e.g. give, donate); (d) CORPOREAL (e.g. eat, laugh); (e) WEATHER (e.g. rain, snow); (f) some further types such as COMPETITION and OBEYING. 42 Haiman (1980: 515) uses the term ‘motivation’ to capture such correspondences: “the structure of language directly reflects some aspects of the structure of reality.” 43 On the other hand, Jackson’s (1990) methodology is more oriented towards grammatical structures such as clause patterns. 44 ‘CONCRETE heads’ are nouns with a “CONCRETE reference, e.g. youth, horse, foot, piece, grass, star, fire, hill, city, table” (Dixon, 1991: 76).

Ditransitive Verbs in Previous Research and in the Present Work

35

The vast majority of ditransitive verbs occur in the GIVING type: “Verbs of this type involve three semantic roles – a DONOR transfers possession of some GIFT to a RECIPIENT” (Dixon, 1991: 113). Even though Dixon himself does not use the term ‘ditransitive’ as such, he implicitly regards all possible formal realisations of the semantic roles involved (in the complementation, say, of the verb give) as representing the same semantic type of GIVING, in this resembling the Comprehensive Grammar. Accordingly, he also groups verbs such as supply with into this semantic type, although they do not occur in the basic form of ditransitive complementation (i.e. with both objects realised as noun phrases). But they are semantically similar to ditransitive verbs proper. Some ditransitive verbs can be found in other semantic subtypes, for example the STAB subtype (e.g. cut) within the semantic type of AFFECT. In this semantic type, the ‘recipient’ is considered ‘benefactive’: examples such as I cut Mary a slice of bread and I knitted Mary a jumper are mentioned by Dixon (1991: 283f.). Also, ditransitive verbs are among the Primary-B verbs (i.e. with clausal complementation), in particular in some subtypes (esp. TELL and FORGIVE with the prototypical examples of tell and forgive) within the semantic type SPEAKING. In conclusion, Dixon thus identifies three general semantic types with which ditransitive verbs are associated: (1) GIVING, (2) AFFECT, (3) SPEAKING. Halliday’s (1994) terminology is differs considerably from Jackson’s and Dixon’s, but the underlying concepts are quite similar: the situation type/ semantic type is labelled ‘process type’ (with each process type correlating with a specific ‘category meaning’), and the semantic roles are called ‘participants’. Ditransitive verbs are thus said to be associated with process types in which the verb requires three partcipants, namely ‘actor’, ‘goal’ and ‘beneficiary’: “Actor is ‘logical subject’ and Goal is ‘logical direct object’, the Beneficiary is ‘logical indirect object’” (Halliday, 1994: 144). As in Dixon’s categorisation, ditransitive verbs occur in three different process types implying the typical ‘beneficiary’: “The Beneficiary is the one to whom or for whom the process is said to take place. It appears in material and verbal processes, and occasionally in relational” (Halliday, 1994: 144). Accordingly, Halliday (1994: 145) offers the following analysis of the sentence I gave my love a ring that has no end: (8)

I

gave

my love

a ring that has no end

Actor

Process: material

Beneficiary: Recipient

Goal

This analysis again throws light on the central role of the verb in functional grammar since it is the verb which determines the process type and, thus, the number and kind of participants involved. Beneficiaries (and, accordingly, ditransitive verbs) not only occur in material processes as in (8), but also in verbal processes (e.g. John told Mary a story) and in some relational processes (e.g. it cost him a pretty penny). Note that the Hallidayan categories correlate to a considerable ex-

36

Chapter 1

tent with Dixon’s aforementioned semantic types of GIVING (~ ‘material process’), SPEAKING (~ ‘verbal process’) and AFFECT (~ ‘relational process’).45 In all three functional approaches to ditransitive verbs that have been reviewed so far, some sort of shared semantic core is ascribed to the ditransitive complementation. Verbs are complemented ditransitively (and are, therefore, ditransitive verbs) because they require the same number and similar kinds of semantic roles. If we adhere to the semantic types suggested by Dixon (resembling, of course, the Hallidayan process types), the general conclusion can be drawn that ditransitive verbs denote concrete, abstract or verbal transfers in the extralinguistic world. This semantic quality of ditransitive verbs and their complementation is visualised in Figure 1-8.

acting entity

transferred entity

ditransitive verb

affected entity

GIVING or ACTING or SPEAKING ditransitive complementation Figure 1-8:

The semantic core of ditransitive complementation.

Figure 1-8 shows the ditransitive verb as the central element, which is associated with a particular configuration of three semantic roles. The three semantic roles and, accordingly, the ditransitive complementation (offering three corresponding syntactic slots) are required by all ditransitive verbs. The semantic type of the transfer inherent in all ditransitive verbs can be of three kinds: GIVING (i.e. a concrete and/or immediate transfer), AFFECT (i.e. an abstract or non-immediate transfer) or SPEAKING (i.e. a transfer of language). The two lines between the acting entity and the transferred entity as well as between the transferred entity and the affected entity reflect the the chronological order of the transfer event in that the transferred entity is transferred from the acting entity to the affected 45 It should be noted that Halliday (1994), unlike the Comprehensive Grammar (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 1215f.), does not regard to-infinitive clauses as potential direct objects of ditransitive verbs. Accordingly, when analysing the sentence he told Fred to do it, Halliday (1994: 145f.) argues that Fred is not the ‘receiver’ (and, thus, not the ‘beneficiary’) of the verbal process of TELLING, but rather the semantic or notional subject of a separate process denoted by the to-infinitive as such.

Ditransitive Verbs in Previous Research and in the Present Work

37

entity in the course of the underlying event. The dotted line between the acting entity and the affected entity illustrates the fact that the two entities are interrelated indirectly in that the affected entity is affected by the acting entity only via the transfer of the transferred entity.46 Thus, Figure 1-8 visualises the working premise at this stage that the ditransitive complementation represents a specific underlying semantic situation type, which is independent of a particular ditransitive verb but has to be specified by the given verb. Finally, Figure 1-8 indicates that at the level of the situation type underlying the ditransitive complementation, nothing specific is said about the linear order of entities nor about their possible formal realisations. Rather, it provides a rough-and-ready visualisation of the general propositional features of ditransitive complementation which are not yet bound to a specific surface structure. As will be discussed later in this chapter, there is no one-to-one relationship between semantic roles and specific positions in the linear order of elements nor between semantic roles and particular functional categories. 1.2.5 Corpus-based grammar While semantic types, as for example in Dixon’s (1991) sense, are usually the starting-points for functional grammarians, corpus-based grammar is characterised by a fundamentally different procedure, which is largely due to its distinct methodology. In corpus-based grammar, linguists first of all look for formal structures in language use (as represented by large corpora) by using appropriate software programs. In a second step, the data obtained from corpora are analysed quantitatively and qualitatively, including the semantic interpretation of the data and the establishment of semantic categories whenever necessary and possible. The major advantages of corpus-based methodology for descriptive linguistics have already been discussed in detail in previous studies (cf. e.g. Sinclair, 1991; Fillmore, 1992; McEnery and Wilson, 1996; Stubbs, 1996; Tognini-Bonelli, 1996; Biber et al., 1998; Kennedy, 1998; Lenz, 2000; Stubbs, 2001; TogniniBonelli, 2001; Meyer, 2002; Mukherjee, 2002a). It should therefore suffice here to summarise the advantages by quoting Hunston and Francis (2000): The data is authentic; The data is not selected on linguistic grounds; There is a lot of data; The data is systematically organised; The data is not annotated in terms of existing theories. (Hunston and Francis, 2000: 15)

46

It is of some interest that Beermann (2001) correctly points out that the strong link between ditransitivity and transfer events is peculiar to English and cannot be found in German, for example.

38

Chapter 1

In short, the analysis of large and representative corpora by means of modern software facilities makes it possible to describe and analyse linguistic forms and structures rapidly and exhaustively, empirically and reliably, resulting in a testable and frequency-based account of authentic language use. The ‘corpus revolution’ (Crystal, 1995: 438) has led to a focus on actual data and frequencies in text. In this, the relevance of authentic discourse contexts to a functional analysis of syntax cannot be exaggerated. As Mair (1990) points out, syntax and discourse are closely interrelated because the use of specific syntactic structures can be shown to be functionally motivated on grounds of discourse-dependent principles and factors: Syntactic structures ... are not autonomous but closely connected with and partly determined by the conventional structure of discourse, by the desire to express meaning efficiently and, ultimately, by the habits – acquired or genetically programmed – of human perception and cognition. (Mair, 1990: 219) It goes without saying that corpora as large samples of natural discourse provide databases which enable the linguist to investigate the interrelation of syntax and discourse to an extent not possible before. By drawing on corpus-linguistic methodology, the present study is thus an attempt to study syntax in discourse. How corpus-linguistic principles – and problems – translate into the methodology of the present study will be discussed in detail in chapter 2. In this section, I am mainly concerned with previous corpus-based research into ditransitive verbs. The first consistently corpus-based grammar of English is Sinclair’s (1990) Collins COBUILD English Grammar (CCEG), designed as a grammar for learners of English who are interested in actual English usage. The third chapter of this grammar – given the title ‘Making a message’ – is, among other things, about verb complementation. The relevant terminology applied in the CCEG is unusual in two regards. First, transitivity is no longer associated with the verb but seen as a clausal phenomenon: In this grammar, transitivity is explained in relation to the clause as a whole. Many grammars deal with transitivity in terms of the way in which a verb selects objects. However, the verb, while usually central in clause structure, is not necessarily chosen first. (Sinclair, 1990: 137) Second, Sinclair (1990: 172ff.) restricts the term ‘complementation’ to clause patterns implying either a subject complement or an object complement. Hence, he obviously does not distinguish between the concepts of complement (as a specific clause element) and complementation (as all elements required to complete the meaning of the verb). Neither of the two terminologies used in the CCEG will be taken up in the present study. As has been discussed at length in

Ditransitive Verbs in Previous Research and in the Present Work

39

sections 1.2.1, 1.2.3 and 1.2.4, it is common ground in structuralist grammar, valency theory and functional grammar that it is the meaning of the ditransitive verb that determines the number and kind of semantic roles in the ditransitive complementation of the verb. I will therefore keep to the well-established understanding of transitivity as a primarily verb-related notion. Also, I agree with Meyer (1995) that a clear distinction should be made between the concepts of complement (i.e. the clause element ‘C’ in the clause patterns SVC and SVOC) and complementation (i.e. all clause elements required by the verb, which may be subject, object, adverbial and/or complement). More specifically, ditransitivity exemplifies a specific kind of verb complementation, but does not necessitate the use of a complement. Thus, I do not take over the way the term ‘complementation’ is used in CCEG either. Notwithstanding these terminological reservations, the CCEG resembles both the Comprehensive Grammar and functional grammars in defining ditransitive verbs in terms of the ‘participants’ (i.e. semantic roles) involved: Sometimes you want to talk about an event which involves someone in addition to the people or things that are the subject and object of the clause. This third participant is someone who benefits from the action or receives something as a result. They become the indirect object of the clause. ... Verbs which can take both a direct object and an indirect object are called ditransitive verbs. (Sinclair, 1990: 159) On this basis, the ditransitive complementation types [D1] and [D2], established in the Comprehensive Grammar, are described and illustrated with numerous authentic examples obtained from the COBUILD Corpus (Sinclair 1990: 159ff.): the basic form (e.g. Dad gave me a car); the indirect object realised as a prepositional phrase (introduced by to or for) and following the direct object (e.g. Ralph passed a message to Jack and He had saved an apple for the beggar respectively); ditransitive verbs which need not be complemented with an indirect object (e.g. He had left a note). Clausal realisations of objects are not covered. Of particular importance are the ‘usage notes’ for learners of English and the great number of word-lists containing verbs which occur significantly frequently in a specific complementation type. The main innovation of the functional and learner-oriented CCEG lies in the quantitative evidence for grammatical description: “This grammar attempts to make accurate statements about English, as seen in the huge Birmingham Collection of English Texts” (Sinclair 1990: v). No special emphasis is placed on the development and/or refinement of grammatical concepts, categories and terminology. The corpus serves as a new descriptive method and as the grammarian’s auxiliary equipment.47 47 This is not to be taken as a criticism. Sinclair has certainly been in the vanguard of the development of corpus linguistics as a linguistic discipline in its own right. Some of Sinclair’s numerous and innovative suggestions and concepts will be discussed in section 1.2.6. However, the CCEG remains a largely traditional grammar using the corpus as a

40

Chapter 1

Only at first glance does this appear to hold true for Biber et al.’s (1999) Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English (LGSWE) as well: From CGEL [Comprehensive Grammar], we have also borrowed, with few exceptions, the grammatical framework of concepts and terminology which has provided the present book with its descriptive apparatus. While advances in corpus technology have allowed us to go beyond CGEL in important ways – particularly in the exemplification and quantitative investigation of grammar across different language varieties, spoken and written – CGEL’s attention to detail and comprehensive coverage is something to which this grammar does not attempt to aspire. In many ways, the two grammars complement rather than compete with each other. (Biber et al., 1999: viii) Notwithstanding the authors’ own modest assessment of the scope and coverage of their work, in my view the LGSWE is a completely new kind of grammar.48 Clearly, it has to be seen in the tradition of the Comprehensive Grammar from which many concepts and terms are taken over, but the underlying methodology is now entirely corpus-based and leads to new insights into actual language use. Specifically, the distinction of complementation types is to a large extent in accord with Quirk et al. (1985), but this descriptive framework is taken as a starting-point for an in-depth analysis of a 40-million-word corpus comprising written and spoken texts (of British English and American English). Not always do the authors systematically and exhaustively analyse the corpus in its entirety, though. Not infrequently, they confine themselves to subcorpora or small samples. Nevertheless, the quantitative findings are usually analysed from a functional point of view, from which inspiring and at times surprising source of authentic examples. This in itself is a great achievement since the CCEG is the first grammar to be solely based on actual data obtained from a large and representative corpus of spoken and written English. 48 It is somewhat surprising that reviewers of the LGSWE do not at all agree whether it really follows the descriptive framework provided by the Comprehensive Grammar and, consequently, to what extent the LGSWE is in fact innovative. For example, Oostdijk (2000: 16) insists on the conceptual similarities between the two grammars and, in her view, the negative result: “A point of weakness of the LGSWE, I think, is the extent to which this grammar capitalizes on the grammatical description in CGEL.” Krug (2002), too, stresses the similarities between the two grammars but draws a positive conclusion. On the other hand, Görlach (2000: 258) explicitly speaks of “a completely new work” and is very appreciative of the achievements of the LGSWE. Schneider (2001) holds an intermediate position, admiring the innovative character of the grammar but at the same time feeling uneasy about the lack of theoretical commitment and terminological clarity. Schneider (2001: 143) argues that these shortcomings are probably caused by the rapid compilation of the grammar, the need for speedy (and, thus, at times sloppy) work, being “indicative of an age dominated by the pressures of McDonaldization, globalization and commercialization – tastes good, digests easily, sells well.”

Ditransitive Verbs in Previous Research and in the Present Work

41

conclusions are drawn. The corpus data are grouped into four major genres, which allows for a comparative analysis of actual language use in ‘academic prose’ (ACAD), ‘conversation’ (CONV), ‘fiction writing’ (FICT) and ‘news writing’ (NEWS). Many aspects of the description of major clause patterns in the LGSWE are in accordance with the categories established in the Comprehensive Grammar. However, Biber et al. (1999: 141) place special emphasis on the term ‘valency’, “a term originally used in chemistry for the combinatorial potential of atoms”. Accordingly, they distinguish between ‘one-place verbs’, ‘two-place verbs’ and ‘three-place verbs’. Ditransitive three-place verbs fit into the clause pattern ‘subject – verb phrase – indirect object – direct object’ (Biber et al. 1999: 150), which corresponds to the basic form of ditransitive complementation [D1] in the Quirk-grammar. Biber et al. (1999) admit that most ditransitive verbs are open to other than the basic form of complementation as well: Notice that most ditransitive verbs also have ditransitive prepositional uses: compare the first example in this section [Well that tells you the voltage of the battery] with the last in 3.5.7 [He only told his name to an Italian painter named Carlino]. (Biber et al., 1999: 150) The important difference between the Comprehensive Grammar and the LGSWE lies in the fact that the latter grammar does not view verbs as ditransitive if they do not occur in the basic form of ditransitive complementation (e.g. three-place prepositional verbs such as accuse of). Thus, Biber et al. (1999) insist on the point that, irrespective of the variant forms of the clause pattern SVOO, a ditransitive verb must be attested in the basic form of the ditransitive clause pattern, i.e. SV[Oi:NP][Od:NP]: Ditransitive verbs occur with two object noun phrases – an indirect object and a direct object – in the pattern SVOiOd: [Fred Unsworth <S>] [gave ] [her ] [a huge vote of confidence ]. (Biber et al., 1999: 381) This formal criterion is of prime importance for the present study because it makes it possible to exhaustively identify all ditransitive verbs in a machinereadable corpus by way of automatic searches. As will be outlined in section 1.3.1, the somewhat fuzzy semantic component of ditransitivity, as illustrated in Figure 1-8, can thus be complemented with a formal aspect: in the present work, verbs are considered ditransitive only if they occur in the basic form of ditransitive complementation. It should be noted, though, that the definition of ditransitive verbs in the LGSWE also refers to all variations of ditransitive complementation once the aforementioned formal criterion is met by a given verb. Not only will I keep to this broad understanding of ditransitivity with the basic form at its basis, but I will also subsume only single-word lexical verbs into the category of

42

Chapter 1

ditransitive verbs, in this also following the LGSWE (see section 1.3.1). The exclusive focus on single-word verbs is, by the way, again in stark contrast to the Comprehensive Grammar, which also views many prepositional verbs as ditransitive (see section 1.2.1). With regard to clausal realisations of direct objects, the LGSWE largely capitalises on the descriptive apparatus of the Comprehensive Grammar. In a similar vein to Jackson (1990), Biber et al. (1999) also take into account contextdependent zero realisations of direct objects so that the following ditransitive complementation patterns are listed for the ditransitive verbs show and get:49 Ditransitive SVOiOd (NP): I want to show him the cover. (CONV) Why don't you go and get us both a pie. (FICT) Ditransitive SVOdOi (with indirect object in a prepositional phrase): Can I show this to Ian? (CONV) Noel brought out Michael's papers again and showed them to me. (FICT) Ditransitive SVOi + complement clause: Another glance showed me that it was carried on a stick by a man. (FICT †) Ditransitive with only an indirect object SVOi: Yeah I showed my mom. (CONV) I'll show you. (FICT) (Biber et al., 1999: 391) It should not go unmentioned that, similar to the Comprehensive Grammar, Biber et al. (1999: 152ff.) also briefly discuss possible ‘variations on clause patterns’, for example in passive constructions and object fronting. I do not intend at this stage to replicate the quantitative data on the use of ditransitive verbs to be found in the LGSWE. Whenever necessary, they will be taken into consideration in the course of the corpus analysis in chapter 3. From what has been said so far about Biber et al.’s (1999) general approach to ditransitivity, the conclusion can be drawn that they modify to a considerable extent the descriptive apparatus of the Comprehensive Grammar. Specifically, the definition of ditransitive verbs is much more restricted in scope since it includes a formal component not inherent in the Comprehensive Grammar. Thus, the definition of ditransitive verbs in the LGSWE is applicable to a computerised corpus analysis, because ditransitive verbs can now be automatically retrieved on grounds of the basic form of ditransitive complementation. It must be admitted that while the treatment of ditransitive complementation in the LGSWE differs significantly from the Comprehensive Grammar, the two grammars in their entirety are in fact similarly based on the descriptive and structuralist tradition. In general, then, the LGSWE represents in many regards a 49

The symbol ‘†’ indicates truncated examples.

Ditransitive Verbs in Previous Research and in the Present Work

43

corpus-based add-on to the Comprehensive Grammar. In principle, the foundations of the received structuralist framework are not called into question but are more or less modified and/or refined in the light of corpus data and modern computerised research possibilities. A much more radical approach to grammar has been suggested recently by proponents of corpus-driven lexicogrammar, to which the following section is devoted. Here, corpus data do not simply complement existing frameworks but motivate linguists to approach grammar from an entirely new perspective. 1.2.6 Corpus-driven lexicogrammar Sinclair (1991: 137) was to the fore in formulating the hypothesis that the received idea of a clear-cut distinction between lexis and grammar might prove untenable in the light of corpus evidence: “when we have thoroughly pursued the patterns of co-occurrence of linguistic choice there will be little or no need for a separate residual grammar or lexicon.” In fact, corpus research reveals that the positing of an integrated ‘lexicogrammar’ is much truer to linguistic reality because actual language use is based to a very large extent on lexicogrammatical routines, e.g. ‘colligations’ as co-selections of word-forms and grammatical categories (Sinclair 1996: 85).50 Starting off from Sinclair’s idea of a unified lexicogrammar, Francis et al. (1996, 1998) have produced two dictionaries of the patterns in which all nouns, adjectives and verbs listed in the Collins COBUILD English Dictionary (Sinclair 1995) occur significantly frequently. The two volumes (designed for learners of English in particular) also allow learners to look up all the words which frequently occur in a specific pattern. The overarching point here is that obviously lexis and grammar are interdependent to an amazing extent: specific words tend to occur in specific grammatical patterns, and specific patterns tend to select a semantically restricted range of words. This interrelation of lexis and grammar has led Hunston and Francis (2000) to develop a ‘pattern-grammar approach’ to English grammar. In this, the key notion of pattern is defined by Hunston and Francis (2000) as follows: The patterns of a word can be defined as all the words and structures which are regularly associated with the word and which contribute to its meaning. A pattern can be identified if a combination of words occurs relatively frequently, if it is dependent on a particular word choice, and if there is a clear meaning associated with it. (Hunston and Francis, 2000: 37) The pattern-grammar approach is a good example of an integrated lexicogrammatical perspective on language which starts off from corpus evidence obtained 50

Recently, Stefanowitsch and Gries (2003) have introduced the notion of ‘collostruction’, which captures the mutual attraction of a lexeme and a construction to each other.

44

Chapter 1

from the Bank of English Corpus (with then some 329 million words). This approach is of particular importance for the present study since ditransitive verbs occur in a restricted range of ditransitive patterns and, at the same time, ditransitive patterns are associated with ditransitive verbs as a semantically defined type. Thus, there is a semantic component inherent in ditransitive complementation – an assumption which is clearly reminiscent of functional grammar (see section 1.2.4). In other words, from the point of view of pattern grammar, the combination of a ditransitive verb and its ditransitive complementation ought to be viewed as a lexicogrammatical unit of meaning in its own right. In order to represent patterns, Hunston and Francis use a small inventory of iconic symbols which follow the notation of the Collins COBUILD English Dictionary (Sinclair 1995: xxx ff.). For instance, the pattern ‘V n n’ refers to a specific verb which tends to be followed by two noun phrases as in I wrote him a letter (Hunston and Francis 2000: 53).51 With regard to the traditional functional categories of clause elements in descriptive grammars, this pattern occurs in the clause patterns SVOO and SVOC: Firstly, the traditional ditransitive verbs have this pattern, as in I gave him some bread and He made me a sandwich. Secondly, verbs followed by an Object and an Object Complement have the same pattern, as in She called them all idiots. (Hunston and Francis, 2000: 87) If a ditransitive verb occurs in this very pattern (with ‘V n n’ referring to the basic form of ditransitive complementation), all the verbs can be subsumed into one of the following ‘meaning groups’(cf. Hunston and Francis, 2000: 88f.): (a) giving someone something, or refusing to do so (e.g. give, deny); (b) doing something for someone (e.g. bring, play); (c) talking, writing, or otherwise communicating something to someone (e.g. tell, fax); (d) giving someone a benefit or a disadvantage (e.g. save, charge); (e) verbs concerned with feeling and attitudes (e.g. envy, forgive). These meaning groups make it clear that, at an abstract level, ditransitive verbs share similar semantic characteristics.52 What is more, Hunston and Francis provide empirical evidence for the fact that all ditransitive verbs attested in a 329million-word corpus display this semantic commonality. Note also that the five meaning groups above correlate to a considerable extent with Dixon’s semantic types (see section 1.2.4): the meaning groups (a) and (b) refer to the semantic 51

Since the pattern of the verb is under discussion, the corresponding symbol ‘V’ (for ‘verb’) is capitalised. 52 Note in this context that some of the meaning groups are less prototypical than others. The verbs that are included in these meaning groups, e.g. envy, have a meaning which is remote from the meaning of the prototypical ditransitive verb give.

Ditransitive Verbs in Previous Research and in the Present Work

45

type of GIVING, (d) and (e) to AFFECT, and (c) to SPEAKING. It seems to be a matter of delicacy, then, whether three or five semantic types or meaning groups should be distinguished. What both classification schemes have in common is the underlying semantic assumption that the ditransitive complementation in the pattern ‘V n n’ has a meaning of its own, which could be described as an event in which a concrete, abstract or verbal transfer takes place. In this regard, corpus data on verbs associated with the pattern ‘V n n’ corroborate the usefulness of the largely intuition-based assumption in functional grammar that ditransitive verbs should also be defined semantically. However, one point of weakness in the pattern grammar approach for the purpose of the present study is its focus on the surface structure in terms of formal patterns (such as ‘V n n’). Hunston and Francis (2000) deliberately abstain from an in-depth ‘structural analysis’ in terms of traditional functional categories (such as object and complement): In most cases ... the structural analysis added nothing, and all that was important to say about a verb could be said in terms of its pattern and its meaning group, irrespective of the structural interpretation. Our conclusion was that structural analysis is a pointless exercise ... . (Hunston and Francis, 2000: 152) However, the abandonment of a structural analysis leads to the problem that the gap between the merely syntactic description of patterns and the semantic analysis of meaning groups cannot be bridged. Needless to say, ditransitive complementation is not exclusively bound to the pattern ‘V n n’. The focus on this pattern disguises the fact that, for example, the direct object may also precede the indirect object (which would then be realised as a prepositional phrase). This variation of ditransitive complementation, in which, for instance, the verb give frequently occurs, would correspond to the pattern ‘V n to n’. Since functional categories such as the notion of object are ignored, there is no systematic account of all the ditransitive patterns with which a given ditransitive verb is associated. It is a clear disadvantage of this approach that a functional analysis of the (say, context or genre-dependent) factors which may lead the language user to prefer one specific ditransitive pattern of give to another is thus not possible. The learner-oriented pattern grammar account thus fails to give learners of English any information about when to use a specific ditransitive pattern with a given ditransitive verb (cf. Smitterberg’s (2000) critical remarks). In the aforementioned pattern dictionaries of English, Francis et al. (1996, 1998) do use functional categories. However, functional categories are not introduced in order to systematise the semantic and syntactic correspondences between different patterns. Rather, they are exclusively used to distinguish between different meaning groups within a given pattern, e.g. between ‘Structure I: Verb with two Objects’ and ‘Structure II: Verb with Object and Object Complement’ within the pattern ‘V n n’ (Francis et al. 1996: 272ff.). This does not alter the fact that each and every pattern is dealt

46

Chapter 1

with in isolation. Only as a last resort are functional categories used whenever semantic distinctions within a given pattern turn out to be impossible otherwise. A problem arising from the abandonment of functional categories relates to the syntax-semantics interface. Specifically, the range of formal realisations with which one and the same semantic role is associated is not systematised. For example, by considering the two patterns ‘V n n’ and ‘V n that’ in isolation, the pattern grammar approach does not capture the semantic correspondences between the realisation of a direct object as a noun phrase and as a that-clause. But the meaning of the ditransitive verb (in terms of its meaning group) does not change simply because one of the semantic roles it requires is realised differently. Furthermore, passive realisations are not treated as patterns in their own right in the pattern grammar approach. With regard to ditransitive verbs, Francis et al. (1996: 272), for example, list the pattern ‘be V -ed n’ as a variant form of the canonical pattern ‘V n n’, which appears to be problematic since some verbs (e.g. assign) are explicitly labelled ‘usu[ally] passive’. Why should in such cases the pattern ‘be V -ed n’ be a derivative of the pattern ‘V n n’ if the verb only scarcely occurs in the latter pattern? In sum, the abandonment of a structural analysis results in some fundamental shortcomings which prevent the no doubt innovative pattern-grammar approach from achieving its full potential. In any unified approach to lexicogrammar and semantics, I think that linguistic categories which link different surface patterns to their shared underlying meaning should be taken into consideration. In the present study, this is done by drawing on the concept of semantic roles at the level of abstract propositional meaning and by adhering to functional categories such as the notion of object at the level of syntax. Thus, I suggest that the three levels of semantic roles, functional categories and lexicogrammatical patterns be taken as representing three different, but related fields of analysis: (1) semantic roles refer to the participants involved in the underlying argument structure, but are not (yet) bound to a specific linear order of the corresponding syntactic clause elements; (2) the notions of subject and object already imply to a considerable extent information about the surface elements and a basic linear order of elements, but are not (yet) bound to a specific formal realisation; (3) lexicogrammatical patterns as concrete formal realisations and final linearisations (of semantic roles and of functional categories, that is) refer to the eventual product of language performance, which is accessible to linguistic observation. The levels refer to the basic steps in language production, which is generally believed to proceed in an incremental top-down process from semantic roles to formal realisations (see section 1.2.8). By means of an empirically sound, corpus-linguistic methodology, the three levels can be approached in a bottom-up process which makes it possible, first, to describe correspondences between all patterns in which ditransitive verbs occur significantly frequently (and to identify the relevant ditransitive verbs in the first place); second, to analyse from a functional and discourse perspective why under specific contextual circumstances one ditransitive pattern is preferred to others; third, to develop a plausible model of the cognitive entrenchment of ditransitive verbs and their patterns. The three levels of analysis

Ditransitive Verbs in Previous Research and in the Present Work

47

and the relevant terminology with regard to the object of inquiry at hand are summarised in Table 1-1. Table 1-1:

Levels of analysis and descriptive categories in an integrated approach to ditransitivity

Levels of analysis

Descriptive categories

Elements of descriptive categories

cognition/ semantics

situation type, semantic roles

A transfers B to C (GIVING, AFFECT, SPEAKING) acting entity, transferred entity, affected entity

basic linearisation of semantic roles and selection of clause elements clause elements

subject (nominal/clausal), ditransitive verb, object (direct/indirect/ prepositional/clausal)

formal realisation of clause elements and final linearisation in patterns lexicogrammar

ditrans. verbs, give, send, bring, forgive, tell, write etc. ditrans. patterns V n n, V n to n, V n that-cl., V n to-inf. etc.

ditransitive complementation

functional categories

Let me emphasise in this context that the corpus as a source of linguistic data is of pivotal importance for the present study because it allows – within a given corpus – for an exhaustive and empirically solid analysis of ditransitive verbs and their patterns as well as for the description of contextual factors which play a role in the process of pattern selection. However, I think that the recurrent patterns obtained from corpus data (and on which Hunston and Francis place special emphasis) should be taken as the basis for further steps of a functional and semantic analysis of ditransitive verbs, as represented by the two upper levels in Table 1-1. The need for semantic and/or cognitive categories, which are in principle independent of formal lexicogrammar, is also emphasised by cognitive linguistics, to which I will turn in the following section. Focusing on Goldberg’s (1995) seminal work on construction grammar and Langacker’s (1999) cognitive grammar approach to ditransitivity, I will show that major assumptions of the two frameworks are perfectly compatible with structuralist, functional and corpuslinguistic concepts.

48

Chapter 1

1.2.7 Construction grammar and cognitive grammar Typological research has provided ample testimony to the fact that transitivity in general is a phenomenon that can be found in virtually all languages (cf. e.g. Hopper and Thompson, 1980; DeLancey, 1984 and 1987). Thus, it is reasonable to assume that transitivity represents a syntactic category which refers to a universal semantic prototype in terms of an all-pervading event type in the extralinguistic world. Accordingly, DeLancey (1987) puts forward the following hypothesis: I think it can be shown that the natural basis for the transitivity prototype is the universal human understanding of the physical fact that events have causes, i.e. that the basis for the transitivity prototype is a simple CAUSE EFFECT schema which owes its universality to its universal utility in dealing with the real world. (DeLancey, 1987: 60) Thus, an implicit link is established between the cognitive representation of the outside world in terms of event types (in the mind) and the universal syntactic category of transitivity (in language).53 What is more, it has also been suggested in particular that some kind of ditransitive structure, i.e. a grammatical construction for encoding a transfer of an entity from one entity to another entity, is also universal (cf. Newman, 1996 and 1998). In general, neither cognitive categories nor corresponding syntactic categories are believed to have distinct boundaries but are taken to be gradients of prototypicality (cf. e.g. Rosch 1978, B. Aarts 2004). I have already noted before that ditransitivity in particular can also be viewed both as a cognitive category in terms of the prototypical schema ‘A transfers B to C’ and as a syntactic category characterised by a specific (range of) verb complementation (cf. Figure 1-8 and Table 1-1). If we follow the assumption that ditransitivity is a category with central prototypical elements (e.g. ditransitive verbs which tend to occur in the basic form of ditransitive complementation), but which also comprises less prototypical elements (e.g. ditransitive verbs which tend to occur in other complementation patterns), then it is quite obvious that ditransitivity cannot be defined by focusing on a specific formal realisation (say, the pattern ‘V n n’) alone. Rather, traditional concepts and terminologies of descriptive, functional and corpus-linguistic grammars need to be complemented with a cognitive component. This is exactly what Chafe (1987), among other things, suggests: It can be viewed as part of a continuing effort to become clearer on what is happening in people’s minds when they manipulate “given 53

The notion of ‘event type’ is used here in a non-technical sense. I do not intend to discuss a separate event-structural level of linguistic analysis as suggested, for example, by Pustejovsky (1992).

Ditransitive Verbs in Previous Research and in the Present Work

49

and new information”, “topics and comments”, “subjects and predicates”, as well as “intonation units”, “clauses”, “sentences”, and “paragraphs”. I assume that the linguistic phenomena which have been given names like these are manifestations of basic cognitive processes, and that we can never understand them fully until we understand the psychological phenomena underlying them. (Chafe, 1987: 21) In this context, two cognitive-linguistic approaches are particularly noteworthy because they have found wide acceptance in general and because they can be fruitfully applied to the description and analysis of ditransitive verbs in particular: construction grammar and cognitive grammar. Construction grammar is concerned with the syntax and semantics of grammatical constructions. It is thus concerned with a level of analysis that has been neglected in so-called slot-and-filler models of language such as generative grammar. As Tomasello (1998: 431) points out, “[o]ne of the defining features of modern-day generative grammar is the absence of constructions.” Recently, linguistic research into the construction level experiences a remarkable renaissance in many non-generative frameworks, for example in corpus linguistics, which focuses on recurrent patterns in actual language use (see sections 1.2.5 and 1.2.6). There is also a revival of constructions in cognitive linguistics. Fillmore (1985, 1988) has certainly been in the vanguard of this development.54 With his ‘construction grammar’, he has developed an innovative descriptive apparatus which proves highly suitable for the analysis of the cognitive implications of syntactic structures, i.e. their correlations with underlying argument structures. On the one hand, construction grammar shares with generative linguistics an interest in speakers’ competence, i.e. their ability to use an infinite number of expressions. On the other hand (and this clearly distinguishes it from generative grammar), construction grammar neither assumes a division between lexicon and syntax nor between form and meaning, which is described by Goldberg (1995) as follows: Lexical constructions and syntactic constructions differ in internal complexity, and also in the extent to which phonological form is specified, but both lexical and syntactic constructions are essentially the same type of declaratively represented data structure: both pair form with meaning. (Goldberg, 1995: 7) 54 Again, it would be beyond the scope of the present work to provide an exhaustive introduction to the construction grammar approach. After discussing a few central tenets, I will focus on its applicability to the description of ditransitive verbs. For general introductions to construction grammar see, for example, Fillmore, Kay and O’Connor (1988); for its relevance to information structure Lambrecht (1994); for its origins Fillmore’s (1968) seminal article on “The case for case”.

50

Chapter 1

In general, the notion of construction refers to all form-meaning pairs – from morphemes and lexemes to phrasal structures (e.g. let alone) and to clause patterns (e.g. SVOO).55 Goldberg (1995: 9ff.) gives a detailed and considered account of the advantages of a constructional approach over alternative approaches such as lexicosemantic and generative-transformational rules. In the following, I will, however, restrict myself to her analysis of ditransitive verbs and ditransitive constructions, which exemplifies many of the advantages – and one major disadvantage – of the construction account in general. The ditransitive construction is regarded by Goldberg (1995) as an example of a basic sentence type in English imparting an equally basic event type (a ‘scene’) in human cognition with an appropriate linguistic structure. This is captured by the general ‘Scene Encoding Hypothesis’:56 Scene Encoding Hypothesis: Constructions which correspond to basic sentence types encode as their central senses event types that are basic to human experience. (Goldberg, 1995: 39) In applying this working premise to the ditransitive construction, the following, closely related senses, of which the first one is considered the ‘central sense’, from which all other senses are derived, is suggested (cf. Goldberg, 1995: 38): (a) Central sense: agent successfully causes recipient to receive patient: - verbs that inherently signify acts of giving (e.g. give, pass) - verbs of instantaneous causation of ballistic motion (e.g. throw, toss) - verbs of continuous causation in a deictically specified direction (e.g. bring, take) (b) Conditions of satisfaction imply that agent causes recipient to receive patient: - Verbs of giving associated satisfaction conditions (e.g. guarantee, promise) (c) Agent causes recipient not to receive patient: - Verbs of refusal (refuse, deny) (d) Agent acts to cause recipient to receive patient at some future point in time: - Verbs of future transfer (e.g. leave, bequeath) (e) Agent enables recipient to receive patient: - Verbs of permission (permit, allow) (f) Agent intends to cause recipient to receive patient: - Verbs involved in scenes of creation (e.g. bake, make) - Verbs of obtaining (e.g. get, grab) 55

As defined by Goldberg (1995: 4), “C is a CONSTRUCTION iffdef C is a form-meaning pair such that some aspect of Fi or some aspect of Si is not strictly predictable from C’s component parts or from other previously established constructions.” 56 As Goldberg (1995: 39) points out, this “idea that constructions designate scenes essential to human experience is reminiscent of Fillmore’s original motivation for the existence of a particular, fixed set of case roles” – a concept which is very much in accordance with the semantic roles suggested in functional grammar (see section 1.2.4).

Ditransitive Verbs in Previous Research and in the Present Work

51

To a certain extent, this list is in line with the semantic interpretation of the ditransitive clause pattern SVOO in functional grammar and in corpus linguistics (see sections 1.2.4, 1.2.5 and 1.2.6).57 Note in this context that the ditransitive construction is regarded as a prototypical category which also includes verbs that cannot be easily mapped onto – but are still taken to be related to – the semantic core of ditransitivity, e.g. deny. This prototypicality approach makes it possible to also link verbs such as envy, (be)grudge and spare, which according to Gropen et al. (1989: 241) could be subsumed under ‘future not having’, to the ditransitive transfer event.58 The important thing in Goldberg’s list of senses that can be ascribed to the ditransitive construction is the underlying interaction between verbs and constructions. Following the Scene Encoding Hypothesis, the ditransitive construction represents a more or less specific argument structure, that is an event type with a certain number and kind of ‘argument roles’: i.e. ‘agent’, ‘recipient’ and ‘patient’. In Goldberg’s (1995: 49) notation, the argument structure would be given as ‘CAUSE-RECEIVE ’. At the level of argument structure, then, the construction itself carries meaning, which corresponds to the meaning of the lexicogrammatical pattern ‘V n n’ as suggested by Hunston and Francis (2000). It is here that the interaction between verb and construction comes into play. The basic assumption is that only verbs can be used in this construction which allow for a ‘fusion’ between the ‘participant roles’ of the verb (e.g. ‘giver’, ‘receiver’ and ‘thing given’ for the verb give) and the argument roles of the construction. As Goldberg (1995) states, the fusion of participant roles and argument roles is subject to routinisation: If a verb is a member of a verb class that is conventionally associated with a construction, then the participant roles of the verb may be semantically fused with argument roles of the argument structure construction. (Goldberg, 1995: 50) Apart from classic ditransitive verbs, it is now possible, by drawing on the concept of fusion between verbal participant roles and constructional argument roles, to provide a powerful explanation for the fact that only specific novel verbs, which are not traditionally associated with the ditransitive construction, 57

Note that the classification of ditransitive verbs into the six categories is based on shared similarities with regard to the number and kind of the ‘participant roles’ they require. Goldberg (1995: 135) also offers a rough-and-ready and illuminating visualisation of such ‘similarity clusters’. In a wider setting, her convincing list of the senses associated with ditransitive verbs calls into question previous assumptions that a characterisation of all ditransitive verbs in terms of shared semantic roles is not possible (cf. e.g. Hudson 1992: 256). 58 Goldberg (1992: 67) also points out that “[f]orgive and envy historically had senses that were closely related to give”, which shows that “the construction can occasionally be frozen without continuing reference to the original semantics.”

52

Chapter 1

can be used in this very construction. One example which Goldberg (1995: 53) discusses is the integration of the verb mail with the ditransitive construction.59 Obviously, ditransitivity is both a lexical and a constructional (and both a linguistic and a cognitive) phenomenon: the basic idea is that only if the lexical item and the construction at hand are semantically compatible is the lexicogrammatical product acceptable. The process of fusion is principle-guided: Goldberg (1995: 50f., 61ff.) suggests ‘The Semantic Coherence Principle’ (referring to the qualitative compatibility of participant roles and argument roles), ‘The Correspondence Principle’ (referring to the quantitative compatibility of participant roles and argument roles) and the ‘Causal Relation Hypothesis’ (referring to the need for a causal relationship both in verbal and in constructional meaning). Major tenets of construction grammar can be easily reconciled with functionalist (and, indeed, traditional and structuralist) approaches to syntax and semantics: verbal ‘participant roles’ and constructional ‘argument roles’ correspond, grosso modo, to the functional categories and related semantic roles respectively that are required by the verb in its complementation. The ditransitive construction itself corresponds to – but is not at all identical with – the notion of lexicogrammatical pattern which has been suggested by proponents of corpusdriven grammar. The main and no doubt invaluable innovation of construction grammar lies in the development of a cognitive framework of argument structure which can be readily mapped onto previous research into the syntax and semantics of ditransitivity. Thus, Goldberg’s construction grammar approach to the ditransitive construction corroborates, from a more cognitive and argumentstructural point of view, the usefulness of a functional and integrated analysis of ditransitive verbs and ditransitive complementation. However, there is one major theoretical and a related descriptive problem in Goldberg’s approach which makes it difficult to base the present study on construction-grammar concepts. The theoretical problem concerns the treatment of syntactic variations of ditransitive complementations, most notably with regard to the relationship between the basic form of ditransitive complementation and the use of a prepositional paraphrase, for example in John gave Mary an apple vs. John gave an apple to Mary. In fact, Goldberg (1995) rejects the assumption that the correspondence between the two forms should be dealt with at the level of syntax: The question that arises, on the account presented here, is not whether verbs are allowed to undergo a lexical or syntactic rule that alters their semantic structure or subcategorization frame, as it is typically taken 59 It should be noted in passing that her cluster-based approach to the productive extension of the ditransitive construction to novel verbs (cf. Goldberg, 1995: 133ff.) differs considerably from Gropen et al.’s (1989) lexicon-oriented concept of the learnability of ditransitive syntax. However, issues of language acquisition are not immediately relevant to the present study. For details of the acquisition of the ditransitive construction see, for example, Tomasello (2000), Campbell and Tomasello (2001).

Ditransitive Verbs in Previous Research and in the Present Work

53

to be. Rather, the question becomes: How are the semantics of the independent constructions related such that the classes of verbs associated with one overlap with the classes of verbs associated with another? (Goldberg, 1995: 89) From a corpus-linguistic perspective, I feel that the question should rather be turned upside down: the different constructions at hand are not a priori independent but syntactically related to each other because many (if not all) ditransitive verbs can be used in different ditransitive complementation patterns, e.g. with both objects realised as noun phrases (and the indirect object preceding the direct object), with the indirect object realised as a prepositional phrase (and following the direct object), with either object becoming the subject of a passive construction. Irrespective of the concrete realisation of the ditransitive complementation, the meaning of the ditransitive verb in terms of the semantic roles it requires remains unchanged (although contextually reconstructible or irrelevant roles need not be expressed). In my view, the point of departure for an analysis of ditransitivity should be the ditransitive verb in all its ditransitive patterns. This is represented in Table 1-1 (p. 47) at the bottom level of analysis (i.e. the level of lexicogrammatical patterns), from which, in a bottom-up process, syntactic, semantic and, eventually, cognitive conclusions should be drawn. In construction grammar, on the other hand, the cognitive argument structure is taken as the descriptive starting-point. This, for example, leads Goldberg (1995: 91) to start off by discussing what she believes to be different constructions, e.g. the ‘ditransitive construction’ (e.g. in John gave Mary an apple with the agent as subject, the recipient as object, and the patient as second object) and the ‘transfer-causedmotion construction’ (e.g. in John gave an apple to Mary with the agent as subject, the recipient as oblique function and the patient as object).60 With the help of semantic extensions at the level of constructions, she then shows that the “caused-motion construction is (S)emantically synonymous with the ditransitive construction” (Goldberg, 1995: 91). In light of the fact that many other nonditransitive verbs are used in the clause pattern SVOA, I see no reason for postulating a merely cognitive link between the two ‘constructions’ – corresponding to the clause patterns SVOO and SVOA – because it clearly depends on the verb as such whether the two different complementations of a given verb are semantically synonymous (and syntactically possible in the first place). As a matter of fact, Goldberg’s account is plausible if one accepts the basic assumption that ditransitivity is a primarily cognitive (or constructional) phenomenon of which ditransitive syntax is symptomatic, as it were. However, it is difficult to capitalise on this strictly cognitive definition in a corpus-based study, whose first step is bound to the search for formal linguistic structures. An exhaustive corpus 60

In Stefanowitsch’s (2003: 418) terminology, this would mean that the two syntactic forms at hand are viewed not as ‘discourse-functional’ variants, but as representations of two distinct ‘information-structure constructions’.

54

Chapter 1

analysis on the basis of construction grammar seems to be possible only if the corpus is heavily semantically annotated. For this reason, I will adhere to the alternative (and equally plausible) view that at the level of cognition, there not only exist abstract constructions with implicit argument structures, but also – and more specifically – ditransitive verbs and their immediate associations with ditransitive patterns. This alternative view is in accordance with ‘usage-based models’ which are also intended to represent the cognitive basis of language. Closely related to the theoretical problem is the descriptive problem. The focus on argument structures and their cognitive interrelations is promising, but this focus leads Goldberg to ignore virtually all factors and principles which are at work in real speakers’ preference of one constructional variant over others under specific contextual circumstances. At the level of argument structure alone, functional and discourse-related interpretations of naturally occurring data are not possible. As Chafe (2000: 11) states, “[s]uch interpretations must in the end involve prosody, word order, givenness and newness, and discourse context, none of which Goldberg mentions”. As things stand, it turns out to be difficult to apply the construction grammar approach to a corpus-based analysis of authentic data. Nevertheless, it is rather amazing that there are quite a few cognitive linguists from mostly non-generative fields of research who emphasise the need for models of language cognition that take into account frequencies and distributions in actual texts.61 Such models are called ‘usage-based models’ by Kemmer and Barlow (2000): This idea of the fundamental importance of frequency … sharply distinguishes usage-based models from other approaches in which frequency is an insignificant artifact, unconnected with speakers’ linguistic knowledge. (Kemmer and Barlow, 2000: x) The term ‘usage-based model’ was first introduced by Langacker (1987) in order to describe his ‘cognitive grammar’ approach, which he characterises as follows: Substantial importance is given to the actual use of the linguistic system and a speaker’s knowledge of this use; the grammar is held responsible for a speaker’s knowledge of the full range of linguistic conventions, regardless of whether these conventions can be subsumed under more general statements. [It is a] nonreductive approach to linguistic structure that employs fully articulated schematic networks and emphasizes the importance of low-level schemas. (Langacker, 1987: 494)

61

A notable exception is Wasow (2002), who argues that generative theories need to be confirmed empirically by taking into account actual data and probabilities.

Ditransitive Verbs in Previous Research and in the Present Work

55

Cognitive grammar is based on a central counter-argument to generative grammar. Langacker (2000: 2) points out that, in his view, generative approaches suffer from the so-called ‘rule/list fallacy’: “Traditionally, in generative accounts, the instantiating expressions would be excluded from the grammar on grounds of economy.” That is to say that especially in the Minimalist Program, which is guided by economy conditions (see section 1.2.2), the underpinning assumption is that a maximally economical model must be based on an autonomous set of syntactic rules – i.e. a ‘computational’ system – on the one hand and a list of lexical entries on the other: “The I-language consists of a computational procedure and a lexicon” (Chomsky, 2000: 120). In fact, the attempt to separate a set of autonomous syntactic rules from a list of lexical entries has always, mutatis mutandis, been a cornerstone of generative theories. Langacker (2000) takes issue with this central generative argument and suggests that the two aspects be combined because this would increase the scope and plausibility of the model of grammar: There is a viable alternative: to include in the grammar both the rules and instantiating expressions. This option allows any valid generalizations to be captured (by means of rules), and while the descriptions it affords may not be maximally economical, they have to be preferred on grounds of psychological accuracy to the extent that specific expressions do in fact become established as well-rehearsed units. Such units are cognitive entities in their own right whose existence is not reducible to that of the general patterns they instantiate. (Langacker, 2000: 2) This suggestion, of course, cannot be reconciled with the clear-cut dichotomy of syntagmatic rules and paradigmatic lists in generative approaches. Interestingly enough, Langacker’s view is very much in line with corpus-driven lexicogrammar, which also puts special emphasis on lexicogrammatical units of meaning (see section 1.2.6): “My point, of course, is that lexicon and grammar grade into one another so that any specific line of demarcation would be arbitrary” (Langacker, 1999: 122). Not only does this statement resemble recent corpus-linguistic concepts, but also traditionally established positions in British contextualism such as the Hallidayan notion of ‘lexicogrammar’: “I have always seen lexicogrammar as a unified phenomenon, a single level of ‘wording’, of which lexis is the ‘most delicate’ resolution” (Halliday, 1991: 31f.). In principle, Langacker offers a cognitive framework which is intended to systematise such lexicogrammatical patterns. Of the wealth of relevant concepts and terminologies, the notion of ‘constructional schema’ is of particular interest for the present work because it captures the cognitive link between a ditransitive verb and its complementation: ... there is no evident reason why a constructional schema that incorporates a specific element, e.g. [[send][NP][NP]], should not also be a lexical item. That in turn is only one step away from according

56

Chapter 1 lexical status to assemblies like [[V][NP][NP]], all of whose components are schematic. (Langacker, 2000: 33)

Thus, ditransitive verbs are said to be cognitively associated with their complementation patterns, and patterns in return are at the same time cognitively associated with the verbs they select. This results in a lexical and constructional network that is intended to visualise the cognitive entrenchment of verbs, patterns and their interrelations. In Figure 1-9 below, one of Langacker’s (1999: 123) examples is given.

Figure 1-9:

Lexical and constructional networks in cognitive grammar (Langacker, 1999: 123)

In Figure 1-9, the constructional network (i.e. [[V][NP][NP]]) is in the left-hand circle, the lexical network (of send) in the right-hand circle and the resulting pattern (i.e. [[send][NP][NP]]) is located at the intersection of the two circles.62 The conceptual similarities between Langacker’s cognitive grammar and corpusdriven lexicogrammar are obvious, even though the objects of inquiry, namely 62 In Figure 1-9, the boxes with bold lines in the left-hand ellipse refer to constructional schemas, i.e. schemas with lexical items that are habitually associated with the ditransitive construction [[V][NP][NP]]: they include TRANSFER verbs in general and the ditransitive verb give in particular. On the other hand, the boxes with thin lines in the right-hand ellipse exemplify lexical schemas that are conventionally associated with the ditransitive verb send.

Ditransitive Verbs in Previous Research and in the Present Work

57

language cognition and language use respectively, are fundamentally different. For one, ditransitive patterns are entrenched in constructional networks (e.g. [[V][NP][NP]]). Also, ditransitive verbs are cognitively embedded in lexical networks which link the verbs to the patterns with which they are habitually associated (e.g. [[send2][NP][to NP]]. On the surface of intersection, correspondences between constructional networks and lexical networks are visualised (e.g. [[send][NP][NP]]).63 It should not go unmentioned that the pattern in the constructional network in Figure 1-9, i.e. [[V][NP][NP]], which corresponds to the pattern ‘V n n’ and the basic form of ditransitive complementation [D1], is associated with a semantic prototype. This prototype is described by Langacker (2000: 33) as ‘TRANSFER’ and can be specified by many different verbs: “Subschemas specify the occurrence of particular verbs in this pattern, give and send of course being common and well-entrenched”.64 In sum, the semantic concept of ditransitivity suggested in functional and corpus-linguistic grammar is in accord with Langacker’s characterisation of the cognitive aspects of ditransitivity. Furthermore, there are many useful points of reference in cognitive grammar for a corpus-based methodology. In particular, the notion of constructional schema correlates with the frequency-based concept of a conventionalised ‘linguistic schema’ as put forward by Barlow and Kemmer (1994) and Barlow (1996) and with the hypothesis of ‘lexicalized sentence stems’ as proposed in Pawley and Syder’s (1983) seminal article on the relevance of linguistic routine to native-like language use. In two major regards, cognitive grammar may profit from corpus-based methodology, which I would like to explain by drawing on Figure 1-9. First, a usage-based model should be based on actual language use. Thus, it will be shown in chapter 4, which will centre around cognitive aspects of ditransitivity, how corpus data may be included in constructional and lexical networks. For example, in Figure 1-9 nothing is said about the frequencies in which the verb send occurs in each of its patterns. Quantitative data obtained from large and representative corpora – and their careful analysis – provide useful clues in this context. It should be the overall aim of a usage-based model to offer a model which is derived from – and thus mirrors – authentic usage: high-frequency phenomena ought to be ascribed a different status in such a model than linguistic structures which occur less frequently or not at all. Second, the present work aims at a model which represents the cognitive entrenchment of ditransitive verbs in all its complexity and variety. For example, in Figure 1-9 ditransitive patterns with 63

Langacker (2000: 35) explicitly emphasises the theoretical importance of this intersection between lexical networks and constructional networks: “What, then, is the status of [[send][NP][NP]]? Does it belong to the ditransitive construction or to the lexical item send? The answer, of course, is that the question is wrong: it is simultaneously part of both.” Note also that Langacker's intersection is reminiscent of Goldberg’s (1995) concept of ‘fusion’ between verb and construction. 64 Again, Langacker’s notion of TRANSFER resembles Goldberg’s (1992: 70) ‘central sense’ of ditransitive syntax: “In the central sense, the argument structure is associated with a scene of transfer between a volitional agent and a willing recipient.”

58

Chapter 1

clausal realisations are not covered. In order to capture all possible formal realisations of the semantic roles involved in ditransitive complementation it is therefore useful to keep to the traditional concepts of functional categories, i.e. clause elements such as the direct/indirect object. This intermediate level of analysis indicated in Table 1-1 (p. 47), intended to mediate between cognitive semantic roles and lexicogrammatical patterns, is not explicitly mentioned by Langacker, but it can be easily integrated into his descriptive framework for he exclusively rejects only the following: “There is consequently no reason in this framework to hypothesize a level of representation (distinct from surface structure) at which constituency is fixed and invariant” (Langacker, 1999: 151). Clause elements may be bound to a specific linear order of elements to a considerable extent (except for cases such as object fronting), and may thus be considered more or less ‘fixed’, but they are not bound to a specific formal realisation of the underlying semantic roles, and are thus clearly not invariant.65 In conclusion, it makes sense to combine the corpus-based description of actual language use with Langacker’s cognitive grammar approach. In a wider setting, the present work is thus intended to bridge the gap between the close inspection of performance data and the modelling of speakers’ ‘competence’ – though quite differently from the generative notion of competence (see section 1.3.3). This general and theoretical objective will be achieved by analysing ditransitive verbs in usage and deducing from this analysis aspects of a cognitive grammar of ditransitive verbs. 1.2.8 Cognitive sciences Neurobiological and psycholinguistic research has been focusing on cognitive aspects of language for several decades now. Particularly noteworthy progress has been made in the fields of natural language processing and cognitive psychology. Some linguistically relevant results obtained from these lines of research will be discussed in this section. However, it is necessary to point out beforehand that, despite the rapid development of the cognitively-oriented disciplines, any cognitive model based on psycholinguistic experiments is still to a large extent hypothetical and speculative in nature. For example, the neurological essence of a linguistic rule or of an entry in the mental lexicon still defies direct empirical analysis. By means of conducting plausible experiments, it may be possible to get some indirect clues to the cognitive basis of linguistic phenomena, but hard evidence (in terms of neurobiological facts) for any concrete cognitive model still lies ahead. Accordingly, MacWhinney (2000) critically comments on the basic Chomskyan assumption that generative analyses are able to unveil the psychological reality of ‘internalised language’:

65

A reliable answer to the obvious question whether or not such functional categories exist in the psychological reality of language has not yet been given. There are contradictory findings (cf. e.g. Frazier and Fodor, 1978 and Tanenhaus et al., 1995).

Ditransitive Verbs in Previous Research and in the Present Work

59

Two basic observational problems faced by all of these analyses are the fact that no developmental psychologist ever observed a child learning a rule and that no neuroscientist ever traced the neural substrate of either a rule or a symbol. ... Of course, one could argue that the fact that no one has ever seen the top quark should not prevent us from constructing theories that rely on the reality of this subatomic particle. But analogies of this type are misleading. In fact, carefully controlled experiments with huge collectors of heavy water sunk deep in caves have provided solid tangible evidence for the reality of even this most elusive of physical entities. No such solid evidence has ever been provided for either linguistic rules or linguistic symbols. (MacWhinney, 2000: 122f.) Since solid biological evidence for a cognitive model of language is not (yet?) available, the present work suggests a radically different perspective on language cognition. In focusing on ditransitive verbs, my general stance on the issue is that empirically sound evidence for a usage-based model of language cognition can be found in large and representative corpora comprising spoken and written texts from actual usage. This theoretical aspect of the present study will be discussed in more detail in section 1.3.3 and in chapter 2. It will be shown that major tenets of such a usage-based model derived from – and based on – corpus data are in line with important concepts developed in the cognitive sciences. Any attempt to model language in the mind has to face the central problem of how to relate abstract cognition to concrete language data. This issue boils down to what Bock et al. (1992: 150) call the question of the “workings of the thought-to-language mapping process”. Two fundamentally different positions have been held in this regard: ‘mediated mapping’ versus ‘direct mapping’. Mediated mapping refers to the basic assumption that cognitive categories may be immediately related to a specific surface structure, but that alternative surface structures (e.g. the passive) are derived from a particular basic surface structure which is believed to be entrenched as the canonical form (e.g. the corresponding active sentence). It is obvious that this hypothesis underpins the generative line of argumentation: In this scheme, the deep-structure-object argument may become the surface-structure-subject of a passive through a movement operation. Because empty categories are the surface-structure vestiges of movedfrom deep-structure positions, this leaves a postverbal noun-phrase trace in the position from which the object was moved (The book was put [t] on the shelf). (Bock et al., 1992: 152) By drawing on psycholinguistic experiments, Bock et al. (1992: 159ff.) seek to verify or falsify the viability of the mediated-mapping hypothesis. In this, they focus on the linguistic realisation of the subject position. Roughly 200 informants

60

Chapter 1

took part in a recognition memory and verbal repetition test, in which a set of priming sentences (i.e. syntactic templates in active and passive voice) had to be matched with audiovisual input material. In the last resort, the experiment was designed to find evidence for or against the generative concept of active-passive transformations at the level of syntactic surface structures. To this end, the presented events involved both animate and inanimate agents and patients. The results, in general, call into question any clear-cut divison between deep-structural argument roles and surface-structural syntactic categories: The data show, first, that there was a propensity to bind semantically arguments to the same syntactic relations across successive, unrelated sentences. ... Second, the results show that there was a propensity to build similar structural configurations across successive, unrelated sentences. (Bock et al., 1992: 162) That is to say that in successive events that were to be verbalised, informants tended to consistently link the agent of an action to the subject position and to use either active or passive forms throughout – irrespective both of the animacy of the agent and of the available set of syntactic templates. As a matter of fact, these results have to be taken with a measure of caution since they are based on entirely artificial data elicited in experimental situations. Notwithstanding this reservation, they might still be regarded as an illuminating hint at the nature of underlying cognitive mechanisms in authentic and real-time speech production. It seems as though semantic roles are immediately linked to a specific syntactic slot, e.g. the agent as the logical subject to the position either of the grammatical subject or of the by-agent. This, however, would run counter to the mediated-mapping hypothesis. Rather, the results support the alternative view of the thought-to-language mapping process, which Bock et al. (1992) call ‘direct mapping’: Surface structures are generated ‘directly,’ without the mediation of deep structures, using a variety of nontransformational formal devices. One such device allows the subject and direct object and other syntactic relations to be stated with respect to different forms of verbs, generalizing the construct of lexical subcategorization to capture the fact that verb forms differ systematically in their placement of various arguments. (Bock et al., 1992: 152) Thus, the direct-mapping hypothesis can be applied to ditransitivity under the assumption that the different ditransitive patterns of a given verb (‘verb forms’), are independently represented in cognition. Bock et al. (1992: 152) refer to the following two verb forms of the verb give, which are equally and independently accessible to speech production from the outset:

Ditransitive Verbs in Previous Research and in the Present Work (9) (10)

61

giveprepositional dative [–subject give –direct object –oblique object] givedouble-object dative [–subject give –oblique object –direct object]

According to the direct-mapping hypothesis, the verb forms in (9) and (10) are not subject to surface-structure transformations but are stored separately: the verb form in (9) is associated with the prepositional dative and would be activated for sentences such as John gave the flower to Mary; the verb form in (10) is linked to the double-object dative and would be activated for sentences such as John gave Mary a flower. One side-effect of the direct-mapping hypothesis (with different verb forms associated with a given ditransitive verb) is that the generative-transformational issue of dative shift does not arise. In speech production, one of the verb forms of give is selected directly, e.g. (9) or (10), which automatically leads to different surface structures such as John gave a book to Mary versus John gave Mary a book. In a wider setting, a specific verb is not conceived of as one abstract lexeme that enters the mental lexicon, but as a bundle of individual verb forms, all of which are associated with different lexicogrammatical patterns or constructions and all of which are cognitive entities in their own right (cf. e.g. Lapointe 1985, Lapointe and Dell 1989). This view is, by the way, also corroborated by studies in error analysis (cf. e.g. Stemberger 1985).66 Langacker’s (1987, 1999, 2000) cognitive grammar also capitalises on a direct mapping between cognition and language: clearly, the different verb forms of a verb correspond to what can be found in Langacker’s constructional and lexical networks (see section 1.2.7). Despite the caveat that laboratory data should always be taken with a pinch of salt, Bock et al.’s (1992) results seem to vindicate the close interrelation of syntax and semantics and make it clear that a major generative claim is increasingly open to doubt, namely what Newmeyer (1998), among others, calls the ‘autonomy of syntax’:67 ... a system whose primitive terms are nonsemantic and nondiscoursederived syntactic elements and whose principles of combination make no reference to system-external factors. (Newmeyer, 1998: 23) The autonomy of syntax is incompatible with network-based models which integrate syntax and semantics. In the field of lexical semantics, such networks are, for example, suggested by Spitzer (1993), Maier and Spitzer (1999). They 66

Note also that from corpus-linguistic studies similar conclusions have been drawn. For instance, Sinclair (1991: 8) states that “each distinct [word-]form is potentially a unique lexical unit”. Drawing on this idea, Esser (2000a: 97) defines a ‘lexical linguistic sign’ as “the union of a single sense and a set of medium-independent, abstract grammatical wordforms. The set may include all or only a subset of the possible morphological forms.” 67 Other experimental studies also show that rather than the verb as a lexical item it is the individual patterns of one and the same verb that should be taken as cognitively entrenched entities; such a pattern-based model would also make it possible to include frequency information on the individual patterns of a given verb (cf. e.g. McElree, 1993).

62

Chapter 1

conclude from experiments with patients suffering from schizophrenia that lexical memory is made up of lexical units which are associated with each other both systematically and randomly. The model of such an ‘associational (semantic) memory’ is guided by two principles: (1) systematic semantic similarities between lexical units; (2) individual and random associations based on the entirety of previous linguistic experience. On the one hand, these studies point to the need for models of cognition which are network-like (and which are not based on a rigid division between rules and lists).68 On the other hand, they reveal that semantically similar verbs such as ditransitive verbs are probably not only associated with each other in the mind due to semantic similarities, but that these associations are stabilised through linguistic experience, i.e. by the fact that such verbs are used in similar constructions: actual usage is, thus, taken to play a major role in cognition. In a wider context, many frameworks developed in the cognitive sciences may help shed new light on the processes involved in the linearisation of cognitive entities and linguistic elements in language production. The problem of linearisation refers to the question of when and how elements are given a specific linear order during the production process. This particular problem is closely connected with the more general question when and how elements (cognitive, semantic and linguistic) are selected and structured on their way from the preverbal cognitive representation of a given state of affairs to the linguistic product. In a similar vein to Table 1-1 (p. 47), Habel and Tappe (1999: 119) suggest three different levels, which are intended to represent the three relevant steps to be taken in proceeding from the initial ‘multimodal representation of states of affairs’ over the ‘linear structuring’ of selected elements to the final ‘grammatical structure’ (see Table 1-2 below). Habel and Tappe, too, draw their conclusions from experimental data. Specifically, they analyse how informants verbalise drawing events which are presented in real time on a computer-screen. It is surprising to see that very often subjects do not adhere to the chronological order of events when syntactically arranging the corresponding linguistic items. This finding is clearly at odds with Levelt’s (1989: 138) ‘principle of natural arrangement’: “For event structures, the natural order is the chronological order of events.” On the contrary, Habel and Tappe’s results show that there is no such absolute isomorphy between event structure and linguistic structure. Thus, it makes sense to suggest two levels of linearisation, as indicated in Table 1-2: at the level of cognition, entities to be verbalised are selected and arranged in an event structure which is usually in line with the chronological order (‘propositional representation’); at the level of verbalisation, the corresponding syntactic categories are formally realised and arranged in a syntactic order which may or may not be in line with the chronological order of events (‘natural language discourse’). Note that although the term ‘linear structure’ is used for the propos68 The wealth of network-based models in applied fields of research, most notably perhaps in clinical linguistics and natural language processing, is indicative of their increasing relevance and successful application to practical studies in linguistics (cf. e.g. Schade and Eikmeyer, 1998; Eikmeyer et al., 1999; Jescheniak, 1999).

Ditransitive Verbs in Previous Research and in the Present Work

63

itional representation in Table 1-2, linearisation is also part of the formal realisation at the level of ‘grammatical structure’. Table 1-2:

From preverbal cognitive representation to natural language discourse (Habel and Tappe, 1999: 119)

processes of production and comprehension

conceptualization, conceptual analysis

levels of representation

structural properties of the representations multimodal representation structural similarity of states of affairs to states of affairs in the external world ↓ ↑ propositional representation of the textual content

phonological, syntactic and semantic en/decoding

linear structure

↓ ↑ natural language discourse

grammatical structure

As shown in Table 1-1 (p. 47), it appears to be necessary and plausible to distinguish between the linear order of semantic roles at the level of cognition and the formal realisation (including aspects of linearisation) at the level of lexicogrammar. In the light of the direct-mapping hypothesis, it has to be borne in mind that a specific linear order of semantic roles already considerably constrains the range of possible linear orders at the level of surface structure. The studies discussed in this section provide ample testimony of the usefulness of Langacker’s non-generative, network-like and usage-based model of language cognition, for example in regard to his unified approach to lexis and grammar, the implicit interrelation of syntax and semantics and the consideration of different linear orders of elements at the level of cognition. 1.3

Ditransitivity in the present work

In the following, it is my intention to bring together those aspects of the frameworks reviewed in section 1.2 that are relevant to the present study and that can be conceptually integrated with each other. This will lead to a working definition of ditransitive verbs that unites lexicogrammatical and functional as well as cognitive aspects of ditransitivity (see section 1.3.1). I will then describe in more detail how the usage of ditransitive verbs will be analysed in the present study and to what extent corpus-based methodology will be utilised (see section 1.3.2). Finally, it will be shown that also any model of language cognition can profit considerably from the results of an in-depth corpus analysis (see section 1.3.3).

64

Chapter 1

1.3.1 A pluralist theory of ditransitivity As summarised in Table 1-1 (p. 47), I regard three levels of analysis as relevant to the linguistic description of ditransitive verbs in actual usage: (1) cognition/ semantics (in terms of the ditransitive situation type with its semantic roles); (2) functional categories (in terms of clause elements); (3) lexicogrammar (of ditransitive verbs and patterns). The three levels cannot be separated from each other altogether and do overlap. Table 1-3 gives an overview of the three levels of analysis, the corresponding phenomena and the relevant categories. Table 1-3: level of analysis cognition/ semantics functional categories lexicogrammar

Aspects of ditransitivity at three levels of analysis inherent ditransitive phenomenon ⇒ ditransitive verbs are semantically similar in that they all require three semantic roles in the situation type TRANSFER ⇒ all ditransitive patterns represent the clause pattern SVOO with the obligatory clause elements subject, verb, indirect object and direct object ⇒ ditransitive verbs are associated with ditransitive complementation patterns

relevant categories • situation type • semantic role • • • • • •

subject (S) ditransitive verb (V) indirect object (Oi) direct object (Od) ditransitive verb ditransitive pattern

The levels and concepts listed in Table 1-3 represent the pluralist approach of the present work. It is an integrated framework which takes into account various relevant categories of ditransitivity, irrespective of the origins of the related concepts. Thus, the cognitive/semantic, the functional-grammatical and the lexicogrammatical categories of ditransitivity will all be considered (but, for obvious reasons, taken up in turn). In my view, neither a merely lexical or syntactic approach nor a strictly cognitive/semantic or functional-grammatical (or even pragmatic) approach is able to come to terms with the phenomenon of ditransitivity in all its versatility and complexity. My overarching claim is that linguistic phenomena such as ditransitivity are, of course, approachable from different perspectives: it is up to the linguist whether to put special emphasis, say, on formal or on functional aspects, on the lexicogrammatical patterns of ditransitive verbs or on the inherent semantics of ditransitive verbs. In order to achieve a fairly complete picture of the phenomenon at hand, it is, however, necessary not to lose sight of all the aspects involved. It has to be borne in mind that linguistic models are by definition – and in a similar vein to models in natural sciences – reasonable simplifications of reality. This, however, should not lead to oversimplifications as, for example, in strictly formalist (let alone, exclusively syntactic) models which manage without the functional side of ditransitivity altogether. On the other hand, a cognitive or semantic approach to ditransitivity

Ditransitive Verbs in Previous Research and in the Present Work

65

must always be based on the careful analysis of linguistic forms in usage. The pluralist approach to ditransitivity in the present work is aimed at combining useful concepts from various frameworks so that both formal properties of ditransitivity (in terms of ditransitive verbs and patterns) and functional aspects of ditransitivity (in terms of semantic and pragmatic factors) can be accounted for. At the basis of this pluralist approach to ditransitivity lies an equally multi-layered definition of ditransitive verbs:69 (11)

A working definition of ditransitive verbs A ditransitive verb (DV) is a trivalent verb that requires a subject (S), a direct object (Od) and an indirect object (Oi) for a complete syntactic complementation. It is necessary for all clause elements to be realisable as noun phrases (NPs): this realisation (S:NP – DV – Oi:NP – Od:NP) is called the basic form of ditransitive complementation. If a verb is attested in the basic form of ditransitive complementation in actual language use, it is also considered a ditransitive verb in all other forms of complementation. All ditransitive verbs and ditransitive complementations are associated with an underlying proposition that represents the situation type of TRANSFER with three semantic roles involved: the ditransitive verb denotes an action in which the acting entity transfers a transferred entity to the affected entity.

Apart from the integration of different perspectives on ditransitivity (as given in the definition of ditransitive verbs above), the present work has two theoretical innovations to offer. First, the description of ditransitive verbs in actual language use will be entirely corpus-based. I will argue in chapter 2 that the linguistic corpus not only represents a new method of obtaining data but that corpus-based methodology is based on specific theoretical foundations (which are often ignored, however, even by corpus linguists) so that it makes sense to hold corpus linguistics to be a linguistic discipline and not just a method (see section 2.3). Second, the corpus-based quantitative and qualitative analysis of ditransitive verbs in chapter 3 will be taken as a basis in chapter 4 for the development of a usage-based model of ditransitive verbs in cognition. In this, the theoretical apparatus provided by cognitive grammar will be complemented with data from actual usage as represented in corpora. Closely related to the two theoretical innovations are the languagedescriptive and the cognitive-linguistic aims of the present study, i.e. the corpusbased description of ditransitive verbs in actual usage and the development of a usage-based model of speakers’ linguistic knowledge of ditransitive verbs. In the following two sections, these two objectives will be taken up in turn.

69

Note that what I call the basic form of ditransitive complementation is referred to as ‘ditransitive syntax’ by Goldberg (1992: 38).

66

Chapter 1

1.3.2 A corpus-based description of the usage of ditransitive verbs With regard to the description of the actual use of ditransitive verbs in authentic discourse contexts, I will draw on two corpora of present-day British English: the British component of the International Corpus of English (ICE-GB), which comprises 1 million words and is fully syntactically parsed, and the British National Corpus (BNC), 100 times the size of ICE-GB. The two corpora and their analysis for the purpose of the present study will be documented and discussed in detail in chapter 2. Suffice it to say at this stage that the two corpora fulfil two different functions in the present work: while ICE-GB will be analysed exhaustively for high-frequency verbs, the BNC will be taken into consideration with regard to selected low-frequency verbs and related linguistic constructions whenever the database obtained from ICE-GB proves too small. Firstly, I will take stock of the repertory of ditransitive verbs to be taken into linguistic consideration. Thus, a corpus-based list of all ditransitive verbs which meet the definition given in (11) has to be made. Secondly, all ditransitive types of complementation which are associated with the ditransitive verbs occurring in the corpus have to be categorised. This categorisation refers both to the level of lexicogrammatical patterns in which a given verb is attested (e.g. ‘V n to n’, ‘V n for n’ with the verb send) and to the level of functional categories so that, for example, correspondences between formally different patterns at the level of the linear order of clause elements (e.g. SVOdOi) can be systematised. On this basis, a quantitative analysis of individual ditransitive verbs and their patterns is necessary. As far as possible, the frequencies obtained from the quantitative analysis will have to be explained in terms of communicative principles and discourse factors which lead the language user in a given situation to prefer, say, a specific ditransitive pattern over others. For example, in 22.5% of all instances in ICE-GB, the ditransitive verb send is used in the pattern ‘V n to n’, whereas the pattern ‘V to n n’ is attested only sporadically ( Verb (tag) > special cases > complementation > category):9 a) b) c)

d)

e)

f)

g)

9

Intransitive (intr) Intransitive verbs are not followed by any object or complement: She works in a library. She graduated last summer. Stop. Copular (cop) Copular verbs require the presence of a subject complement: It really is great fun. It isn’t my fault. She ’s home. ... Monotransitive (montr) Monotransitive verbs are complemented by a Direct Object only: I buy too many books. She left her coat in the cinema. Please sign both sides of the form. [...] Dimonotransitive (dimontr) Dimonotransitive verbs are complemented by an Indirect Object only. They include show, ask, assure, grant, inform, promise, reassure, and tell: When I asked her, she burst into tears. I’ll tell you tomorrow. Show me. Ditransitive (ditr) Ditransitive verbs are complemented by an Indirect Object and a Direct Object: We tell each other everything. They built themselves a new theatre. Give us some more drinks. Complex transitive (cxtr) Complex transitive verbs (cxtr) are complemented by a Direct Object and an Object Complement: He knocked himself unconscious. It would make me sick. I take that as a compliment. ... Transitive (trans) The transitivity of a verb may be unclear in some instances if it is complemented by a nonfinite clause: I expect John to do the hoovering.

This classification scheme, including definitions and examples, is obtained from the online manual to the retrieval software ICECUP 3.0 (1998); the same definitions and examples can also be found in the ICE-GB handbook (Nelson et al., 2002: 38ff.). Note also that the annotation of verbs according to their complementation types is subsumed under grammatical tagging in ICECUP, while I prefer to regard it as a parsing feature because the annotation is derived from the analysis of all the clause elements in the parse unit at hand.

78

Chapter 2 Here the noun phrase John may be the Subject of the nonfinite clause or the Object of the host clause. In all such cases we tag the main verb as V(trans,...). ... However, the trans label is not applied (a) if the verb is be: One of my aims is to finish my PhD. V(cop,pres) All he did was repeat what someone else has told him. V(cop,past) (b) if the nonfinite clause does not have an overt Subject: She helped design the course. V(montr,past) I enjoy doing it. V(montr,pres) (c) if the noun phrase is followed by a wh-clause whose main verb is a toinfinitive: No one can tell me what to do. V(ditr,infin) The manual shows you how to install it. V(ditr,pres)

This overview of the verb complementation types already illustrates the main principles of the transitivity annotation and, at the same time, some of the problems they pose for the present study. As for the principles of parsing, the distinction of the seven verb transitivity types is entirely syntactic in nature.10 In other words, firstly, the transitivity of a verb is determined on the grounds of all the clause elements that are required by the verb and that are attested in a given clause. Thus, it is not surprising that sentences such as Show me are not parsed as ditransitive because the second object is not explicitly stated. Secondly, the purely syntactic identification of transitivity types implies that one and the same verb is parsed differently in different sentences, because transitivity is not seen as a more or less stable lexical property of the verb itself. Thus, the verb show in Show me is parsed as dimonotransitive, whereas it is parsed as ditransitive in The manual shows you how to install it. Focusing on ditransitive verbs, this syntactically motivated parsing scheme is to a large extent at odds with the primarily lexical and semantic definition of ditransitivity that underpins the present study (see section 1.3.1) in which Show me and The manual shows you how to install it are taken to belong to one and the same transitivity category. Also, not all instances of the verbs that are covered by my understanding of ditransitivity are parsed as ditransitive in ICE-GB. For example, the following instances of give are classified as monotransitive (montr): (12) (13) (14)

Alice and I have given (montr) quite a few I don’t know whether he was giving (montr) it Oh just give (montr) a ring

Given the definition of ditransitive verb complementation on which the Survey Parser draws (see above), it does not come as a surprise that whenever the affected entity is not realised as an indirect object at the level of syntactic surface structure, the verb is not parsed as ‘ditransitive’ but as ‘monotransitive’ (or as ‘dimonotransitive’ whenever the transferred entity is not stated in the form of a 10 It should be noted in passing that Fang (1996: 145), in describing the Survey Parser, lists another transitivity type: ‘complex-ditransitive (V + Indirect Object + Direct Object + Object Complement)’ as in I sold him my car secondhand. This type, however, has obviously not been included in the final version of ICECUP.

Methodology

79

direct object). Accordingly, the label ‘intransitive’ is assigned whenever no object is detectable in the parse unit. In a sense, then, ditransitivity in ICECUP could be regarded as based on what I wish to call ‘explicit ditransitive syntax’: both objects are made explicit, with the indirect object realised as a noun phrase and the direct object as a noun phrase or a clause. That give could still be seen as semantically ditransitive in cases where, for example, the affected entity of the eventtype of GIVING is omitted (e.g. because it is contextually reconstructible) is not taken into account by the Survey Parser. Also, the explicit ditransitive syntax to which ICECUP confines itself does not consistently cover patterns in which the indirect object (representing the affected entity) is realised as a to-phrase which follows the direct object. What is more, such instances are sometimes parsed as monotransitive (‘montr’), as in (15), and in other cases as complex-transitive (‘cxtr’), as in (16): (15) (16)

... for pressure to be brought to bear on BS to sell (montr) its Scottish assets to any potential buyers I think if you send (cxtr) that to him he’s got to address the issue this time certainly

On the other hand, the label ditransitive is used for some instances of verbs which are not complemented by two objects realised as two noun phrases. In particular, complementations of verbs with a noun phrase (functioning as the indirect object) followed by a wh-clause or a that-clause (functioning as the direct object) are also parsed as ditransitive (‘ditr’): (17) (18) (19)

And then I showed (ditr) him what was wrong with the other one However, no one can tell (ditr) me what to do about it Tell (ditr) him we are waiting for the order

In conclusion, the examples mentioned so far show that there are clear differences between the comparatively narrow definition of ditransitivity in ICECUP (and its parsing scheme) and the broad and semantically-oriented definition of the present study. Thus, it is not possible to rely on the parsing information included in ICEGB in order to automatically find all instances of ditransitivity in the corpus. In a wider setting, this mismatch illustrates the potential problems that are involved in working with heavily annotated corpora. On the one hand, it is very useful to have access to corpus data that are not only tagged but also fully parsed, because this may facilitate search queries and help avoid manual analyses when it comes to the realm of syntax. On the other hand, the utilisation of parsing information always presupposes that the linguist keeps in line with the definitions and concepts that are at the basis of the parsing scheme at hand. There is a danger, therefore, that already available corpora with their syntactic annotation predetermine the linguistic theory of and research into syntax. As a matter of fact, the reverse

80

Chapter 2

order should be aimed at: not the corpus annotation should influence linguistic research, but linguistic research questions should be the guideline for the corpus annotation. This, of course, is reminiscent of what Sinclair (1991: 21) calls a ‘clean text policy’: “The safest policy is to keep the text as it is, unprocessed and clean of any other codes. These can be added for particular investigations.” If parsing information, for example, becomes an integral part of the corpus, the practical advantages of their availability may soon be outweighed by the unpleasant side-effect that the parsing information itself narrows down the range of possible research foci. 2.2.3 A corpus-based list of ditransitive verbs Although it is not possible to automatically retrieve all instances of verbs (as tokens) that are covered by the definition of ditransitivity in (11), the narrow understanding of ditransitivity (in terms of an explicit ditransitive syntax) which underpins the parsing scheme of ICE-GB can be utilised for an exhaustive identification of all the verbs (as types) that occur in the corpus at least once in an explicit ditransitive syntax and that should also be considered ditransitive from a pluralist point of view. For convenience, the definition of ditransitive verbs given in (11) on p. 65 is repeated here: (11)

A working definition of ditransitive verbs A ditransitive verb (DV) is a trivalent verb that requires a subject (S), a direct object (Od) and an indirect object (Oi) for a complete syntactic complementation. It is necessary for all clause elements to be realisable as noun phrases (NPs): this realisation (S:NP – DV – Oi:NP – Od:NP) is called the basic form of ditransitive complementation. If a verb is attested in the basic form of ditransitive complementation in actual language use, it is also considered a ditransitive verb in all other forms of complementation. All ditransitive verbs and ditransitive complementations are associated with an underlying proposition that represents the situation type of TRANSFER with three semantic roles involved: the ditransitive verb denotes an action in which the acting entity transfers a transferred entity to the affected entity.

Since this definition, although semantically-oriented, includes a formal aspect, it is possible to make use of ICECUP in order to identify all the verbs that occur in ICE-GB at least once in the basic form of ditransitive complementation (S:NP – DV – Oi:NP – Od:NP). In a first step, then, a search for all instances of a verbal clause element (VB), realised as a verb phrase (VP) with a ditransitive main verb (ditr), can be taken to include all verbs that meet the formal criterion of ditransitive verbs above. As shown in Table 2-3 below, this search query results in 1820 matches. However, 79 cases of these matches are questionable when it comes to the occurrence of verbs in the basic form of ditransitive complementation. This pertains to those verbs in particular which are parsed as ditransitive because they

Methodology Table 2-3: Search query

81 Identifying ditransitive verbs in ICE-GB by using ICECUP

Fuzzy Tree Fragment verbal (VB) verb phrase (VP) ditransitive (ditr)

Matches (automatic) 1820

Clear matches (manual) 1741

are complemented by a noun phrase and a wh-clause or that-clause but which cannot occur in the basic form of ditransitive complementation with both objects realised as noun phrases (e.g. advise, inform, remind). These cases have been excluded by manually checking the data. Thus, we are left with 1741 clear matches, i.e. examples of verbs that may occur in the basic form of ditransitive complementation. In effect, all verbs in the 1741 examples are ditransitive verbs according to the formal criterion included in the pluralist definition of ditransitivity in (11). From the 1741 clear matches, a corpus-based list of ditransitive verbs (as types) can be obtained. This list is given in Table 2-4. Those verbs that are given in boldface in Table 2-4 are particularly frequent and can thus be regarded as ‘typical’ and ‘habitual’ ditransitive verbs. The frequency of all verbs in all ditransitive patterns can only be specified by manually searching for each of the verbs individually in the corpus. As has been discussed in section 2.2.2, examples of ditransitivity (as defined in the present study) are often not parsed as ditransitive in ICE-GB, so that the 1741 examples, on which Table 2-3 is based, do not provide an exhaustive list of all the instances that are covered by the working definition of ditransitivity in (11). It is therefore important to note that the frequencies in Table 2-4 refer to the ICECUP-generated – and manually postedited – list of those 1741 cases that are parsed as ditransitive in ICE-GB. Nevertheless, the corpus-based list of ditransitive verbs in Table 2-4 fulfils two important functions: (1) it is a list of all the verbs (as types) that occur in ICE-GB and are ditransitive in the sense of the present study (although not all tokens are covered); (2) as will be discussed below, the frequency results in the list are an appropriate means for categorising ditransitive verbs into groups of typicality. The extent to which a specific verb is typical of a given verb class is relevant to both the description of language use and the modelling of language cognition. Typical ditransitive verbs can be taken to predetermine the usage of novel verbs (e.g. fax, email) in ditransitive patterns, i.e. typical ditransitive verbs provide guidelines for what Goldberg (1995: 120ff.) calls the ‘partial productivity’ of constructions. Also, typical ditransitive verbs are cognitively entrenched as prototypical entries around which less typical, but semantically similar verbs orbit, as it were. In order to identify those verbs that are typical of the class of ditransitive verbs (for example, when it comes to the classification of novel ditransitive verbs), frequency is of paramount importance:11 11

Although Goldberg (1995) does not ignore the relevance of frequency in this context, it is somewhat amazing, given the issue’s particular importance for models of language cognition, that she mentions it only in passing.

82

Chapter 2

Table 2-4:

A list of all the verbs in ICE-GB (as types) that occur in the basic form of ditransitive complementation (S:NP – DV – Oi:NP – Od:NP)

verb

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36.

accord afford allocate allow ask assign assure award bet bring buy call cause charge cook cost cut deal deliver deny design do draw drop earn feed file find fine get give grant guarantee hand keep leave

parsed as ditransitive in ICE-GB (instances) 3 4 4 19 91 4 13 7 1 7 12 1 9 5 3 23 2 1 1 8 2 27 1 4 8 1 1 2 2 34 562 8 7 5 3 8

verb

37. lend 38. lose 39. make 40. offer 41. order 42. owe 43. pass 44. pay/overpay 45. permit 46. play 47. prescribe 48. profit 49. promise 50. purchase 51. quote 52. read 53. refuse 54. render 55. save 56. sell 57. send 58. serve 59. set 60. show 61. spare 62. supply 63. take 64. teach 65. tell 66. throw 67. vote 68. win 69. wish 70. write cases of explicit ditransitive syntax

parsed as ditransitive in ICE-GB (instances) 12 2 3 54 2 8 2 19 1 2 1 1 12 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 79 1 3 84 3 1 12 23 491 2 1 2 9 5 1741

Methodology

83

On this view, frequency is expected to affect the classification of new verbs. Two kinds of frequency information need to be distinguished. On the one hand there is token frequency, which refers to the number of times a given instance (e.g., a particular word) is used in a particular construction; on the other hand there is type frequency, which refers to the number of distinct words that occur in a particular construction. (Goldberg, 1995: 134) As a matter of fact, Goldberg is especially interested in the extent to which one particular construction is preferred over others in providing the usage pattern for verbs newly introduced into a language.12 For the present study, which focuses on ditransitive verbs and patterns only, the two kinds of type and token frequency that ought to be taken into account for establishing a gradient of prototypicality of ditransitive verbs have to be modified. I suggest that the following dimensions be taken into consideration in empirically defining the frequency-based typicality of ditransitive verbs in ICE-GB: (1) the overall frequency of a ditransitive verb in the corpus; (2) the frequency with which a ditransitive verb occurs in an explicit ditransitive syntax (as can be obtained from the parsing information in ICE-GB, see Table 2-4). The two dimensions are in a way correlated since a typical ditransitive verb has to occur frequently in general and frequently in an explicit ditransitive syntax in particular. It is obvious that a verb which is only sporadically attested in language use cannot serve as a typical example of the verb class of which it is a member. Similarly, even a comparatively frequent verb can only be typical of the ditransitive verb class if a substantial part of its occurrences is associated with a syntax that makes explicit all argument roles of the ditransitive event type (as subject, indirect object and direct object respectively). For it is only against this background that, for example, language users may be expected to recover specific argument roles from the context that are not explicitly mentioned. Both kinds of frequency information can be automatically retrieved from ICE-GB by using ICECUP. They are given in Table 2-5.13 Given the figures in Table 2-5, I suggest that three groups of ditransitive verbs be distinguished on the grounds of two sorts of frequency information: (1) typical ditransitive verbs, which are used very frequently in general and also frequently in an explicit ditransitive syntax (give, tell); (2) habitual ditransitive verbs, which are used fairly frequently in general but not in an explicit ditransitive syntax in the clear majority of all cases in which they occur (ask, send, show, offer); (3) peripheral ditransitive verbs, which are used 12

This is related to the fact that Goldberg’s (1995) starting-point for a model of language cognition is a particular construction. In contrast, I would argue that specific verbs are the basic units, which are associated with one particular construction at the cognitive level, but with different instantiating patterns at the level of syntax (see section 1.2.7). 13 Note that while the overall frequency can be directly obtained from the results of an ICECUP-generated word count, the percentage of explicit ditransitive syntax can only be determined by manually analysing all occurrences of all the ditransitive verbs at hand.

84

Chapter 2

Table 2-5:

Overall frequency of ditransitive verbs in ICE-GB and their relative frequency in an explicit ditransitive syntax

‘typical’ ditransitive verbs ‘habitual’ ditransitive verbs ‘peripheral’ ditransitive verbs

ditransitive verb give tell show ask send offer

overall frequency 1160 794 639 518 346 198

(other verbs)

< 200 each

explicit ditransitive syntax 562 48.4 % 491 61.8 % 84 13.0 % 91 17.6 % 79 22.8 % 54 27.3 % OR

< 5.0 % each

only sporadically in general and/or which are used only rarely in an explicit ditransitive syntax (all remaining verbs listed in Table 2-4, p. 82). In Figure 2-4, the three distinct clusters that emerge from the two kinds of frequency information are visualised graphically. overall frequency

give

1000 typical ditransitive verbs tell

750 show 500

ask habitual ditransitive verbs send

250

offer peripheral ditransitive verbs (64 verbs) 25%

Figure 2-4:

50%

75%

percentage of explicit ditransitive syntax

A frequency-based distinction of typical, habitual and peripheral ditransitive verbs in ICE-GB

Methodology

85

The distinction between the three groups of ditransitive verbs implies that special emphasis will be placed on typical and habitual ditransitive verbs in language use (see sections 3.1 and 3.2) and language cognition (see chapter 4). This will be based on an exhaustive analysis of all occurrences of the following six verbs in ICE-GB: give (1160 instances), tell (794 instances), show (639 instances), ask (518 instances), send (346 instances), offer (198 instances). For peripheral ditransitive verbs, for which ICE-GB turns out to be too small a database, selected data from the BNC will be used (see section 3.3). Finally, note that the formal criterion that is included in the present definition of ditransitivity excludes all those verbs from further investigation that do not occur in the basic form of ditransitive complementation but whose semantics may resemble the typically ditransitive situation type of TRANSFER. As pointed out in section 1.2.1, the verb provide is a case in point since its semantics is very similar to give. However, since in the corpus data at hand it does not occur in the basic form of complementation, it is not considered a ditransitive verb on formal grounds. In the final resort, then, the present study of ditransitivity deals with a formally defined subset of all the verbs that may be regarded as ditransitive from a purely semantic perspective. 2.2.4 The British National Corpus (BNC) In the present study, the BNC serves as an ancillary corpus for the description of peripheral ditransitive verbs in ICE-GB. What will be used is the second version of the BNC, i.e. the BNC World Edition published in 2000.14 The BNC comprises some 100 million words from roughly 4,000 texts. Broadly, 90% of the corpus are written sources, 10% are spoken texts. The written texts cover non-fictional genres (informative prose from 1975 to the early 1990s) and fictional writing (imaginative from 1960 to the early 1990s). The corpus is fully tagged (following two different tagging schemes), but does not include any parsing information. Its enormous size makes it possible to analyse low-frequency items (i.e. peripheral ditransitive verbs) in much more detail than with the help of standard-size corpora of 1 million words such as ICE-GB. 2.3

From corpus data to linguistic theory

As visualised in Figure 2-1 (p. 71), the present study aims at two different kinds of models of ditransitivity to be derived from corpus data: (1) a model of ditransitivity in language use; (2) a model of ditransitivity in language cognition. While I will delve more deeply into the latter aspect in section 2.4, this section is devoted to the former aspect, i.e. the corpus-based description of language use. In 14

A printed handbook with detailed information on the corpus design and the standard software SARA is available for the first version (cf. Aston and Burnard, 1998). For the BNC World Edition, a detailed manual is available online (cf. Burnard, 2000).

86

Chapter 2

particular, two theoretical questions that arise from modern corpus-linguistic methodology have to be tackled: (a) What is the status of corpus linguistics? (b) What is the relation between corpus data in all their complexity and versatility on the one hand and models of language use as necessarily idealised accounts on the other? Without any doubt, modern corpus-linguistic research has led to an entirely new perspective on language (cf. Lenz, 2000: 12). Yet, even corpus linguists themselves continue to disagree on the status of corpus linguistics. On the one hand, some argue that despite the wealth of new corpus-based insights into actual language use, corpus linguistics should be seen as nothing more than a modern computer-aided linguistic methodology (cf. Leech, 1992: 105; Kennedy, 1998: 268; B. Aarts, 2000: 7; Meyer, 2002: xi ff.). On the other hand, we also find the view that corpus linguistics should be considered a discipline in its own right because many aspects of language use can only be described by drawing on corpus data, especially when it comes to the multitude of linguistic routines such as collocations, colligations and preferred lexicogrammatical patterns: thus, Teubert (2001: 125) states that “European corpus linguistics is gradually becoming a sub-discipline in its own right”, and Tognini-Bonelli (2001: 177) explicitly speaks of a “new discipline within linguistics”. As I have argued elsewhere (cf. Mukherjee, 2002a: 51ff.), the two points of view are not mutually exclusive. I would contend that corpus linguistics represents both a new method (in terms of computer-aided descriptive linguistics) and a new discipline (in terms of a new approach to language description). In a sense, an analogy can be drawn between corpus linguistics and other scientific fields in which the development of new methods have gradually led to new insights and to the establishment of a new discipline. A good case in point is the coming of age of microbiology. In their standard introduction to microbiology, Madigan et al. (1997), for example, point out that the development of new methods (i.e. microscopes in particular) and of an independent branch within biology (i.e. microbiology) are inseparable from a historical point of view: Although the existence of creatures too small to be seen with the eye had long been suspected, their discovery was linked to the invention of the microscope. ... Leeuwenhoek’s microscopes were extremely crude by today’s standards, but by careful manipulation and focusing he was able to see organisms as small as prokaryotes. ... Only in the nineteenth century did improved microscopes become available and widely distributed. During its history, the science of microbiology has traditionally taken the greatest steps forward when better microscopes have been developed, for these enabled scientists to penetrate ever deeper into the mysteries of the cell. Microbiology as a science did not develop until the latter part of the nineteenth century. This long delay occurred because, in addition to microscopy, certain basic techniques for the study of microorganisms needed to be devised. (Madigan et al., 1997: 20f.)

Methodology

87

As for corpus linguistics, it seems to me that there is a similar correlation between its methodology and its status as a discipline in its own right.15 Specifically, the compilation of large and representative corpora as well as the development of relevant software tools exemplify methods which have allowed for entirely new insights into language use. In a wider setting, these corpus-based insights have had such wide-ranging effects (e.g. because many previously held assumptions about language were up for re-interpretation) that corpus-based research could be seen as a new approach to language indeed. For example, the interdependence of lexis and grammar (in terms of lexicogrammatical patterns, see section 1.2.6), which is characteristic of natural language use, can only be described by looking closely at large amounts of language data. In the final analysis, then, it is only by analysing corpora that probabilities in language use are accessible. Thus, it is obvious that corpus-based methodology leads to linguistic theories that include features and aspects that could not have been covered by linguistic research in the pre-corpus era. If we accept the fact that important aspects of language use are accessible only through corpus data (and that corpus-based linguistic models are therefore, in a way, superior to other theoretical frameworks), the question arises as to how the raw material of corpus data and linguistic models derived from corpus data are related to each other. In the field of grammar, a very useful distinction is made by J. Aarts (1991), who distinguishes between ‘performance’ and ‘language use’. Generally speaking, corpora contain a vast amount of performance data, i.e. the linguistic behaviour of many native speakers in many different communication situations. However, corpus-based models of grammar should not attempt to explain all performance data in their entirety, because the data will always include instances of, say, unacceptable language use, clear mistakes and intended ungrammaticality. It stands to reason that performances of such and similarly dubious kinds should not be included in a corpus-based grammar of language use: ... a grammar describing language use cannot be written by trying to account for each and every fact of performance; language use and performance are two distinct notions. (J. Aarts, 1991: 59) To be more precise, there exists some sort of ‘correctness filter’ (J. Aarts 2000: 29) between performance and language use, which is based on accepted norms and routines in a given speech community. While everything included in a corpus is ‘performance’, ‘language use’ refers to a descriptive level at which a first abstraction from performance data takes place. In a way, there are two factors that are responsible for filtering out from performance data those aspects of usage that ought to be included in a corpus-based model of language use: ‘frequency’ and ‘normalcy’, the latter representing the general acceptance of a linguistic form in a 15

A similar analogy between corpus linguistics and microbiology is drawn by J. Aarts (2000: 17).

88

Chapter 2

given speech community. Since at the level of language use, acceptability judgements (in terms of speakers’ attitudes, linguistic prescriptions and generally accepted norms) come into play, J. Aarts (1991) ascribes an inevitably normative quality to any model of language use: In that respect, a grammar of language use might well be a normative grammar, if we understand ‘normative’ as ‘based on the norms set by a not insignificant part of the language community’ – that is, a grammar of structures used (frequency) as well as accepted (normalcy) by a large number of language users. (J. Aarts, 1991: 58) A concept that is related to – and can be fruitfully combined with – J. Aarts’s (1991) normative and corpus-based model of language use is the notion of ‘abstracted corpus norm’ as suggested by Esser (1993). He introduces the term in order to describe Gibson’s (1966) style machine, which is intended to compare the styles of individual texts. To this end, Gibson (1966) first of all abstracts from the entirety of all texts a statistical reference norm with which relevant linguistic features of the individual texts are to be compared. It is important to note that the linguistic features under scrutiny are identified a priori and intuitively, which is reminiscent of the intuitive genre distinctions that are at the basis of the compilation of modern representative corpora: What Gibson has done, in effect, is to establish an abstracted corpus norm on the basis of independently classified texts. One may have objections to the impressionistic primary classification. But the method as such is not invalidated because it would be possible to use, as input for a comparable abstracted norm, external criteria of text selection and classification such as for example the genres in text corpora ... . (Esser, 1993: 88) In effect, the abstracted corpus norm provides a tertium comparationis to characterise and compare individual texts. While Esser (1993) uses the term ‘abstracted corpus norm’ to refer to the stylistic comparison of texts on the grounds of a statistical reference norm which is generalised from the entirety of a text corpus, I would contend that this concept can be applied to any model of language use. In principle, all corpus-based dictionaries and grammars are based on such an abstracted corpus norm, because they do not include everything that is performed but provide information on what is frequently used and/or what is considered normal usage. As shown in Figure 2-5, the abstracted corpus norm can be regarded as an operationalisation of J. Aarts’s (1991) normative understanding of language use. Corpora such as ICE-GB and the BNC are representative samples of native-like performance. What is more, corpora include performance data of many native speakers (NS), covering a wide range of different levels of proficiency, accents, dialects and social/educational backgrounds, as well as per-

Methodology

89

formance data from many different spoken and written genres. It is therefore possible to extrapolate from the entirety of performance data a model of language use by describing an abstracted corpus norm on the basis of corpus data. In other words, a model of language use which is based on an abstracted corpus norm is a supraindividual abstraction of what is frequent and/or normal in a given speech community. abstracted corpus norm (=> model of language use)

general corpus (e.g. ICE-GB, BNC)

spoken component: Genre 1: Text 1, Text 2, Text … Genre 2: Text 1, Text 2, Text … Genre …

NS 1, NS 2, NS 3, NS 4, NS 5, NS 6, NS 7, NS 8, NS 9, NS … - various levels of proficiency - various accents and dialects - various educational and social backgrounds -…

written component: Genre 1: Text 1, Text 2, Text … Genre 2: Text 1, Text 2, Text … Genre …

corpus representative of

native-like performance Figure 2-5:

The abstracted corpus norm: from performance data in corpora to a model of language use

For English ditransitive verbs, major aspects of such a model of language use will be described in chapter 3. The corpus-based model will be such that it abstracts away from actual performance what is used frequently and considered normal in (British) English. Particular attention will be paid to frequencies of ditransitive verbs and patterns in the corpus data, so that the norm in native-speakers’ linguistic behaviour can be identified. In describing this abstracted corpus norm, both language-external and language-internal factors that can be held responsible for

90

Chapter 2

this norm will be identified. Thus, the model of ditransitive verbs in language use will be based on the combination of a quantitative analysis of performance data and a qualitative analysis of general trends in terms of language use. 2.4

‘Competence’ in the light of corpus data

What may a corpus-based model of language use tell us about speakers’ internalised knowledge of the underlying language system? At first sight – and in generative terminology – this question may seem to be an attempt to relate language in performance to linguistic ‘competence’. However, a model of the language system that is based on corpus evidence does not have much in common with a generative model of competence. Thus, it is not very useful to take over and extend or redefine the term ‘competence’ as such, which would automatically lead to terminological confusion (cf. D.S. Taylor, 1988).16 Rather, I prefer to speak of a corpus-based model of speakers’ linguistic knowledge along the lines of Hymes’s (1972, 1992) concept of ‘communicative competence’. There are, at least, three fundamental differences between the generative approach to competence and a corpus-based model of speakers’ linguistic knowledge. First, generative grammar focuses on the knowledge of what is possible in language. The range of what is possible is mainly identified on the basis of intuition-based grammaticality judgements. Second, the focus is on an ideal speakerhearer. Third, as Chomsky himself has repeatedly pointed out, frequencies in text are considered irrelevant to competence, i.e. the internalised knowledge of grammar.17 On the other hand, a corpus-based model of speakers’ internalised linguistic knowledge would ideally be based on language used by real speakers in authentic contexts. It takes into account frequencies in text because the model is also intended to mirror speakers’ anticipations of what is probable. The knowledge of linguistic routines and patterns includes the ability to use them, i.e. the knowledge of principles and factors which are responsible for such routines and patterns. This ability for use corresponds to what Chomsky (1980: 224) himself describes as ‘pragmatic competence’, which he, however, clearly separates from competence proper (i.e. ‘grammatical competence’). In contrast, a corpus-based model of speakers’ linguistic knowledge would not differentiate between grammatical and pragmatic competence. More important, it is an attempt to bridge the gap between what speakers know and what speakers use. As noted in section 1.3.2, I follow in this regard Halliday’s (1991: 31) view that system and use are inseparable, that in fact language use is an instantiation of the language system. A corpus-based model of speakers’ linguistic knowledge should thus be able to

16

A more recent example of the deep distrust of corpus evidence among cognitive linguists in the generative camp is provided by Borsley and Ingham (2002). In his reply to Borsley and Ingham, Stubbs (2002) makes it clear that their highly polemical rebuttal of corpus linguistics is based on severe misunderstandings. 17 See the interview B. Aarts (2000: 5ff.) conducted with Chomsky.

Methodology

91

account for the following characteristic features of language use as accessible through corpora: • First, some linguistic forms are more frequent than others in language use, and some formally possible forms are unlikely to occur at all. It is reasonable to assume that speakers implicitly know about such probabilities of linguistic forms and their combinations. • Second, we find linguistic routines and patterns of different kinds (e.g. preferred combinations of specific words and particular constructions) so that speakers’ linguistic knowledge not only allows for infinite use but is based on routine as well. • Third, quantitative data on the frequencies and patterns in text can usually be explained by functional and context-dependent principles and factors. These principles and factors then seem to be part of speakers’ linguistic knowledge: language encoders are obviously guided by such principles and factors to make appropriate use of their linguistic means and to adhere in their linguistic behaviour to regular expectations. This observation should translate into a model which ascribes to whatever is frequent in language use a status that is different from whatever is rarely used. • Fourth, lexical and grammatical choices are interdependent in language use. The all-pervading nature of colligations and lexicogrammatical patterns calls into question the autonomy of syntax. Lexicogrammatical patterns should thus be at the basis of a model of speakers’ linguistic knowledge that is supposed to account for actual usage. 2.5

Bridging the gap: from corpus to cognition

According to the guidelines suggested in the previous section, the corpus-based model of speakers’ linguistic knowledge of ditransitive verbs will be dataoriented and frequency-based, functionalist and lexicogrammatical in nature. In modelling linguistic knowledge on the basis of quantitative data obtained from corpora, the model will be truly usage-based (see section 1.2.7). The general methodology of the present study can thus be summarised as a from-corpus-tocognition approach. This methodology is applied to ditransitive verbs in the present study, but can be expected to be applicable to all aspects relevant to the description of language use and the modelling of language cognition. This fromcorpus-to-cognition approach capitalises on what Schmid (2000: 39) calls the ‘From-Corpus-to-Cognition Principle’: “Frequency in text instantiates entrenchment in the cognitive system.”

Chapter 3 Aspects of description: ditransitive verbs in language use This chapter provides a corpus-based description of individual ditransitive verbs in actual language use. First, the two verbs that are typical of ditransitivity in ICE-GB will be analysed: give and tell (see section 3.1). Second, the four habitual ditransitive verbs in ICE-GB (i.e. ask, show, send and offer) will be scrutinised (see section 3.2). Particular emphasis in all the analyses will be placed on the different kinds of routines that are involved in the use of ditransitive verbs. The description of peripheral ditransitive verbs, on the other hand, will centre on the concepts of grammatical institutionalisation and conventionalisation (see section 3.3). At the end of this chapter, the two aspects will be discussed in a wider setting in the assessment of the role of linguistic routine and creativity in the use of ditransitive verbs (see section 3.4). 3.1

Typical ditransitive verbs in ICE-GB

In the present study, typical ditransitive verbs are verbs which are frequently attested in ICE-GB in general (i.e. > 700 occurrences) and which are associated with an explicit ditransitive syntax in some 50% of all occurrences or more (cf. Figure 2.4, p. 84). These standards are met by give (see section 3.1.1) and tell (see section 3.1.2). 3.1.1

GIVE

In light of recent psycholinguistic and cognitive-linguistic evidence, it is not surprising that the most frequent ditransitive verb in ICE-GB is GIVE.1 Experimental data have led Ninio (1999), for example, to put forward the hypothesis that children initially acquire constructions through one (or very few) ‘pathbreaking verbs(s)’. For the ditransitive construction, it stands to reason that GIVE, on grounds of its semantics, could be one of the pathbreaking verbs.2 Furthermore, the very prototypicality of GIVE may well be the reason why this verb is the most 1

From now on, the abstract lemma will be given in capital letters, while actual word-forms of the lemma will be given in lower case and in italics. 2 Note, however, that Campbell and Tomasello (2001) find that children may also start using the double-object construction with less prototypical verbs, which might be due to the input provided by their parents. The issue of prototypicality will be discussed in more detail in section 4.2.1.

Aspects of Description

93

frequent verb in the basic ditransitive pattern both in many children’s and in many adults’ language use (cf. Campbell and Tomasello, 2001: 258f.). As a matter of fact, GIVE is used not only in the basic ditransitive pattern, but in a variety of syntactic patterns. It is the range of these patterns and their frequencies in ICE-GB that will be discussed first (see section 3.1.1.1). In a second step, I will turn to significant principles and factors that are responsible for the selection of one specific pattern in given contexts (see section 3.1.1.2). 3.1.1.1 Structure and frequency of GIVE-patterns In the basic ditransitive pattern, all three semantic roles (i.e. acting entity, affected entity and transferred entity) are ‘explicitised’ at the surface-structure level (as subject, indirect object and direct object respectively).3 What is more, all clause elements are realised as noun phrases. Examples (20) to (22) are instantiations of the basic ditransitive pattern, which I refer to as the type-I pattern of GIVE.4 (20) (21) (22)

and then you can give everyone a runtime version of it On Tuesday members of Parliament gave the government their overwhelming support Moreover, Irish voters have wisely never given him an overall parliamentary majority

The subject may at times not be part of the type-I pattern, for example in imperatives and in occurrences of GIVE that are embedded in to-infinitives or ing-clauses. This is the case in examples (23) to (25). (23) (24) (25)

Give me a warning next time The theory behind these manoeuvres is to give other road users clear indication of your intentions By giving Patricia a grey skin and and the yellow and the green in the face etc you’re saying this is not about her real appearance

If we allow for the general optionality of the grammatical subject in such cases, the type-I pattern can be described by using the formula in (26).5 3

I am taking over the technical term ‘explicitise’ from computer linguistics where it is used to refer to the formal realisation of (i.e. ‘making explicit’) an underlying process or phenomenon or implicit relationship (cf. Lonsdale et al., 2001). 4 It should be noted that the distinction of patterns here is much more fine-grained than, say, the traditional ‘clause patterns’, because, for example, each clause pattern (being defined on the basis of configurations of clause elements) covers a wide range of different realisations of a particular clause element (cf. Biber et al., 1999: 141). 5 Note that ‘(...)’ refers to optional clause elements and ‘[...]’ to obligatory clause elements.

94 (26)

Chapter 3 I (S) GIVE [Oi:NP] [Od:NP]

From this basic type-I pattern, several other patterns can be derived, see (27) to (45) below. In type Ia, the direct object is in postverbal position, whereas the indirect object is in final position. Type Ib refers to a relative-clause structure in which the former direct object is fronted in order to serve as an antecedent to which the relative clause (with the remaining elements of the GIVE-pattern) refers back.6 Type Ic is similar, but it is the original indirect object which now serves as the antecedent for a relative clause. Note that in types Ib and Ic, the subject of the relative clause is an obligatory element. In type Id, the direct object is simply fronted. Type IP is the passive pattern in which the indirect object becomes the passivised subject. The direct object remains in situ, and the byagent may or may not be added. Finally, there is type IPb, which is based on the passive form IP. However, the direct object is now used as an antecedent to which a relative clause (with the remaining elements of the pattern, i.e. the passivised subject, the verb and the optional by-agent) refers back. In the following, the formulas and some illustrative examples are given for each of the six derivative patterns. What they all have in common with the basic type-I pattern is the explicitation of both the affected and the transferred entity as two objects and their realisation as noun phrases.7 (27) (28)

I a (S) GIVE [Od: NP] [Oi:NP] ‘He’s my dog. You gave him me.’

(29) (30) (31)

I b [Od: NPantecedent] (rel. pron.) [S] GIVE [Oi:NP] Those batteries that you gave me lasted an hour “An act of bravado,” she’d told Dr Rainbow

c)

“...”, A tells B , “...” => The late Mr Barnsley (Mr Pitkin had told her) was what is termed a self-made man

Although other syntactic analyses are no doubt possible, I have decided – as indicated by the boxes above – to consistently categorise the TELL-pattern in the three cases a) to c) as follows:

126 a) b)

c)

Chapter 3 If TELL introduces direct/reported speech, the direct/reported speech section has been regarded as the direct object of TELL, so that these instances of TELL are grouped into the pattern If or Ie. If TELL follows direct/reported speech, the direct/reported speech section has been considered as syntactically unrelated to the TELL-pattern (and not as, say, a fronted direct object of TELL). From a pattern-grammar perspective, it is assumed here that the TELL-pattern represents a selfcontained verbal process that is added to the verbal process inherent in the direct/reported speech section. In these cases the TELL-pattern is thus considered as an add-on to the direct/reported speech and is analysed as type V. If TELL interrupts direct/reported speech, the TELL-pattern is also analysed as referring to a self-contained verbal process and, accordingly, as a type-V pattern.

Phrasal and prepositional verbs involving TELL (e.g. TELL ABOUT, TELL FROM, TELL OF) have not been taken into consideration for the present study. As in the case of GIVE, such multi-word verbs have a different semantics from TELL proper. The most frequent case is TELL ABOUT. In the Comprehensive Grammar, TELL ABOUT is considered a second prepositional variant of TELL, with the about-phrase functioning as a prepositional object like the to-phrase in the type-II pattern (cf. Quirk et al., 1985: 1209f.). The example that the Comprehensive Grammar draws on in order to illustrate the structural analogy is the following one: tell [D1 + 2a + 2b]

Mary told only John the secret. [D1] Mary told the secret only to John. [D2a] Mary told only John about the secret. [D2b] (Quirk et al., 1985: 1209)

While the complementation patterns [D1] and [D2a] correspond to the type-I pattern and the type-II pattern respectively, I would contend that from a semantic point of view type [D2b] should not be regarded as a variation of [D1]. The important point here is that [D1] can be readily transferred to [D2a] and vice versa without changing the propositional content. In contrast, there is a clear propositional difference between telling someone a secret and telling someone about a secret (which may be paraphrased as informing about rather than literally telling someone a secret). Also, if secret is replaced with, say, friend, even the structural analogy suggested in the Comprehensive Grammar can no longer be drawn: tell someone about my friend is not transferrable to *tell someone my friend. For these reasons, I do not consider TELL ABOUT to be a variant pattern of the ditransitive verb TELL but as a multi-word verb in its own right. The same holds true for all other phrasal and prepositional verbs involving TELL. In Table 3-7 below, the frequencies of all TELL-patterns in ICE-GB are given. Disregarding the miscellaneous cases, there are nine patterns that make up

Aspects of Description

127

90% of all instances of TELL, cf. Figure 3-3. It is these nine patterns that section 3.1.2.2, which is devoted to the principles of pattern selection for TELL, will focus on. Table 3-7: type I Ib Ie If Ig IP IPa IPe IPf IPg II IIP III IIIa IIIb IIIc IIIP IIIPb IV V VP sum

Frequency of TELL-patterns in ICE-GB pattern

(S) TELL [Oi:NP] [Od:NP] [Od: NPantecedent] (rel. pron.) [S] GIVE [Oi:NP] (S) TELL [Oi:NP] [Od:wh-clause] (S) TELL [Oi:NP] [Od:that-clause] (S) TELL [Oi:NP] [Od:to-infinitive] miscellaneous [S < Oi active] BE told [Od:NP] (by-agent) [Od:NP] [S < Oi active] BE told (by-agent) [S < Oi active] BE told [Od:wh-clause] (by-agent) [S < Oi active] BE told [Od:that-clause] (by-agent) [S < Oi active] BE told [Od:to-infinitive] (by-agent) (S) TELL [Od:NP] [Oi:PPto] [S < Od active] BE told [Oi:PPto] (by-agent) (S) TELL [Od:NP] Oi (S) TELL [Od:wh-clause] Oi [Od:NPantecedent] (rel. pron.) [S] TELL Oi (S) TELL [Od:that-clause] Oi miscellaneous [S < Od active] BE told Oi (by-agent) [antecedent]co (S < Od)co (BE) told Oi (by-agent) (S) TELL Oi Od (S) TELL [Oi:NP] Od [S < Oi active] BE told Od (by-agent)

sum 96 8 97 215 26 19 6 3 2 37 5 1 1 27 10 2 2 4 4 5 11 116 11 708

% 13.6 1.1 13.7 30.4 3.7 2.7 0.8 0.4 0.3 5.2 0.7 0.1 0.1 3.8 1.4 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.7 1.6 16.4 1.6 100

Before turning to relevant principles of pattern selection for TELL, it is appropriate to compare the frequencies in Table 3-7 and Figure 3-3 with the quantitative data in the corpus-based Longman Grammar (cf. Biber et al., 1999: 388) in order to assess the overall reliability of the data obtained from ICE-GB. As pointed out in section 1.2.5, the Longman Grammar distinguishes between four genres: ‘academic prose’ (ACAD), ‘news writing’ (NEWS), ‘fiction writing’ (FICT) and ‘conversation’ (CONV). For each of these genres, the percentage of various complementation patterns of TELL is indicated. Note, however, that exact frequencies are not given. Rather, a distinction is made between six frequency ranges: (1) 75%, (2) 50-75%, (3) 25-50%, (4) 10-25%, (5) less than 10%, (6) not attested. Secondly, there is no one-to-one correspondence between

128

Chapter 3

30.4%

16.4% 13.7% 13.6% 10.0%

Figure 3-3:

1.6% 1.6%

I Ty pe IP f Ty pe III Ty pe Ig Ty pe IV Ty pe V P O th er s

3.8% 3.7%

Ty pe

Ie

V

Ty pe

Ty pe

Ty pe

If

5.2%

The nine most frequent TELL-patterns

the TELL-patterns in Table 3-7/Figure 3-3 and the complementation types that are distinguished in the Longman Grammar. Specifically, the Longman Grammar groups all clausal realisations of clause elements into the generic category ‘complement clause’. Also, no distinction is made between active patterns and their passive counterparts. In general, the complementation types in the Longman Grammar are defined much more broadly than in the present study. Notwithstanding these caveats, the quantitative data can be compared to some extent with the ICE-GB data as given in Table 3-7 and Figure 3-3. In Table 3-8, Biber et al.’s (1999: 388) findings are replicated. The corresponding TELL-patterns that are distinguished in the present study are given in the second row. Note that no correspondences are given for passive patterns because the Longman Grammar provides no information as to how the passive patterns have been categorised. Ignoring the passive patterns of TELL, however, does not distort the overall quantitative picture since they only account for some 10% of all instances of the verb TELL in ICE-GB (74 of 708 cases). Thus, a comparison of the frequency data in the Longman Grammar and in ICE-GB remains useful.37

37

Unfortunately, the Longman Grammar does not provide any quantitative information on the various verb complementation patterns of GIVE. It is for this reason that no such comparison between the Longman Grammar and ICE-GB could be offered in section 3.1.1.1.

Aspects of Description Table 3-8: Pattern in Biber et al. Pattern in Table 3-7 CONV FICT NEWS ACAD

129

Frequency of TELL-patterns in the Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English (cf. Biber et al., 1999: 388)

SV

SVOd (NP)

SV + complement clause

type IV

types III, IIIb

types types IIIa, IIIc I, Ib

that-clause). (218) The Interior Ministry has told people to carry on with their work (MESSAGE1/ ORDER) and that attempts to destabilise the country will be severely punished (MESSAGE2/FACT) (219) Dichter had told the Luccas what Mrs Lennox had said (MESSAGE1/ ANSWER) – that Isaac Simons had attacked her (MESSAGE1/FACT) 45

Dixon (1991: 237) describes the semantically intermediate position of wh-infinitives as follows: “WH-TO complements effectively combine the meanings of WH- and Modal (FOR) TO, referring to some activity in which the subject will get involved, and about some aspect of which clarification is needed.”

136

Chapter 3

These examples show that the particular semantics of the transferred entity clearly impinges on the TELL-pattern that language users tend to choose. While the kind of transferred entity is primarily responsible for the selection of a type-I pattern (i.e. I, Ie, If or Ig) in general, each of these – and all other frequent – patterns can also be described in more detail with regard to their individual features of linguistic routinisation. In the following overview, I will again regard the type-If pattern, which is the most frequent TELL-pattern, as the default case and will pay particular attention to lexical, semantic and pragmatic factors that are relevant to the choice of TELL-patterns other than the type-If pattern. Broadly speaking, the type-I pattern turns out to be highly routinised in terms of the lexical items that can be found in subject, indirect-object and directobject position. Specifically, in one third of all cases the subject is first person I (32 of 96 cases = 33.3%). In the indirect-object position, personal pronouns in general account for more than 90 percent of all instances of type I (88 of 96 cases = 91.7%).46 This tendency to use context-dependent pro-forms with the type-I pattern can also be found in the direct-object position since the most frequent NP heads here are the following ones: this/that (27), anything/something/everything/ nothing (11), what (9), all (6), more (5), story (5), truth (5), thing (4), a little bit (4).47 These words/expressions alone account for nearly 80 percent of all cases at hand (76 of 96 cases = 79.2%). Apart from the tendency of a small list of lexical items to be used as direct object in type I, it is particularly noteworthy that a substantial part of the meaning of these items relies on the given context and/or has to be made explicit somewhere else in the text, see examples (209) to (212) above. The frequently occurring nouns in direct-object position are always lexical items that represent the verbal message as a PRODUCT (e.g. story, truth); the verbal message itself (e.g. the actual story or the actual truth) is explicitised somewhere else in the text. Very often, pro-forms are used (e.g. anything, a little bit) that also signal to the recipient that the verbal message is made explicit elsewhere. In sum, then, the direct-object position in the type-I pattern is semantically restricted to nouns and to pro-forms that refer to verbal messages and whose meaning has to be inferred from the context. The same holds true for the prevalence of personal pronouns as indirect objects and the comparatively frequent use 46

The prevalence of personal pronouns as indirect objects and subjects in this pattern – and in many other TELL-patterns – is indicative of the fact that the corresponding semantic roles are usually animated. Since TELL is a verb of verbal communication – and verbal communication is a human trait – the animacy of the affected entity and the acting entity is not at all surprising. 47 It should be noted, however, that while this and that as direct objects are clearly referential items, story and truth as nominalised verbal messages are more salient semantically. With such nouns, it is also possible to expand – and thus make more explicit – the direct object by, say, adding a postmodifying prepositional phrase to the NP head, as for example in (209): a funny story about working class. But even in this largely context-independent indirect object, there remains a difference between the story about someone/something and the story itself (which would typically be introduced by a that-clause, cf. Figure 3-4, p. 134). In this case, context-independence should thus be taken to mean ‘independence of the original verbal message’.

Aspects of Description

137

of the first person pronoun I as subject in type I. The three restrictions on the lexical realisation of the three semantic roles of the type-I pattern are summarised in (220). (220)

I (S) TELL [Oi:NP] [Od:NP] frequent lexical items in Od-position (76 of 96 cases = 79.2%): this/that (27), anything/something/everything/ nothing (11), what (9), all (6), more (5), story (5), truth (5), thing (4), little bit (4)

I (32 of 96 cases = 33.3%)

personal pronouns (88 of 96 cases = 91.7%): you (39), me (24), us (11), her (7), him (5), them (2) From what is frequently attested in the various slots of the type-I pattern, I would suggest that a ‘pattern frame’ of conventionalised linguistic routines for this particular pattern can be abstracted away. Such a pattern frame, which is based on the summarised findings given in (220), is shown in Figure 3-5. The horizontal axis refers to the slots of the type-I pattern from left to right and the vertical axis to the frequency of specific lexical items in each slot. you me ... I

TELL

us her him ...

Figure 3-5:

this/that any-/some-/every-/nothing what all* more* story* truth* thing* a little bit* ...

... *about

A pattern frame for the type-I pattern of TELL

Figure 3-5 shows that, on the one hand, the type-I pattern can be regarded as a syntactic scheme that can, in principle, be used with an infinite set of lexical items in any of its slots (thus, ‘...’ can be found in all the slots). On the other hand, while there is a relatively great freedom of lexical choice in the subject position, there is much more lexical routine involved in the realisation of the indirect-object and the direct-object slot. Accordingly, ‘...’ is given on top of the subject slot because in two-thirds of all cases the lexical item in this slot is not routinised. On the other hand, ‘…’ is found towards the bottom of the directobject and indirect-object slots because it is only in comparatively few cases that the lexical items in these positions are not members of the lists given in (220). In

138

Chapter 3

the light of the lexical routinisation of the direct and the indirect object, it seems as though the type-I pattern provides a frame for a fairly restricted number of conventionalised lexicalisations of its syntactic slots.48 The pattern frame in Figure 3-5 thus illustrates the ‘unrandomness’ in the distribution of words (Sinclair, 1991: 110) for the type-I pattern of TELL. However, this type of partially fixed, conventionalised lexicalisations of the pattern at hand needs to be distinguished from clear-cut ‘formulaic sequences’ (Wray, 1999; Erman and Warren, 2000; Wray, 2002; Schmitt, 2004) as prefabricated multi-word units. For the type-I pattern of TELL, formulaic sequences that can be frequently found in ICE-GB include, for example, (I) (’ll) tell you what (9), tell me this/that (3) and ...was telling me that... (3).49 Without anticipating the discussion of this issue in section 3.4, it should be noted that the notion of pattern frame as a systematisation of frequent lexical realisations of a pattern sits uneasily on the fuzzy boundary between syntactic creativity and formulaic routine in language use. For type Ie, the indirect object again turns out to be strongly biased towards personal pronouns in general (84 of 97 cases = 86.6%). The abundance of such referential items is symptomatic of the fact that the specification of the corresponding semantic role, i.e. the affected entity, is very often as unnecessary as in type I because its identification can be recovered from the context.50 There is also a clear tendency for language users to choose four kinds of wh-clauses in direct-object position, namely wh-clauses introduced by what (43), whether/if (14), how (13) and why (9). These four types account for 81.4% of all 97 instances of the type-Ie pattern. The conventionalised lexicalisation of the indirect and the direct object in the type-Ie pattern of TELL is summarised in (221). (221)

Ie (S) TELL [Oi:NP] [Od:wh-clause] frequent wh-clauses in Od-position (79 of 97 cases = 81.4%): what... (43), whether/if... (14), how... (13), why... (9) personal pronouns (84 of 97 cases = 86.6%): you (34), me (28), us (12), them (5) him (4), her (1)

48 Note, however, that about in the final slot, introducing a postmodifying prepositional phrase, usually co-occurs with specific nouns as NP heads in direct-object position (which are marked by an asterisk in Figure 3-5). 49 These and other formulaic sequences involving TELL, which often function as ‘conversational routines’ (Aijmer, 1996) are also listed in the Longman Grammar (cf. Biber et al., 1999: 753, 1002, 1008). Note, by the way, that while the concept of pattern frame is not bound to a specific word-form, formulaic sequences very often are: I tell you what usually cannot be changed to ?I told you what; nor is ?he tells you what acceptable. 50 The clear preference for personal pronouns in many TELL-patterns distinguishes TELL from GIVE. As will be pointed out later in this section, this may well have to do with the fact that TELL is a typically ‘spoken verb’.

Aspects of Description

139

In light of the lexical items that are frequently used as direct or indirect object in type Ie, it is possible to deduce a pattern frame from the findings summarised in (221). This pattern frame, which visualises the restricted lexical range of the typeIe pattern of TELL, is given in Figure 3-6.51

...

TELL

Figure 3-6:

you me us them him ...

what whether/if how why wh-

A pattern frame for the type-Ie pattern of TELL

In type Ig, pronominalisation of the indirect object is a significant factor again, but clearly less forceful than in the patterns described above. Personal pronouns account for 15 out of 26 instances (= 57.7%) of type Ig. Unlike type I, there is no discernible trend towards specific lexical items in the to-infinitival realisation of the direct object in type Ig. From a semantic point of view, the type-Ig pattern of TELL is used in negative contexts much more frequently than all other TELLpatterns, negativity being created either by obvious negation (e.g. ...not to attend, ...not to drink too much, ...not to report for work) or by using lexical verbs with a more or less negative connotation (e.g. ...to bury the community charge, ... to get out of town, ...to keep away from her). Disregarding some borderline cases, these negative and semi-negative instances account for half of all occurrences of the type-Ig pattern in ICE-GB (13 of 26 cases = 50.0%). This is not surprising, given the semantic role of the transferred entity in type Ig, which has been described as MESSAGE/ORDER. In comparison with the other TELL-patterns, it thus stands to reason to consider type Ig as displaying a neutral to negative ‘semantic prosody’ (Louw, 1993). The two factors that are relevant to the selection of the typeIg pattern of TELL are summarised in (222). Since pronominalisation of the indirect object is a relatively weak factor in this particular case and due to the lack of clearly identifiable lexical routines in the direct object, a pattern frame cannot be suggested on the basis of the ICE-GB data.52

51

Note that in Figure 3-6, all other realisations of the direct object in the type-Ie pattern of TELL are covered by ‘wh-‘ because, by definition, the wh-clause is introduced by a whword. 52 The conclusions given in (222) have to be taken with a measure of caution since they hinge on a relatively thin database. Notwithstanding this caveat, it seems as though type Ig is the only TELL-pattern which is more or less evenly distributed in spoken (15) and written language (11), while all other TELL-patterns are much more frequent in spoken than in written language. At the end of this section, it will be argued that not only the strikingly different overall frequencies of the TELL-patterns but also the difference in their distribution across spoken and written language can be functionally explained.

140 (222)

Chapter 3 Ig (S) TELL [Oi:NP] [Od:to-infinitive] personal pronouns (15 of 26 cases = 57.7%)

neutral (13) or negative (13) semantic prosody (50.0% vs. 50.0%)

The discussion of the four most frequent TELL-patterns should be concluded with a brief remark on the obvious relevance of heaviness and focus considerations. Since in all four patterns at hand (i.e. I, Ie, If, Ig) there is a tendency for the indirect object to be realised as a personal pronoun, it is quite clear that the subsequent constituent, i.e. the direct object, is very often heavier (especially in its clausal realisations in types Ie, If and Ig) than the indirect object. Also, the direct object almost always represents new information (to be placed in focus position), while the pronominalised indirect object is given and marked by a very low degree of ‘communicative dynamism’ (Firbas, 1992: 6ff.) from an information-structural point of view. The type-IPf pattern is the passive pattern that can be derived from its active counterpart If. To be precise, the indirect object becomes the subject so that the affected entity is now in initial position. The transferred entity, i.e. the verbal message realised as a that-clause, remains in situ, and the acting entity may be realised as an optional by-agent in final position. In a similar vein to the passive GIVE-patterns (see section 3.1.1.2), the by-agent is usually omitted (31 of 37 cases = 83.8%).53 The most important factor that leads language users to choose type IPf is the optionality of the by-agent, which makes it possible to leave out the acting entity. As shown in (223), the affected entity (i.e. the subjectivised indirect object) is again very often realised as a personal pronoun (25 of 37 cases = 67.6%), thus representing given information that has already been made explicit or that can be inferred from the situational context. What is more, in 7 other cases (18.9%) the passive subject is a definite noun phrase or a general noun and can also be regarded as given information since it has already been ‘textually evoked’ or ‘situationally evoked’ (Prince, 1981).54 Examples (224) and (225) show that the previous activation of the affected entity may lead to a 53

Note, however, that in all six cases in which the by-agent is explicitised it is in fact placed before the direct object, e.g. in The waiting cameramen were told by her son that she was sad not bitter and in But we’re told by John Redwood that all this is old hat . This movement of the by-agent may be motivated by the attempt to make it clear that the by-agent belongs to TELL and not to the verbal process of the that-clause. In the following sentence, for example, the by-agent may be regarded as either belonging to the verbal process of PRESENT (more probable) or to TELL (less probable): To her surprise and her sisters’ annoyance Pig was told in 1931 that she would be presented at Court by Lady Hammond-Graeme, who made her living out of the daughters of the nouveaux riches . 54 Even in most of the remaining cases, the indefinite noun phrase in subject position can be easily subsumed under ‘given information’ on the grounds of the situational context. For example, the indefinite plural item MPs is evoked by the preceding item Parliament in: ... when the 1989 Dock Work Act was presented as a Bill of Parliament, MPs were told that it would probably lead to 1,500 to 2,000 redundancies ... .

Aspects of Description

141

coordinated sentence structure in which TELL shares a syntactic slot with another verb: in (224), people... is the affected entity of both SIT UPON and TELL, while I in (225) is at the same time acting entity of PHONE and affected entity of TELL. Examples (226) and (227) illustrate that not only the givenness of the initial element but also the heaviness (and newness) of the final element, i.e. the that-clause in direct-object position, is relevant to the selection of type IPf. In fact, in 35 of 37 cases (94.6%) the direct object is significantly heavier than the passive subject.55 (223)

IP f [S < Oi active] BE told [Od:that-clause] (by-agent) given/activated before (32 of 37 cases = 86.5%): personal pronoun (25), definite NP/evoked (7)

heavy/new left out (35 of 37 cases (31 of 37 cases = 94.6%) = 83.8%)

(224) No new prophets are emerging. People who do come forward claiming to be prophets are promptly sat upon and told that this is something shameful this is audacious (225) I phoned Butterworths today and was told that, as we are a major client of yours (and a poor underfunded University Library) it is likely that you would take pity on us and supply us with these missing pages free of charge (226) Uh he would be told that the reason is that they have appraised the use of the resources and have redeployed them in a way which they consider to be more effective ... (227) The jury was told the event went off well and there was no trouble until it was winding up shortly before 3 am In the type-III pattern, the indirect object is omitted so that the affected entity of the TELLING event remains unspecified. As in the type-III pattern of GIVE (cf. (108) on p. 107), specific lexical items in direct-object position seem to trigger off the preference for this particular pattern. In 14 of 27 cases (51.9%) it is story/stories. Additionally, truth occurs three times (11.1%) and lies and facts occur twice (7.4% each) in the direct-object position of the type-III pattern of TELL. As a matter of fact, all these items can be subsumed into one semantic field, to which also many other items that are only attested once in this pattern in ICE-GB (e.g. jokes, tales) could easily be added. These findings suggest that, firstly, specific – and semantically similar – lexical items as realisations of the transferred entity function as lexical pointers to the type-III pattern and that, 55

The only exceptions in ICE-GB are provided by (224) and the following example: The report claimed that the LDA and other local enterprise companies set up by Scottish Enterprise had been told that only 68 percent of the total money they had asked for was available .

142

Chapter 3

secondly, the restricted set of lexical items in direct-object position is linked to leaving the affected entity unspecified because its mere existence (i.e. a recipient of the verbal message) is already implied in the lexical meaning of the ditransitive verb TELL. In fact, in all 27 cases, the affected entity can either be recovered from the context or its specification is irrelevant in a given context. What is more, the association between the type-III pattern of TELL and story/stories is so strong that the sequence of ‘TELL + story/stories’ should be best regarded as a lexically stabilised idiom. The same holds true for the sequence ‘TELL + difference + between’ because it is based on (and implies) a metaphorical extension of literal TELL.56 In (228) to (231), the lexical restrictions on the type-III pattern of TELL are summarised and exemplified. The examples are also intended to illustrate a significant tendency for this pattern to be used in negative contexts, namely in 16 of 27 cases (59.3%). Such negative contexts may be based on clear negation, items with a negative connotation (in the TELL-pattern itself or in its vicinity) and/or the description of unplesant processes or phenomena. (228)

III (S) TELL [Od:NP] Oi contextually recoverable / specification irrelevant (all 27 cases = 100.0%) recurrent lexical items (≥2): story/stories (14), truth (3), lies (2), facts (2), difference between... (2) (23 of 27 cases = 85.2%)

(229) But according to the United Bible Societies these figures don’t tell the whole story as some countries imported paper on which to print their own Bibles (230) And there are those of us who feel that perhaps this was going on a bit too obviously overboard in telling the story and setting the situation in a way which favoured the cricket (231) As the reader, we question whether Bishop Lowth is telling the truth, or is it all false and ‘imaginary’ as the author politely suggests? In the type-IV pattern, neither the direct object nor the indirect object is explicitised. Again, this pattern is primarily linked to specific idiomatic phrases and to less central meanings of TELL that could be seen as metaphorical extensions of literal TELL (in the sense of the meaning groups ‘have clear effect’ 56

Accordingly, the Macmillan English Dictionary (Rundell, 2002: 1476), for example, subsumes this phrase into a separate meaning group of TELL, which is described as ‘recognize sth’. In this meaning group, which also embraces the phrasal verb ‘TELL so./sth. FROM so./sth.’, no affected entity can be specified, while this is possible for ‘TELL + story/truth/lie/fact’ etc., which are subsumed under the meaning group ‘give information’.

Aspects of Description

143

and ‘fail to keep secret’ as specified in the Macmillan English Dictionary, cf. Rundell, 2002: 1476). The fact that we only find 11 instances of this pattern of TELL in ICE-GB seems to corroborate the strong semantic and pragmatic restrictions on type IV. In (232), all 11 instances are listed. (232)

IV (S) TELL Oi Od no specification of Oi and Od because 1. the pattern is linked to metaphorically extended meanings: (a) ‘have clear effect’ as in racing experience here will tell, too early to tell for certain; (b) ‘fail to keep secret’ as in don’t tell, how can they tell, you could tell, he was telling, we can never tell 2. the pattern is used in idiomatic phrases: as far as I can/could tell... (3), as Slater tells...

As shown in Figure 3-3 (p. 128), the type-V pattern, in which the transferred entity is not explicitised, is the second most frequent pattern of TELL in ICE-GB. It is hardly surprising that the direct object is omitted (by using the type-V pattern) whenever there is no need for any specification of the verbal message, either because it can be recovered from the context or because it is the process of telling as such that is important (and not the particularities of what is told). In this pattern, there is again a strong preference for pronominal forms both in the subject and in the indirect-object slot. In fact, personal/reflexive pronouns can be found in 89 of all 116 (grammatical and/or notional) subjects (76.7%) and in 93 of all 116 indirect objects (80.2%). Also, it is not unusual for the type-V pattern to follow the conjunction as (10 of 116 cases = 8.6%). These findings, which are summarised in (233), suggest that the type-V pattern is very often not used to introduce new bits of information to the discourse, but rather as a secondary comment, as an add-on (especially to direct speech) or a time-buying phrase (which is important for speakers under real-time constraints in spontaneous conversation in order to hold the floor). While contextual recoverability of the direct object is exemplified in (234) and (235), the comment, add-on and timebuying functions of the type-V pattern are illustrated in (236), (237) and (238) respectively. (233)

V (S) TELL [Oi:NP] Od contextually recoverable / specification irrelevant (all 116 cases = 100.0%) pronominalisation (93 of 116 cases = 80.2%): you (37), me/myself (29), us (8), them (7), him (6), her/herself (6) pronominalisation (89 of 116 cases = 76.7%): I/me (40), you (29), she (7), he (6), we/us (3), they (3), it (1)

144

Chapter 3

(234) And I had to tell them because they can’t suddenly say you’ve forgotten your room number or anything can you ... (235) I would much prefer to tell you one-to-one (236) And, as I told you before, should you need a hand with anything, be sure to call me up (237) ‘I’m afraid I’ve always been bad at names,’ she told him for she’d no recollection of him (238) Uh and then as you told us his uh h he he was interested in uh a business which was within a twenty-five mile radius of Hammersmith From (233), a pattern frame can be derived for the type-V pattern of TELL, which is sketched out in Figure 3-7.

... as

Figure 3-7:

I/me you she he ...

TELL

you me/myself us them him her/herself ...

A pattern frame for the type-V pattern of TELL

It should be noted in passing that the lexicogrammar of TELL is quite different from GIVE in that TELL is very often used with the indirect object alone, while the second most frequent pattern of GIVE is type-III in which only the direct object is explicitised (cf. Table 3-1, p. 99). One could easily hypothesise, then, that there is a stronger syntactic link between TELL and its indirect object than to its direct object, while for GIVE the reverse would hold true. In a sense, it seems as though from a quantitative point of view the indirect object is the ‘primary object’ of TELL (while the direct object is the ‘secondary object’ of TELL), whereas it is the ‘secondary object’of GIVE (while the direct object is the ‘primary object’ of GIVE).57 From a cognitive perspective, however, the corpus findings suggest that it is the semantic role of the direct object (i.e. the transferred entity) that is particularly strongly associated with TELL – and more inherent in the situation type evoked by TELL – because it remains unspecified at the syntactic surface structure much more frequently than the indirect object. Finally, the type-VP pattern should be briefly mentioned. It is the passive counterpart of type V, and it occurs only 11 times in ICE-GB. Examples have 57

Note that my use of ‘primary object’ and ‘secondary object’ is linked to specific ditransitive verbs in English, while Dryer (1986) applies these terms in order to compare the syntax of different languages. In fact, he introduces the notions of primary and secondary objects in order to distinguish between different kinds of direct and indirect objects from a typological perspective.

Aspects of Description

145

already been given in (197) to (199). As shown in (239), this pattern is marked by pronominalisation in the passive subject, and the by-agent is omitted in all 11 cases. In fact, this pattern makes it possible to explicitise only the affected entity of the TELLING event since the transferred entity can be recovered from the context and a specification of the acting entity is considered unnecessary. (239)

VP [S < Oi active] BE told Od (by-agent) pronouns (10 of 11 cases = 90.1%)

left out (all 11 cases = 100.0%) contextually recoverable (all 11 cases = 100.0%)

Although all of the nine most frequent TELL-patterns are marked by preferred lexical realisations of specific clause elements, there are three general variables that should be taken into account in order to describe why language users choose one particular pattern in a given context: (1) the need to explicitise the acting entity, the affected entity and/or the transferred entity; (2) the kind of transferred entity (if explicitised); (3) the need to nominalise the verbal message inherent in the transferred entity (if explicitised) in order to present the underlying FACT or ANSWER as a PRODUCT. In fact, the influence of the three variables on the process of pattern selection can be systematised along the lines of a flowchart in which the three variables come into play at particular stages; see Figure 3-8. These three variables alone allow for a unified explanation of the routinised pattern selection for TELL. These three context-independent variables therefore seem to be much more central to the pattern selection than the context-dependent factors that were described for each individual pattern of TELL. While each individual pattern may display its specific routines in actual language use, all frequent TELL-patterns can be systematised at a more abstract and decontextualised level according to the three semantic variables listed above. In this context, note that the flowchart given in Figure 3-8 includes no information on the context-dependence of specific semantic roles (as could be derived from, say, the extent to which a clause element tends to be pronominalised in a pattern) nor on specific frequent lexical items that may be regarded as lexical pointers to a pattern. Also, it should not go unmentioned that heaviness and newness of clause elements are not taken into account in Figure 3-8. Generally speaking, from the analysis of the TELL-patterns above the conclusion has to be drawn that heaviness and newness may be communicatively important factors but they are clearly less distinctive principles of pattern selection for TELL than for GIVE. As mentioned before, it is, for example, telling that in more than 60% of all occurrences of TELL (i.e. in the patterns I, Ie, If and Ig) there is no difference whatsoever in terms of the arrangement of the semantic roles, while no such clear-cut preference for one particular arrangement can be found for GIVE. The variables that are mentioned in Figure 3-8 may help to explain why specific patterns are more frequent than others in terms of the number and kind of semantic roles involved: note that particular options in Figure 3-8, namely the ones marked by an asterisk,

146

Chapter 3

Transferred entity to be explicitised? YES *

NO

*

Affected entity to be explicitised?

Affected entity to be explicitised?

YES *

YES *

Acting entity to be explicitised?

NO

type III

Acting entity to be explicitised? YES *

NO

YES *

NO

NO

type IV

type VP

type IPf type V

What kind of transferred entity? * FACT type If

*

* ANSWER type Ie

*

ORDER type Ig

To be presented as PRODUCT? Figure 3-8:

*

type I

Routinised pattern selection: the case of TELL

indicate preferred pathways when it comes to the verbalisation of a TELLING event: the type-I, type-Ie, type-If and the type-V pattern. This frequency-based line of argumentation will be taken up in chapter 4, which deals with the cognitive implications of corpus-based findings on the usage of ditransitive verbs. I would like to conclude the discussion of TELL by briefly referring to the preferred use of TELL in spoken language. In particular, while GIVE is more or less evenly distributed in the spoken and written section of ICE-GB (see section 3.1.1.3), more than two thirds of all occurrences of TELL (438 of 636 instances = 68.9%) can be found in the spoken component. Given the fact that the spoken component in ICE-GB is significantly larger than the written component, it is appropriate to normalise the number of occurrences in terms of frequencies per million words. Table 3-9 gives normalised frequencies of each routinised TELLpattern in the spoken and written section of ICE-GB. The figures reveal that TELL, unlike GIVE, is a typically ‘spoken verb’. This is also corroborated by the Longman Grammar (cf. Biber et al., 1999: 367f.), in which GIVE is described as evenly distributed across conversation, fiction writing, news writing and academic prose, while TELL is clearly biased towards spoken language (including the written representation of spoken language, say, in fiction writing). The prevalence of TELL in spoken language may be one important reason why in many

Aspects of Description Table 3-9: TELLpattern type I type Ie type If type Ig type IPf type III type IV type V type VP sum

147

Frequency of TELL-patterns in the spoken and written section of ICE-GB spoken section

written section

number of occurrences

frequency (pmw)

number of occurrences

frequency (pmw)

total

76 67 140 15 26 19 9 78 8

119.2 105.1 219.5 23.5 40.8 29.8 14.1 122.3 12.5

20 30 75 11 11 8 2 38 3

47.2 70.8 177.0 26.0 26.0 18.9 4.7 89.7 7.1

96 97 215 26 37 27 11 116 11 636

TELL-patterns context-dependent pronominal realisations of clause elements prevail (cf. Biber et al., 1999: 1042ff.). Also, it is against this background of TELL as a typically spoken verb that the surprising distribution of the type-Ig pattern can be explained. Note that this pattern is the only one which occurs more frequently in written than in spoken language (cf. Table 3-9). This pattern, however, is marked by a to-infinitive in direct-object position which represents a specific kind of verbal message, namely a MESSAGE/ORDER (cf. Figure 3-4, p. 134). It may be not too far-fetched an assumption that “the general atmosphere of cooperativeness” (Stenström, 1994: 1) in spoken conversation puts some restrictions on the explicit statement of ORDERS by using the type-Ig pattern: TELL tends to be used to refer to (or report on) a directive speech act, but is rarely used performatively. In a sense, then, the avoidance of overt ORDERS in spoken language could be regarded as yet another, more pragmatic principle of pattern selection for TELL. 3.2

Habitual ditransitive verbs in ICE-GB

As sketched out in Figure 2-4 (p. 84), habitual ditransitive verbs are defined in the present study as those verbs that occur fairly frequently in ICE-GB (i.e. 200 to 700 occurrences), but that are not strongly associated with an explicit ditransitive syntax (i.e. not parsed as ditransitive in ICE-GB) in the clear majority of all cases (cf. Table 2-5, p. 84). These two defining aspects render them less typical of ditransitivity than GIVE and TELL from a lexicogrammatical point of view, although their basic meaning is in line with the semantically three-valent core of ditransitivity (cf. Figure 1-8, p. 36). In ICE-GB, four verbs turn out to be habitual ditransitive verbs: SHOW, ASK, SEND and OFFER. Table 3-10 lists the total number of occurrences of these verbs in ICE-GB (including phrasal/prepositional

148

Chapter 3

verbs) and the relative percentage of explicit ditransitive syntax for each of the four verbs. The figures in the last column show that it is only in a minority of cases – ranging from some 13% to some 27% – that each of the four verbs is used in an explicit ditransitive syntax. Table 3-10: Habitual ditransitive verbs in ICE-GB verb SHOW ASK SEND OFFER

total number of occurrences 639 518 346 198

explicit ditransitive syntax occurrences percentage 84 13.1 % 91 17.6 % 79 22.8 % 54 27.3 %

The following sections provide an overview of important principles of pattern selection for SHOW (see section 3.2.1), ASK (see section 3.2.2), SEND (see section 3.2.3) and OFFER (see section 3.2.4). 3.2.1 SHOW SHOW is associated with a variety of patterns, most of which have already been discussed for GIVE (see section 3.1.1.1) and TELL (see section 3.1.2.1). However, some SHOW-patterns are attested neither with GIVE nor with TELL. In this context, there are also some analytical problems of demarcation that need to be addressed. Both the new patterns and the problems of categorisation will be discussed first in this section. Not infrequently, SHOW is followed by a noun phrase in direct-object position and an ing-clause, as in (240) and (241): (240) And so this little diagram shows uh light rays coming down from the sun (241) Uhm the red line on the other hand shows heat going back out away from the earth into space … With these sentences, multiple analyses are possible. Specifically, the question arises as to whether these sentences should be categorised along the lines of a complex-transitive analysis (i.e. as SVOC) or of a ditransitive analysis (i.e. along the lines of the type-III pattern). Note, for example, that the Longman Grammar (cf. Biber et al., 1999: 391) subsumes sentences such as But they still show boardroom salaries growing faster than middle management’s under complex transitive complementation rather than ditransitive complementation because the ing-clause is seen as a complement to the direct object (i.e. boardroom salaries). As a matter of fact, this analysis is absolutely plausible; but it is also possible, in my view, to analyse this very sentence differently so that it could still be regarded as a variant of ditransitive complementation. The two analyses of this sentence

Aspects of Description

149

are given in (242). Analysis I is the one suggested by Biber et al. (1999) in which the ing-clause is regarded as a separate clause element. Analysis II is the one preferred in the present study because the ing-clause is seen as a postmodification of the preceding noun phrase (analogous to, say, a relative clause) within the clause element of direct object. In analysis I, SHOW is thus taken to be complextransitive (‘cxtr V’), while analysis II is based on the assumption that SHOW continues to be a ditransitive verb (‘ditr V’), although the affected entity is not made explicit in the form of an indirect object. (242) I:

S

cxtr V

direct object

complement to direct object

But they still show boardroom salaries growing faster than middle management’s II:

S

ditr V (indirect object) direct object type-III pattern of SHOW

With SHOW, unlike TELL, it is possible to have a wh-clausal and that-clausal realisation of the direct object in a type II-pattern. These patterns are coded ‘IIe’ and ‘IIf’ respectively. In these patterns, the indirect object is realised as a tophrase which is followed by a clausal direct object. Formulas and examples are given in (243) to (246). (243) IIe (S) SHOW [Oi:PPto] [Od:wh-clause] (244) The prophet responds to this by saying that God will show to them all too clearly how just he is by coming against them in judgement (245) IIf (S) SHOW [Oi:PPto] [Od:that-clause] (246) And you have to consider whether the plaintiff has shown to you that the words do mean what he or she uh suggests Another SHOW-pattern that is not attested with GIVE or TELL, is type IIIPrg. An example of this pattern is given in (247). (247) In theories about “sexual politics”, the personal sexual relationship is shown to hold overtones of domination and submission, with generally the male dominating the female As the pattern code ‘IIIPrg’ indicates, the syntax of the SHOW-pattern as exemplified in (247) is structurally related to a passive form derived from the active type-III pattern. What is special about this pattern, however, is the fact that the passive form is based on a ‘raising’ (‘rg’) of the object from a subordinate to-

150

Chapter 3

infinitive clause to the superordinate clause (cf. Quirk et al., 1985: 1202f.). The analytical steps involved in the ‘raised object’ analysis of (247) may be taken to start off from the following hypothetical version with a type-I pattern: (247a) …they show [us]Oi [that the personal sexual relationship holds overtones of…]Od (=> type I) In a second step, it may be assumed that the affected entity is no longer explicitised as the indirect object, and that the that-clause is changed into a to-infinitive clause with its own notional subject (i.e. the personal sexual relationship), which is at the same time the syntactic object of SHOW: “semantically, it has the role of subject of the nonfinite verb; but syntactically it is ‘raised’ from the nonfinite clause to function as object of the superordinate verb” (Quirk et al., 1985: 1202). This is the case in (247b), and in analogy to the preferred analysis II in (242) the underlying SHOW-pattern is categorised as type III. (247b) …they show Oi [the personal sexual relationship]raised obj [to hold overtones of…]to-inf. (=> type III) In a third step, the raised object becomes the subject of the passive, resulting in the passive pattern IIIPrg, cf. (247) above. On the face of it, this pattern is no longer related to the transfer event of the basic version in (247a). From a semantic point of view, however, the type-IIIPrg pattern may still be taken to display a ditransitive meaning and represent an abstract transfer event: the initial element may well be regarded as the affected entity, realised as the passive subject, which ‘is given the description or the attributes’ as specified in the to-infinitive clause (which may thus be re-interpreted as the transferred entity in this context). In other words, the entity in the to-infinitive clause is figuratively transferred to the entity in the passive subject. In (247) above, for example, the personal sexual relationship may thus be taken to represent the affected entity which ‘is given a specific description’ (i.e. to hold overtones of…). This interpretation can be mapped onto the pattern formula of the type-IIIPrg pattern as follows: (248)

IIIPrg [S < Od raised] BE shown [to-infinitive] (by-agent) ‘is given the following description:’

The semantic reinterpretation of the type-IIIPrg pattern as outlined above makes it possible to link this SHOW-pattern to the ditransitive meaning in terms of an underlying figurative transfer event. Among the type-IV patterns, we also find a peculiar SHOW-pattern that warrants a brief discussion of its inherent semantics. Apart from the usual type-IV pattern, in which only the acting entity is explicitised (while the affected entity and the transferred are omitted), SHOW also occurs in a pattern which looks

Aspects of Description

151

structurally similar but is semantically different. This additional SHOW-pattern is coded ‘IVerg’ because SHOW can be considered an ergative verb in this pattern: “With ergative verbs, the relationship between the object and the verb in the SVOd [i.e. type-III] pattern is the same as that between the subject and the verb in the SV [i.e. type-IVerg] pattern” (Biber et al., 1999: 147). Semantically, the grammatical subject in type IVerg corresponds to the direct object in the type-III pattern. From a semantic point of view, then, it is the transferred entity which is realised as the grammatical subject in type IVerg, while in type IV the grammatical subject is also the notional subject, referring to the acting entity.58 This semantic difference between the type-IVerg and the type-IV pattern of SHOW is shown in (249) to (252).59 Note that because the ergative use of a verb such as SHOW precludes any grammatical object, there is no indication of object deletion (i.e. ‘Oi’ and ‘Od’) in the pattern formula of the type-IVerg pattern in (249). (249) IVerg [S ergative] SHOW (250) Uh I’m afraid this does not show very well graphically (251) IV (S) SHOW Oi Od (252) The response of Joyce and Proust to that severed connection, as Beckett shows, lies in the totalising dynamic which both deploy as a means of giving their writing some foundation or necessity Finally, brief mention should also be made of the type-IVP pattern, which is the passive form with no objects and an optional by-agent (which, however, is always omitted in ICE-GB), see (253) and (254).60 58 It should not go unmentioned that Biber et al.’s (1999) use of the term ‘ergativity’ is not very common, although I find it suitable for the purpose at hand. Usually, ergativity is a typological label ascribed to specific languages to distinguish between nominative-accusative and ergative-absolutive systems, which differ in case-marking and in the unmarked choice of argument roles for particular clause elements (cf. Dixon, 1979; Du Bois, 1987; Dixon, 1994; van Valin, 2001). Nevertheless, I keep to Biber et al.’s (1999) languageinternal understanding of ergativity because it captures the fundamental difference in the argument structure of type IV and type IVerg (although they share the same surface structure). Note that some other terms are also used for the ergative use of verbs, e.g. ‘middle construction’ (Fagan, 1988) and ‘mediopassive’ (Hundt, 2001). 59 In a sense, the use of SHOW in type IVerg resembles the specific meaning of TELL when used as the adjective telling: and I think actually it’s quite telling because if you were to do that and add it up ... . Here, the semantic relation between the subject it and telling as an adjective is similar to the one between the direct object and TELL as a verb. 60 As will be discussed later in this section, one may think of two different active counterparts, i.e. either with the omitted by-agent as a subject or with the diagram as an inanimate subject (the diagram shows…).

152

Chapter 3

(253) IVP shown Oi Od (by-agent) (254) When returning the wide serve, try to follow the path of the arrows, as shown here in the diagram As with GIVE and TELL, all phrasal and prepositional verbs including SHOW, e.g. SHOW AS, SHOW THROUGH and SHOW UP, have been excluded from the corpus analysis for semantic reasons. Thus, 606 instances of SHOW proper are left. Table 3-11 provides an overview of the total number of occurrences of all SHOW-patterns in ICE-GB and their relative frequencies. Table 3-11: Frequency of SHOW-patterns in ICE-GB type I Ib Ie If

pattern

(S) SHOW [Oi:NP] [Od:NP] [Od: NPantecedent] (rel. pron.) [S] SHOW [Oi:NP] (S) SHOW [Oi:NP] [Od:wh-clause] (S) SHOW [Oi:NP] [Od:that-clause] miscellaneous IP [S < Oi active] BE shown [Od:NP] (by-agent) IPe [S < Oi active] BE shown [Od:wh-clause] (by-agent) II (S) SHOW [Od:NP] [Oi:PPto] IIb [Od:NPantecedent] (rel. pron.) [S] SHOW [Oi:PPto] IIe (S) SHOW [Oi:PPto] [Od:wh-clause] IIf (S) SHOW [Oi:PPto] [Od:that-clause] IIP [S < Od active] BE shown [Oi:PPto] (by-agent) IIPb [antecedent]co (S< Od)co (BE) shown [Oi:NPto] (by-agent) III (S) SHOW [Od:NP] Oi IIIa (S) SHOW [Od:wh-clause] Oi IIIb [Od:NPantecedent] (rel. pron.) [S] SHOW Oi IIIc (S) SHOW [Od:that-clause] Oi miscellaneous IIIP [S < Od active] BE shown Oi (by-agent) IIIPb [antecedent]co (S < Od)co (BE) shown Oi (by-agent) IIIPrg [S < Od raised] BE shown [to-infinitive] (by-agent) miscellaneous IV (S) SHOW Oi Od IVerg [Sergative] SHOW IVP shown Oi Od (by-agent) V (S) SHOW [Oi:NP] Od sum

sum 43 9 14 6 9 2 1 12 1 1 1 0 4 218 33 13 110 8 31 39 14 2 7 10 10 8 606

% 7.1 1.5 2.3 1.0 1.5 0.3 0.2 2.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.7 36.0 5.4 2.1 18.2 1.3 5.1 6.4 2.3 0.3 1.2 1.7 1.7 1.3 100

The overall quantitative trends in Table 3-11 are in line with the frequencies that can be found for the various valency patterns of SHOW in the Longman Gram-

Aspects of Description

153

mar (cf. Biber et al., 1999: 390). For example, this holds true for the high frequency of type III (corresponding to ‘SVOd(NP)’), the fairly frequent use of types IIIa and IIIc (corresponding to ‘SV+complement clause’) and the low frequencies of type II (i.e. ‘SVOdOi(PrepP)’) and types Ie and If (i.e. ‘SVOi+ complement clause’).61 In Figure 3-9, the twelve most frequent patterns are given. These twelve patterns, which will be discussed in detail below, account for more than 90% of all instances of SHOW. The most frequent pattern, accounting for more than one third of all occurrences of SHOW, is the type-III pattern. Thus, it is perfectly common to omit the indirect object of SHOW, leaving the affected entity of the underlying event type unspecified.

36.0%

18.2%

7.1% 6.4%

9.7% 5.4% 5.1%

Ty pe Ty III pe III c Ty Ty pe I pe III P Ty b pe III Ty a pe III Ty P Ty pe I pe e III P Ty rg pe III b Ty p Ty eI pe I IV Ty erg pe IV P O th er s

2.3% 2.3% 2.1% 2.0% 1.7% 1.7%

Figure 3-9:

The twelve most frequent SHOW-patterns

The type-III pattern is the default pattern of SHOW on quantitative grounds. Not only is it characterised by the omission of the indirect object, but also by the realisation of the direct object (i.e. the OBJECT being shown) as a noun phrase, as shown in (255). The examples given in (256) to (257) illustrate that this default pattern is available both for animate and inanimate acting entities (see underlined subjects). 61

As mentioned before, an in-depth comparison between the ICE-GB data as analysed here and the Longman Grammar is difficult for two reasons: there is no one-to-one correspondence between the valency patterns in the Longman Grammar and the patterns distinguished in the present study, and the Longman Grammar does not indicate exact frequencies, but only distinguishes between six frequency ranges (see section 3.1.2.1).

154

Chapter 3

(255) III (S) SHOW [Od:NP] Oi (256) I’m going to show some illustrations today from two quite different earthquakes ... (257) Figures for the region as a whole show a marked discrepancy between expectation of life at birth in the larger wealthier states and the smaller poorer ones Table 3-12 shows that there is a discernible preference for the type-III pattern in written genres. Table 3-12: Frequency of the type-III pattern of SHOW in the spoken and written section of ICE-GB type-III spoken section pattern number of frequency (per of instances mill. words) SHOW 105 164.7

written section number of frequency (per instances mill. words) 113 266.7

sum total 218

It turns out that language-users’ choice of other patterns than the type-III pattern is very often related to one or more of the above-mentioned three features that are typical of the default pattern of SHOW: (1) no specification of the affected entity; (2) realisation of the direct object, representing the transferred entity, as a noun phrase; (3) a bias towards written language. Starting off from the type-III pattern as the default pattern of SHOW, one of the basic questions that arises concerning the pattern-selectional process is not – unlike typical ditransitive verbs – why the affected entity is omitted, but rather why it is explicitised in specific contexts. The second most frequent SHOW-pattern is type IIIc. Here, the direct object is realised as a that-clause. Capitalising on what has been said about the meaning of that-clauses in section 3.1.2.2, this pattern is chosen whenever the transferred entity is an OBJECT/FACT (rather than an OBJECT/PRODUCT as in type III). What is more, this pattern tends to be used whenever the acting entity is inanimate. Specifically, the lexical items in the subject position of the type-III pattern can be subsumed under the semantic field of scientific DATA (e.g. opinion poll, survey, result). Related to this semantic field is the use of items that refer to scientists themselves (e.g. Stückli (1980), scientist) or to historical events as data (e.g. Gulf crisis, this century). As shown in (258), this semantic restriction on the subject position of the type-III pattern is a major quantitative factor (80 of 110 cases = 72.7%). Some examples are given in (259) to (261). On the other hand, personal pronouns can be found in only 19 of 110 cases (= 17.3%), but even these instances very often refer to the extended semantic field of scientific DATA because the personal pronoun in these contexts refers to a scientist (or a group of scientists) producing – or reporting on – such data, see (262).62 62

The pronoun it in subject position is excluded here although the context makes it clear that it usually refers to a previously mentioned noun that belongs to the semantic field of

Aspects of Description (258)

155

IIIc (S) SHOW [Od:that-clause] Oi OBJECT/FACT referring to the extended semantic field of DATA (80 of 110 cases = 72.7%): 1. scientific and other data: e.g. opinion poll(s) (7), survey (5), result(s) (4), study/-ies (4), evidence (3), facts (3), figures (3), research (3) 2. scientists: e.g. researchers (1), scientist (1), Stückli (1980) (1), supervisor (1) 3. historical events/developments: e.g. Gulf crisis (1), history (1), this century (1)

(259) The Harris poll shows Mr Heseltine is the most popular with Mr Major second (260) A scientist named Bridgeman claimed to have shown that there was a deviation from Ohm’s law at very high densities ... (261) This century has already shown that there are times when right demands might, and this will be one of them (262) We ’ve shown at the National Institute that if you take an industry which uh can be found in both uh say France uh Germany and Britain that the presence of a skilled workforce in Germany has a very obvious uhm effect on the products which that country can produce In principle, two similar principles of pattern selection are involved in the choice of the type-IIIa pattern in which the direct object is realised as a wh-clause. The wh-clause is used to present a transferred entity which could be described as OBJECT/ANSWER (in a similar vein to the semantic role of MESSAGE/ ANSWER with which the type-Ie pattern of TELL is associated, see section 3.1.2.2). In 29 of 33 cases (= 87.8%), the wh-clause is introduced by how or what. Also, there is a clear preference for inanimate subjects in this pattern, and many of the lexical items occurring in the subject position of type IIIa can again be subsumed into the extended semantic field of DATA. The two semantic restraints on the type-IIIa pattern are shown and exemplified in (263) to (265). (263)

IIIa (S) SHOW [Od:wh-clause] Oi OBJECT/ANSWER: how... (20), what... (9) referring to the extended semantic field of DATA (22 of 33 cases = 66.7%): e.g. diagram (2), example (2), story/-ies (2), survey (1), water test (1)

DATA, e.g. map: If you look at a map, it shows you that you don’t know the area ... .

156

Chapter 3

(264) This example clearly shows how the choosing and presentation of artefacts can totally not only misrepresent people, but also carries messages of power and opportunities for exploitation (265) although this diagram aims to show what varying boundaries can do, it shows effectively the way slight variation can totally alter the appearance of a map In type IIIb, the direct object is realised as a noun phrase (as in type III), but is verbalised as the first element and functions as an antecedent to which a relative clause, including SHOW and its subject, refers back. As in the case of, say, the type-Ib pattern of GIVE (cf. (89) in section 3.1.1.2), the semantic role of transferred entity can be shown to be fronted because it is part of a preceding pattern and, thus, serves as the first element of the SHOW-pattern, see (266). The choice of the type-IIIb pattern of SHOW is another example of the influence that the pattern flow in natural language exerts on language users’ selection of a specific pattern in a given context. As shown in (267) to (268), for example, the type-IIIb pattern of SHOW is chosen because its initial element (e.g. the form, the interest) is already part of the preceding pattern in the text (e.g. wish so. back to..., thank you for...). Note also that in 9 of 13 cases (= 69.2%) the subject of the relative clause is a personal pronoun. (266)

IIIb [Od:NPantecedent] (rel. pron.) [S] SHOW Oi part of a previous pattern (all 13 cases = 100.0%)

personal pronoun (9 of 13 cases = 69.2%)

(267) They are wishing him back to the form that he showed throughout the nineteen-eighties (268) I would like to thank you again for the interest you have shown in our company The passive pattern IIIP, in which the direct object of type III becomes the subject, is similar to the active type IIIb in that the transferred entity is in initial position while the acting entity is placed towards the end – preceding SHOW in type IIIb and following SHOW in type IIIP. As has been noted above, the transferred entity is in initial position in type IIIb because it is part of a preceding pattern. In type IIIP, on the other hand, the transferred entity is in initial position because it provides thematic information that has already been activated (i.e. situationally or textually evoked) before, see (269). What renders this passive pattern of SHOW particularly interesting is the fact that the acting entity is usually not omitted. In 5 of 31 cases (=16.1%) a by-agent is used. What is more, in another 16 cases (= 51.6%) the semantic role of acting entity, i.e. the entity that is showing something, is not realised as a prepositional phrase introduced by by but by in (14) or on (2). This is possible because the acting entity in the type-IIIP pattern is usually inanimate, e.g. figure, character, graph, map. As the illustrative

Aspects of Description

157

examples in (270) to (272) reveal, it is possible to change them into sentences with the corresponding active type-III pattern, regardless of whether the acting entity is realised as a by-phrase or as a prepositional phrase introduced by in or on. Semantically, then, this pattern is an exception to the usual ‘valence-decreasing’ quality of the passive (Dryer, 1986: 819). Since the acting entity is made explicit in type IIIP in the clear majority of all cases, it is reasonable to assume that it is usually not the optionality of the by-agent that makes language users choose this pattern, but rather the opportunity of placing the acting entity in final focus position. In essence, two complementing and information-structural principles of pattern selection can be identified for the type-IIIP pattern: (1) the initial element (i.e. the transferred entity) presents given information and is therefore introduced as the first element, and (2) the acting entity refers to new information and is thus placed in end-position, realised as a prepositional phrase introduced by by, in or on.63 (269)

IIIP [S < Od active] BE shown Oi (by-agent) activated before/ taken up (all 31 cases = 100.0%)

ACTING ENTITY: made explicit as prepositional phrase introduced by by, in or on (21 of 31 cases = 67.7%)

(270) However, Carolingian forms of government were indeed being extended into central and Western Brittany, this is shown by the appearance of vicecomites => ... the appearance of vicecomites shows this (271) It uses the traditional Mascot buffered Channel in a test network. The Mascot 3 network is shown in Fig. 1 => ... Fig. 1 shows the Mascot 3 network (272) The principle was once again to superimpose a radio frequency current on a much larger direct current and to measure the the the radio frequency resistance of the gold leaf as the direct current was varied. The result of this very careful series of measurements is shown on the next on this graph => ... The next/this graph shows the result of this very careful series of measurements In type IIIPb, the transferred entity is not only shifted to front position, but it also serves as an antecedent for a subsequent relative clause or a past participle construction, see (273). Like the structurally similar active type-IIIb pattern (see above), this pattern is chosen whenever other patterns in the text require a shift of 63 In (270) to (272), dotted underlining is intended to mark the information to which the transferred entity of the SHOW-pattern refers back. The SHOW-pattern itself is underlined, and the active counterpart is given in italics: this alternative version shows that the prepositional phrase represents the semantic role of acting entity.

158

Chapter 3

the transferred entity to preverbal front position. In most cases the transferred entity again turns out to be at the same time part of a preceding pattern (26 of 39 cases = 66.7%). This is illustrated in (274) and (275), where the video and the address are part of the preceding patterns remember sth. and send sth. to somewhere. But pattern flow may also come into play somewhat differently in the selection of the type-IIIPb pattern. In 7 of 39 cases (= 17.9%), the first element of the anticipated pattern to the right, e.g. sth. reveals that... as in (276) and sth. possesses sth. as in (277), is also presented as the transferred entity of SHOW so that the type-IIIPb pattern is used in order to have the transferred entity function as an antecedent to which a subordinate relative clause or past participle construction can be added. (273)

IIIPb [antecedent]co (S < Od)co (BE) shown Oi (by-agent) part of a previous pattern (26 of 39 cases = 66.7%) and/or part of a subsequent pattern (7 of 39 cases = 17.9%)

(274) I remember for instance the video that was shown of the lorry going across the bridge (275) About a fortnight before your vehicle licence expires, DVLA will send a reminder form B11, or V85/1 in the case of some heavy goods vehicles, to the address shown on the Registration Document (276) A survey of 150 feature films made in the US between 1938 and 1974, and shown on British TV revealed that the cry ‘Let’s get outta here!’ was used once in 84% of them and more than once in 17% (277) The Von Neumann computer – shown in simple block form in Fig 1a – possesses a central possessor attached to memory By introducing a new clausal structure, the type-IIIPb pattern helps to reduce the decoder’s processing load in a specific way. From a more cognitive point of view, it has been argued that each clause tends to have one specific thematic ‘focus’ (cf. e.g. Chafe, 1979). It could well be argued that the type-IIIPb pattern of SHOW is used because it is easier for the recipient to process two separate clauses with two individual foci. The fact that in many cases – as in examples (274) to (277) – SHOW is complemented with a prepositional phrase (providing, for example, information on the inanimate acting entity of the SHOWING event) seems to indicate a relatively high cognitive load. By using SHOW in its type-IIIPb pattern, this cognitive load is to some extent reduced. Note, for example, that by omitting shown in (275), Registration Document would not be presented as a new ‘focus’ but as part of the already complex and semantically loaded main clause. If, on the other hand, SHOW is used, the recipient is able to finish off his/her processing of the first ‘focus’ (i.e. DVLA will send ... to the address) before

Aspects of Description

159

having to start processing the second ‘focus’ (i.e. shown on the Registration Document). The syntax and semantics of the type-IIIPrg pattern have already been discussed before, see (248) above. To recapitulate, I would contend that from a strictly semantic point of view sentences such as (279) and (280) also display the inherent ditransitive meaning of SHOW. In other words, the basic meaning of ditransitive verbs as visualised in Figure 1-8 (p. 36) can also be mapped onto the type-IIIPrg pattern of SHOW: the passive subject is the affected entity which is given a description as specified in the to-infinitive (i.e. the transferred entity). As shown in (278), the type-IIIPrg pattern of SHOW is chosen whenever the affected entity represents, in the broadest sense, given information, that is to say the affected entity is placed in initial position because it is anchored in the preceding text, i.e. situationally and/or textually evoked by a previously mentioned entity or process. Accordingly, it can be argued that students are evoked by universities in (279), and women and men by feminist in (280). Note that usually the acting entity seems to be irrelevant: in 13 of 14 cases (= 92.9%) there is no by-agent. (278)

IIIP rg [S < Od raised] BE shown [to-infinitive] (by-agent) given/evoked (all 14 cases = 100.0%)

‘is given the following description:’

left out (13 of 14 cases = 92.9%)

(279) In the other universities abroard abroad the students are shown to have more life within them (280) If Nellie prefigures the late twentieth-century feminist, then women and men are shown to have equal potential for perverse wielding of power The type-I pattern is similar to the default type-III pattern of SHOW in that the direct object is also realised as a noun phrase. Type I is different from type III with regard to the explicitation of the affected entity as the indirect object. At first sight, one might hypothesise that the type-I pattern is used if the affected entity is not recoverable from the context and/or when its specification is important. However, it should be noted that in 39 of 43 cases (= 90.7%), the indirect object is a personal pronoun, see (281). As the examples in (282) to (283) illustrate, it would be easily possible to omit the indirect object altogether because the affected entity would be implicitly understood anyway. (281)

I (S) SHOW [Oi:NP] [Od:NP] personal pronoun (33 of 43 cases = 74.4%): I (22), he (4), they/them (2), she (2), we (1), you (1), it (1)

personal pronoun (39 of 43 cases = 90.7%): you (25), me (4), us (4), him (3), her (3)

160

Chapter 3

(282) I ’ll just quickly show you one or two more (283) And what I want to do is I want to kind of show you the way in which we construct some of these uhm phonematic uhm and exponency issues within the sythesizer at York In this context, it is important to note that the type-I pattern turns out to be a ‘spoken pattern’: 36 of 43 instances (= 83.7%) can be found in the spoken section of ICE-GB. As has been noted for various TELL-patterns before (see section 3.1.2.2), language users seem to explicitise the indirect object in spoken language not because it is by any means semantically salient and/or contextually necessary, but rather in order to establish a cooperative atmosphere. This is especially true of the frequent use of you in the indirect-object position of type I. Although in all contexts at hand the personal pronoun could be omitted without jeopardising the transaction of the message, it is usually not omitted in order to keep in line with the medium-dependent cooperative demands and the need to constantly refer to the shared context (cf. Biber et al., 1999: 1042). Personal pronouns also abound in the subject position of the type-I pattern. It is clear from the data given in (281) that very frequently the type-I pattern is lexically realised as ‘I SHOW you ...’. In virtually all these cases, however, an additional (modal or non-modal) verb (e.g. will, am going to, intend to) and/or an adverb (e.g. just, quickly) is inserted between I and SHOW. It seems as though the sequence ‘I SHOW you...’ is considered too direct and, perhaps, too confrontational in most spoken contexts, so that additional material before the verb may function as a softener and help reduce the confrontational quality of the meaning of ‘I SHOW you ...’. This is exemplified in (282). In (283), want to and the discourse marker kind of might fulfil a similar face-saving function, but probably the speaker is still planning the sentence here and is buying himself some time. The type-I pattern is very useful in this context because it makes it possible for him to introduce the ‘general noun’ way (cf. Halliday and Hasan, 1976) which serves as a peg on which to hang, as it were, the description of what he actually wants to show. Otherwise, he might have used the type-Ie pattern: I want to show you how we construct... would be an alternative phrasing without a general noun. The fact that the type-I pattern is much more frequent in spoken than in written language may thus have to do with its potential to allow for an extended speech-planning process under on-line constraints. The aforementioned type-Ie pattern occurs only 14 times with SHOW. Apart from the frequent pronominalisation of the indirect object (12 of 14 cases = 85.7%), which could be systematised along the lines of the pattern frame suggested for TELL in Figure 3-6 (p. 139), no such discernible trend is observable for the subject position. Also, there are no clear routines in the realisation of the direct object. As has been pointed out in section 3.1.2.2, the wh-clause in the directobject position of type Ie fulfils the semantic role of MESSAGE/ ANSWER. It is thus not surprising that the type-Ie pattern is much more frequently attested with TELL as a verb of verbal communication than with SHOW which, in its literal meaning, refers to the transfer of (the impression of) a physical object. In fact, the

Aspects of Description

161

type-Ie pattern of SHOW is linked to a figurative meaning of SHOW, described by the Macmillan English Dictionary as ‘give instructions etc.’ (Rundell, 2002: 1319). In other words, in the type-Ie pattern SHOW is used as a verb of verbal communication and can thus easily be replaced by, say, TELL. As shown in (284), the meaning of the wh-clause impinges on the meaning of the ditransitive verb and imparts a specific meaning to the pattern in its entirety. In (285) to (286), two examples of the type-Ie pattern of SHOW are given. (284)

Ie (S) SHOW [Oi:NP] [Od:wh-clause] MESSAGE/ANSWER ‘give instructions etc.’ Ie (S) SHOW ≈ TELL [Oi:NP] [Od:wh-clause]

(285) It’s not an easy thing to describe in words but any good rose-growing manual will show you how to do it => ... any good rose-growing manual will tell you how to do it (286) For example uh does forty-nine show us what was happening there => ... does forty-nine tell us what was happening there The type-II pattern, in which the indirect object is realised as a to-phrase in final position, is relatively rare with SHOW: only 12 occurrences can be found in ICEGB, see (287). As in the case of the type-II pattern of GIVE (cf. (98) on p. 104), one important factor that is responsible for language users’ choice of the type-II pattern of SHOW is the use of the pronoun it in direct-object position. One example is given in (288). With it referring to the transferred entity, the type-I pattern is usually not used (e.g. (?)I’ll show you it later). This is, to a lesser extent, also true of this in direct-object position, see (289). In the remaining cases, focus and/or weight considerations seem to be primarily responsible for the selection of the type-II pattern of SHOW. In other words, the direct object is placed in initial position because it refers to a previously activated entity and represents given information (which would, of course, pertain to it and this as well). The indirect object is placed in end-position because it represents new information which is often specified by a postmodifying relative clause (rendering the constituent heavier than the direct object) and/or which the language user is going to elaborate on in the subsequent text. An illustrative example, taken from a conversation (between speakers A and B), is given in (290).

162 (287)

Chapter 3 II (S) SHOW [Od:NP] [Oi:PPto] new and/or heavy (all 12 cases = 100.0%) given information: it (3), this (2) or other items referring to previously activated entities (all 12 cases = 100.0%)

(288) I mean I ’ll show it to you later (289) If the Department of Social Security has sent you a certificate AG 2 you should show this to the optician at the time of your sight test (290) B: So at the moment uh disabled dancers are still sh shut out of the dance world Uhm they may be allowed into dance therapy but why should they want to study dance therapy more than an able-bodied dancer A: Right Let’s move on to uhm what independent dance or dance of this nature offers the other activities which would normally be associated with the d disabled people what more what do you think this offers B: I think I’d like to answer that in a s in a slightly different way Uhm I showed uh a sp a a video of some of the work we’d done to some of my college students who are on a dance course And uhm their response was uhm very positive uhm Note that in (290) speaker B, in speaking of a video of some of the work, refers back to a previously activated topic, namely his work on the development of a dance therapy for disabled persons (in boldface). The transferred entity thus clearly represents given information. On the other hand, some of my college students is in focus position because this is the information that is new to the discourse and on which speaker B intends to elaborate further. Accordingly, he specifies the particular students that he is referring to by the relative clause who are on a dance course and takes up this newly introduced entity in the subsequent clause by describing their response (in italics). The type-IVerg pattern is also rarely attested. Obviously this has to do with the fact that in this pattern SHOW displays a particular and untypical meaning, which the Macmillan English Dictionary describes as ‘be able to be seen’ (Rundell, 2002: 1319). For convenience, the syntactic structure of this pattern is repeated in (291). As has been pointed out at the beginning of this section, the grammatical subject here does not represent the acting entity but rather the transferred entity. For example, it is easily possible to rephrase the examples given in (292) to (293) in the form of the default type-III pattern by making explicit the acting entity as the grammatical subject and realising the transferred entity as the direct object. The type-IVerg pattern, thus, turns out to be used whenever language users see no compelling reason for making explicit the acting entity or the affected entity. Since the transferred entity is shifted to the unusual subject position, the verb as such and the pattern in its entirety are imparted with a specific meaning. In this particular regard, the type-IVerg pattern is similar to the

Aspects of Description

163

type-Ie pattern of SHOW (cf. (284) on p. 161) in that a semantic principle of pattern selection is primarily responsible for its use. (291)

IVerg [Sergative] SHOW TRANSFERRED ‘be able to be seen’ ENTITY IVerg [Sergative] SHOW ≈ can be seen/noticed

(292) Uh I’m afraid this does not show very well graphically => I’m afraid the graph does not show this very well (293) Now make sure the green neutral light is showing => Now make sure it is/you are showing the green neutral light Finally, the type-IVP pattern should be mentioned. From a structural point of view, it is the passive form that is related to the active type-IV pattern. However, the active-passive correspondence suggested here is somewhat different from the correspondences that the Comprehensive Grammar describes for so-called ‘-ed participle clauses’ (cf. Quirk et al., 1985: 994f.). Notwithstanding this difference, I subscribe to Quirk et al.’s (1985: 994) general analysis of this construction as “both syntactically and semantically passive”. As shown in (294), the type-IVP pattern of SHOW is to a large extent routinised since in 9 of 10 cases (= 90.0%) it occurs in the form of as (has been) shown. As has already been noted for the type-IIIP pattern, the semantic role of acting entity is often realised as an adverbial, e.g. as in Contents list in example (295) and here in example (296). Note, however, that while it is possible to change (295) to an active sentence by means of a simple rearrangement of items, this is not possible for (296) since here is not admissible in subject position.64 A genuine by-agent is not attested with the typeIVP pattern in ICE-GB. Although the type-IVP pattern is strongly routinised in the form of as (has been) shown, it still allows for variation: in (297), we find where shown in lieu of as shown. Thus, it is important to take into account the type-IVP pattern as a syntactic pattern of SHOW, although it almost always occurs in the formulaic sequence as (has been) shown. (294)

IVP shown Oi Od (by-agent) as (9 of 10 cases = 90.0%)

64

ACTING ENTITY: left out (5 of 10 cases = 50.0%) or made explicit as adverbial (5 of 10 cases = 50.0%)

Of course, one could easily think of other active versions of the sentences at hand that are based on the proxy pronoun it functioning as the subject: …as it shows in the ‘Contents’ list (295), …as it shows here (296), where it shows (297).

164

Chapter 3

(295) The rules are explained in more detail under their own section headings (as shown in ‘Contents’ list) => ... as the ‘Contents’ list shows (296) This analysis can be displayed graphically as shown here => *... as here shows (297) Crease only where shown The discussion of SHOW-patterns in this section has again revealed that different principles of pattern selection are responsible for language users’ preference of one pattern over others in a given context and that individual patterns are marked by different kinds and degrees of routine. In principle, all the factors that were identified for the routinised pattern selection of GIVE and TELL (cf. Figure 3-2, p. 111; Figure 3-8, p. 146) have been shown to be relevant to the selection of SHOW-patterns as well: • • • • •

influence of preceding patterns and the anticipation of subsequent patterns; lexical items as pointers to a specific pattern; focus and weight considerations; explicitation and arrangement of semantic roles; clause elements as representations of specific subtypes of semantic roles.

It needs to be emphasised that a clear-cut factor loading for each individual factor is difficult to calculate for three reasons: (1) many factors often come into operation along with each other (e.g. end-focus and end-weight) and it is difficult to prioritise one factor over another in such cases; (2) sometimes one specific factor may imply another factor (e.g. the pronoun it as a lexical pointer implying that the subsequent constituent is almost always heavier); (3) most important, the decision on which factors seem to play a significant role in a specific context is, in the final analysis, a matter of linguistic interpretation of the data, which is very often based on world knowledge and experience that cannot be found in the text itself. Despite the overall plausibility of the lexical, semantic, pragmatic and textual principles of pattern selection suggested for SHOW in this section, it turns out to be virtually impossible to base them on a solid statistical basis, say, by carrying out a linear discriminant analysis (cf. e.g. Gries, 2001). While such statistical tests are very useful for the comparison of a limited number of alternative constructions, factors and linguistic data, it is very difficult to apply them successfully to a wide range of lexicogrammatical patterns, a multitude of possibly significant principles of pattern selection and the entirety of a 1-million-word corpus. For example, Gries (2003) is certainly right in making a plea for a ‘multifactorial analysis of syntactic variation’ such as the choice between John picked up the book and John picked the book up or between John gave him the book and John gave the book to him. However, it is difficult to analyse a large corpus exhaustively on a multifactorial basis because the relevant instances of the two variants have to be coded for the various factors by hand. Also, the binary choice that is in

Aspects of Description

165

focus in many studies of the dative alternation only covers a restricted range of the patterns in which a given verb (e.g. GIVE) is used. I would contend that a focus on the alternation between the type-I and the type-II pattern of, say, GIVE does not provide a comprehensive picture of the patterning of this verb in actual usage. Finally, note that the general quantitative trends that have so far been presented in this chapter are considered plausible not primarily because of their statistical significance but because it is possible to explain them in functional terms; in Mair’s (forthcoming) terminology the principles of pattern selection that have been suggested so far should therefore be seen as ‘linguistically significant’. It goes without saying that this approach combines corpus-based methodology with an intuition-based analysis of corpus data (see section 2.1). In the following section, this traditional kind of corpus-based approach will be applied to the ditransitive verb ASK. 3.2.2 ASK The verb ASK is attested 410 times in ICE-GB. The frequency of all ASKpatterns in the corpus is given in Table 3-13 below. Again, phrasal and prepositional verbs such as ASK ABOUT, ASK FOR and ASK someone OUT have been excluded from the corpus analysis because their semantics differ from ASK. The focus here is on the lexicogrammar of the ditransitive verb ASK. The eleven most frequent patterns are given in Figure 3-10; they include 368 instances of ASK and make up for 89.8% of all occurrences of the verb in ICE-GB. It is these eleven patterns that the following discussion of principles of pattern selection for ASK will focus on. There is one pattern in Table 3-13 that has not yet been discussed before, which is the type-IIId pattern. In this pattern, as in all other type-III patterns, the indirect object is omitted. The direct object is realised as a to-infinitive: (298) They may they may ask to see that just out of interest Note also that in Table 3-13 no type-II pattern is listed for ASK, i.e. no pattern in which the indirect object is realised as a prepositional phrase in final position. This is in stark contrast to the Comprehensive Grammar which draws an analogy between the usual to-phrase for GIVE, TELL, SHOW and other ditransitive verbs on the one hand and an of-phrase for ASK on the other:65

65 The same correspondence is also suggested by Klotz (2000: 178) for favour. However, he explicitly points out that with permission or asylum (e.g. in ?She first had to ask permission of her boss and ?The opposition leader asked asylum of the U.S.) the of-construction is dubious. Huddleston and Pullum (2002: 311) state that “[w]ith ask the of version is somewhat more formal, and unlikely where the direct object expresses a ‘concealed question’ ... : He asked me my name/the time ∼ ?He asked my name/the time of me.”

166

Chapter 3

Table 3-13: Frequency of ASK-patterns in ICE-GB type I Ib Ie Ig IP IPe IPg III IIIa IIIb IIIc IIId IIIP IIIPb IV V VP sum

pattern (S) ASK [Oi:NP] [Od:NP] [Od: NPantecedent] (rel. pron.) [S] ASK [Oi:NP] (S) ASK [Oi:NP] [Od:wh-clause] (S) ASK [Oi:NP] [Od:to-infinitive] miscellaneous [S < Oi active] BE asked [Od:NP] (by-agent) [S < Oi active] BE asked [Od:wh-clause] (by-agent) [S < Oi active] BE asked [Od:to-infinitive] (by-agent) miscellaneous (S) ASK [Od:NP] Oi (S) ASK [Od:wh-clause] Oi [Od:NPantecedent] (rel. pron.) [S] ASK Oi (S) ASK [Od:that-clause] Oi (S) ASK [Od:to-infinitive] Oi miscellaneous [S < Od active] BE asked Oi (by-agent) [antecedent]co (S < Od)co (BE) asked Oi (by-agent) miscellaneous (S) ASK Oi Od miscellaneous (S) ASK [Oi:NP] Od miscellaneous [S < Oi active] BE asked Od (by-agent)

sum 16 8 50 90 6 1 3 33 2 18 45 5 1 6 7 2 1 11 34 3 63 2 3 410

% 3.9 2.0 12.2 22.0 1.5 0.2 0.7 8.0 0.5 4.4 11.0 1.2 0.2 1.5 1.7 0.5 0.2 2.7 8.3 0.7 15.4 0.5 0.7 100

Occasionally, a preposition other than to and for occurs in this function: She asked Paul a favour. ∼ She asked a favour of Paul. (Quirk et al., 1985: 1211) However, this particular example of favour – and the inherent correspondence between the type-I and the type-II pattern suggested here – hides a systematic semantic difference between the two sentences. While favour refers to what she wants in she asked Paul a favour, it represents what Paul does in she asked a favour of Paul. This difference becomes obvious if favour is replaced with, say, question. It is possible to use question in the type-I pattern but it is not admissible to change it into a seemingly corresponding type-II pattern, see (299). With advice as direct object, on the other hand, the of-phrase is possible, but not the typeI pattern, see (300).

Aspects of Description

167

22.0%

15.4% 12.2% 11.0%

10.1%

8.3% 8.0% 4.4% 3.9%

Ty pe I

g Ty pe V Ty pe Ty I e pe III Ty a pe Ty IV pe IP g Ty pe III Ty pe Ty I pe Ty I b pe II Ty I d pe III b O th er s

2.0% 1.5% 1.2%

Figure 3-10:

The eleven most frequent ASK-patterns

(299) She asks him a question => *She asks a question of him (300) She asks advice of him => *She asks him advice The syntactic correspondence between type I and type II that is suggested in the Comprehensive Grammar on semantic grounds is therefore questionable. As the examples in (299) and (300) show, it is much more plausible from a semantic point of view to treat ASK OF as a prepositional verb in its own right and to refrain from establishing a type-II pattern for ASK by drawing an analogy between the of-phrase of ASK and, say, the to-phrase of GIVE. The most frequent pattern of ASK in ICE-GB is the type-Ig pattern, in which the direct object is realised as a to-infinitive, see (301). It may be structurally more complex than the basic type-I pattern but should nevertheless be considered the default pattern of ASK not only for quantitative but also for underlying semantic reasons. The meanings of ASK that are associated with ASK in the type-Ig pattern are described in the Macmillan English Dictionary as ‘expect sth’, ‘say you want sth done’ and ‘invite sb to do sth’ (Rundell, 2002: 68). In examples (302) to (304), examples are given for these three basic meanings. On the other hand, the meanings that are associated with the type-I pattern are given as ‘try to get information’ and ‘tell sb you want sth’.

168

Chapter 3

(301) Ig (S) ASK [Oi:NP] [Od:to-infinitive] (302) I ’d ask the tenant to either rebuild or underpin the wall (≈ expect sth.) (303) I was about to go when Keith asked me to stay (≈ say you want sth. done) (304) and I think they were just sort of making up for for the embarrassment of having to ask me such an experienced artiste to come in for those two lines (≈ invite sb. to do sth.) It is reasonable to assume that the meanings of ASK associated with the type-Ig pattern are more central to the verb because they are much more frequently attested. In other words, it is more common for ASK to be combined with a direct object that refers to the semantic role of MESSAGE/ORDER (realised as a toinfinitive and covering the full range from polite requests to commands) than with a direct object that refers to the semantic role of MESSAGE/QUESTION (realised as a noun phrase or, alternatively, as a wh-clause in type Ie). Not only the fact that different subtypes of semantic roles are associated with different patterns of ASK is something that is reminiscent of what has been found for TELL (see section 3.1.2.2).66 Note also that all type-I patterns together account for more than half of all occurrences of ASK in ICE-GB. As with TELL (cf. Table 3-7, p. 127), it is thus usually the case that both the transferred entity and the affected entity are realised as objects of ASK. There are also other quantitative trends that TELL and ASK share, for example the frequent use of the typeV pattern (16.4% for TELL and 15.4 % for ASK), the similar frequency of the type-III pattern (3.8% for TELL and 4.4% for ASK) and the prevalence of one particular passive pattern (5.2% for the type-IPf pattern of TELL and 8.0% for the type-IPg pattern of ASK). Both TELL and ASK are verbs of verbal communication and instantiations of the situation subtype of SPEAKING within the ditransitive semantics (cf. Figure 1-8, p. 36). It seems not too far-fetched an assumption that this semantic similarity may be partially responsible for the similar quantitative trends in the lexicogrammar of the two verbs. Starting off from the default type-Ig pattern, the selection of the type-Ie pattern, which is the third most frequent ASK-pattern, is based on the need for language users to present the transferred entity not as a MESSAGE/ORDER but as a MESSAGE/QUESTION, for which a wh-clause provides an option.67 In 66 Note that in the type-Ig pattern – as in all other patterns of ASK – the indirect object of ASK represents a semantic role that is similar to the affected entity of TELL: for both verbs the indirect object typically refers to the recipient of a verbal message (while the indirect object of GIVE and SHOW usually refers to the recipient of a physical or visual object). 67 The lexical meaning of ASK implies that the transferred entity is interpreted as QUESTION, while the lexical meaning of TELL imparts the same semantic role with the quality of ANSWER (see section 3.1.2.1).

Aspects of Description

169

effect, the question that is being put forward is verbalised as a wh-clause in direct-object position. The affected entity continues to be realised as an indirect object. As shown in (305), there is a strong tendency both for the subject and the indirect object to be pronominalised (78.0% and 72.0% of all cases respectively), which indicates their ‘given’ (i.e. thematic) status in most contexts and the language user’s reference to the shared context. That the shared context is utilised by way of pronominalisation to such a large extent has to do with the fact that the type-Ie pattern is a ‘spoken pattern’: of 50 instances, 42 can be found in the spoken section and only 8 in the written section of ICE-GB. As for the direct object, the same wh-clauses as in the type-Ie pattern of TELL (cf. Figure 3-6, p. 139) hold the field: if/whether-clauses representing yes/no questions (23), whatclauses referring to inquiries about factual descriptions (11), how-clauses representing questions about the mode of an action (6) and why-clauses asking for reasons (4). Some examples of these routines in the three slots of the type-Ie pattern are given in (306) to (308). Example (308) is also intended to show that usually the sequence I ask you wh-... seems to be considered too confrontational and is therefore hedged, as it were, with a modal verb or some other ‘filling’ material in between the subject I and ASK.68 There is one instance in ICE-GB in which nothing is inserted between the subject I and ASK. This sentence is given in (309); it strikes even the casual reader as rather impolite and face-threatening. Indeed, this is not surprising since it is taken from a legal cross-examination. (305)

Ie (S) ASK [Oi:NP] [Od:wh-clause] pronouns (39 of 50 cases = 78.0 %): I (21), you (7) he/she (6), we (3), they (2)

MESSAGE/QUESTION: whether/if... (23), what... (11), how... (6), why... (4) (44 of 50 cases = 88.0%) pronouns (36 of 50 cases = 72.0%): him/her (13), me (12), you (5), them (3), ourselves (3)

(306) I don’t think he ’s ever asked me what I was doing (307) I asked him how he interpreted Mr Hurd’s remark about economic and monetary union (308) I was going to ask you if you were ever going to send my tape back (309) Now I ask you if you could explain why it’s not until twelfth of January that you signed that application The quantitative trends as summarised in (305) are so strong that a pattern frame for the type-Ie pattern of ASK can be suggested, which is given in Figure 3-7. It 68

In this, the sequence I ask you wh-... is similarly constrained as the sequence I show you sth., see (278).

170

Chapter 3

includes the pronominalisation and wh-clausal routines involved in the use of this pattern. The asterisks refer to the fact that we in subject position and the reflexive pronoun ourselves tend to co-occur. I you he/she we* they ...

ASK

him/her me you them *ourselves ...

whether/if what how why wh-

Figure 3-11: A pattern frame for the type-Ie pattern of ASK In the type-I pattern, the direct object also represents the semantic role of MESSAGE/QUESTION, but the question is not made explicit in the form of a wh-clause. Specifically, while the type-Ie pattern presents the question as a process in action, the type-I pattern presents the question at hand as a product by way of nominalisation. Accordingly, Huddleston and Pullum (2002: 976) speak of ‘concealed questions’. Thus, a semantic distinction similar to the one made for the different type-I patterns of TELL (see section 3.1.2.2) should be drawn between the type-I patterns of ASK: • type-Ig pattern: • type-Ie pattern: • type-I pattern:

[Od:to-infinitive] represents the semantic role of MESSAGE/ORDER [Od:wh-clause] represents the semantic role of MESSAGE/QUESTION [Od:NP] represents the semantic role of QUESTION/PRODUCT

Both the clause elements [Od:NP] in the type-I pattern and [Od:wh-clause] in the type-Ie pattern refer to the semantic role of QUESTION. Thus, the semantics of the type-I pattern is strongly related to the type-Ie pattern, which is corroborated by the fact that the two patterns are associated with the same two meanings of ASK described above as ‘try to get information’ and ‘tell sb. you want sth.’. The two patterns are also lexically similar in that in type I, too, the subject and the indirect object tend to be pronominalised, see (310). But also in all the other cases in which pronouns are not used in the subject and/or indirect-object position, the lexical items are inferrable either from world knowledge or the context: people, the Secretary of State, and the speaker also refer to given information, see (311) and (312). What is introduced as new to the discourse is in fact the transferred entity, i.e. the question, in end-position. This question is not explicitised as a whclause but condensed, as it were, into a noun phrase, and the following three lexical items used as NP heads account for 14 of all 16 instances (87.5%) of the type-I pattern of ASK: question(s) (8), this (4), things (2). These lexical items may be used for two reasons. Either a question that has already been formulated

Aspects of Description

171

before is taken up or summarised in the direct-object position of the type-I pattern, or the fact that a question that is going to be formulated in the subsequent text is anticipated by the direct object of the type-I pattern.69 In both cases, the question at hand is thus condensed into a noun phrase in the type-I pattern because the pattern is not used to introduce the question itself but to speak about a question that is (to be) explicitised elsewhere. In (313), for example, this refers back to the question you don’t chop the text up, and in (314) the question anticipates the actual question which is still to follow (Whose view of...). (310)

I (S) ASK [Oi:NP] [Od:NP] given information (all 16 cases = 100%): I/me (8), other pronouns (5), other items (3)

QUESTION/PRODUCT => preferred items: question(s) (8), this (4), things (2) (14 of 16 cases = 87.5%) => explicitised question is taken up or anticipated given information (all 16 cases = 100%): you (8), other pronouns (5), other items (3)

(311) People always ask me this about my novels too (312) Can I can I ask the Secretary of State simply this (313) Now what you do is you build indexes / Is that right / you don’t chop the text up / I know I ’ve asked you this before but I’ve forgotten the answer (314) But before Conservative MPs follow any fevered rush to the brink of the political cliff, they should pause and ask themselves the question: Whose view of the Government’s Predicament and of its European policy, deserves their trust and support? In the type-Ib pattern, too, pronominalisation of the acting entity and the affected entity as well as the presentation of the transferred entity as a product come into play. In this pattern, however, the noun phrase in direct-object position is fronted and serves as an antecedent for a subsequent relative clause with ASK as the main verb. While the type-Ib pattern of GIVE has been shown to be chosen whenever the fronted element is part of a preceding pattern (see (89) on p. 102), this textual factor is of less relevance to the selection of the type-Ib pattern of ASK. Only in one example, which is given in (316), is there a preceding pattern (answer sth. to so./sth.) which provides the initial slot for the type-Ib pattern of ASK. In all other cases, however, as shown in (315), it turns out that the type-Ib pattern of ASK is primarily selected whenever language users want to highlight the issue of the question as such without formulating the question itself. This functional explan69

It is surprising that in Klotz’s (2000:177) analysis of this ASK-pattern, which is based on the COBUILD Corpus, question is not at all attested as a lexical item in direct-object position.

172

Chapter 3

ation, by the way, also accounts for example (316). In this context, it is interesting that seven of eight instances of this pattern are attested in the spoken section of ICE-GB (the only written example, which is given in (318), can be found in the genre of social letters). The conclusion can be drawn that the type-Ib pattern of ASK is a – mainly spoken – device by means of which language users shift their focus to the importance of a particular question which has already been mentioned before or which is going to be formulated in the subsequent text (or which is not to be specified at all). In a sense, fronting the transferred entity (i.e. the QUESTION/PRODUCT) in order to place special emphasis on this very entity runs counter to the principle of end-focus and is more in line with the contradictory principle of ‘task-urgency’ as suggested by Givón (1983): what is most important/urgent is verbalised first.70 The examples in (316) to (318) illustrate the highlighting effect of fronting the transferred entity by choosing the type-Ib pattern of ASK. Note that in examples (317) and (318) – unlike (316) – it would be easily possible to change the type-Ib pattern to the basic type-I pattern without having to change the preceding text. However, it is obvious that the frontposition of anything and so much is much more appropriate in these contexts. (315)

Ib [Od: NPantecedent] (rel. pron.) [S] ASK [Oi:NP] QUESTION/PRODUCT pronouns pronouns in front-position in order to (7 of 8 cases (all 8 cases be highlighted as important = 87.5%) = 100%) (all 8 cases = 100%)

(316) ... because she’ll answer yes to every question you ask her (317) Is it I mean once you’ve got the st more stuff about it if there’s anything you wanna ask me come back => ... if you wanna ask me anything come back (318) He may not even have liked his brother, and there is so much that I needed to ask him => ... and I needed to ask him so much There is one passive pattern among the eleven most frequent ASK-patterns, namely IPg. Here the indirect object of the corresponding active form (representing the affected entity) becomes the passive subject, and the direct object (representing the transferred entity and realised as a to-infinitive) remains in situ. As 70

Mathesius (1975) brings together the two principles and suggests that they account for different aspects of language use. He calls the unmarked order of elements (according to the principle of end-focus) the ‘objective order of theme before rheme’, while the rhemebefore-theme order (according to the principle of task-urgency) is defined as the ‘subjective order’ which is used in ‘emotionally coloured utterances’ (Mathesius, 1975: 156). Thus, both principles should be taken to be relevant mechanisms that underpin the order of elements in English.

Aspects of Description

173

in many other passive patterns of ditransitive verbs that have been discussed so far, the most important factor that leads language users to choose the type-IPg pattern of ASK is the optionality of the by-agent. In fact, in 29 of 33 cases (= 87.9%), the affected entity is not made explicit in the form of the by-agent, see (319) below. It should be mentioned in passing that in two of the remaining four cases, the by-agent is placed in the usual final position (e.g. in ...he would automatically be asked to be uh Prime Minister by the Queen), while in the other two cases the by-agent precedes the to-infinitive (e.g. in She was asked by the junior flying corps to come to the celebrations they were holding that night). This may suggest that once the by-agent is explicitised, the arrangement of the postverbal clause elements is not routinised but may be based on context-specific focus considerations. As for the majority of cases in which the by-agent is omitted, the question arises as to why it is the indirect object that becomes the passive subject (and is thus moved to front-position) and why it is the direct object that remains in end-position. Two complementary factors seem to play a role. First, the toinfinitive is not acceptable as a passive subject due to structural ‘object constraints’ (Quirk et al., 1985: 163f.). The Comprehensive Grammar gives an example of the monotransitive verb hope, but the same state of affairs pertains to ditransitive verbs as well: With clauses as objects, however, the passive transformation is to a greater or lesser degree restricted in use: ... John hoped to meet her. ∼ *To meet her was hoped (by John). (Quirk et al., 1985: 163) The structural inadmissibility of to-infinitival passive subjects in English may be hypothesised to be functionally motivated. That is, an underlying second reason for the structure of the type-IPg pattern, with the to-infinitive in the usual final position, may be the heaviness of the to-infinitival constituent in comparison with the passive subject. In 30 of 33 cases (= 90.1%), the to-infinitival direct-object clause is, not surprisingly, considerably heavier than the passive subject. Two illustrative examples are given in (320) and (321). (319)

IPg [S < Oi active] BE asked [Od:to-infinitive] (by-agent) / / [Od:to-infinitive] cannot function as passive subject

left out heavier than [Oi] (30 of 33 cases (29 of 33 cases = 90.1% = 87.9%)

(320) If the project is successful and a large number of ethnic minority families volunteer to adopt and foster, they may be asked to take in white children (321) You will be asked to put on the form the name and address of the local authority with whom you are registered

174

Chapter 3

(322) Why, then, was it not possible to appoint a team of three people from these candidates? Each of us would have happily accepted the Panel’s decision, but to appoint no-one from such highly qualified teachers was an insult to us all. How ironic that those of us who are C.S.Ts have been asked to produce materials for you demonstrating the best in modern practice in the field of specific learning difficulties! Examples (320) and (321), in which the passive subject is pronominalised, should, however, not lead to the conclusion that the passive subject tends to refer to given information and the to-infinitive to new information (according to the principle of end-focus). Rather, in the majority of cases, it is not easy – if not to say impossible – to decide on whether the information presented in the toinfinitive is ‘newer’ than that presented in the passive subject. As examples (320) and (321) show, it may well be that the to-infinitival direct object may refer to the only new bit of information in specific contexts, but the passive subject contains equally new information in as many other contexts. In (322) above, for example, those of us who are C.S.Ts can be regarded as new information to the same extent as the to-infinitive in the context at hand. To recapitulate, then, the most significant principle of pattern selection that is responsible for language users’ choice of the type-IPg pattern of ASK is the possibility to leave the acting entity unspecified. Additionally, the to-infinitive, which is usually the heaviest constituent, does not become the passive subject in the preferred passive pattern because toinfinitival passive subjects are not grammatically well-formed in English. It was shown in Table 3-13 (p. 166) that among the eleven most frequent patterns that account for 90% of all instances of ASK, four patterns can be found in which the indirect object is left out: III, IIIa, IIIb and IIId. Interestingly enough, these four patterns correspond to the four frequent active type-I patterns (i.e. I, Ib, Ie, Ig) that have been described above. The only difference between each of these type-I patterns and its type-III counterpart lies in the realisation or non-realisation of the affected entity as an indirect object. Table 3-14 provides a systematic overview of the corresponding type-I/type-III patterns and their frequencies. As has been noted for type-III patterns in general (i.e. in the discussion of GIVE, TELL and SHOW), the indirect object can usually be shown to be omitted either because the underlying semantic role, i.e. the affected entity, can be recovered from the context or because the specification of a particular affected entity is irrelevant in the context at hand. In a first approximation, it thus stands to reason that whenever these two factors come into play, language users may replace a type-I pattern with its type-III counterpart. The frequencies in Table 3-14, which are taken over from Table 3-13 (p. 166), reveal that the extent to which the affected entity is considered contextually recoverable – or its specification irrelevant – varies from pattern to pattern. Specifically, it turns out that the affected entity very often remains unspecified whenever the direct object is fronted (type Ib vs. type IIIb). On the other hand, if there is an explicitised question in the form of a wh-clause, language users seem to find it neccessary to specify the affected entity as the addressee of the question as well (type Ie vs. type IIIa). The same holds true for the

Aspects of Description

175

Table 3-14: Type-I and corresponding type-III patterns of ASK: formulas and frequencies type-I pattern formula and frequency type I (S) ASK [Oi:NP] [Od:NP] (3.9%) type Ib [Od: NPantecedent] (rel. pron.) [S] ASK [Oi:NP] (2.0%) type Ie (S) ASK [Oi:NP] [Od:wh-clause] (12.2%) type Ig (S) ASK [Oi:NP] [Od:to-infinitive] (22.0%)

type-III pattern formula and frequency type III (S) ASK [Od:NP] Oi (4.4%) type IIIb [Od:NPantecedent] (rel. pron.) [S] ASK Oi (11.0%) type IIIa (S) ASK [Od:wh-clause] Oi (1.2%) type IIId (S) ASK [Od:to-infinitive] Oi (1.5%)

[Oi] left out whenever the affected entity is recoverable from the context or whenever its specification is irrelevant in a given context use of ASK in combination with a to-infinitive which represents, broadly, the semantic role of MESSAGE/ORDER: again language users tend to specify the addressee of the order and do not therefore omit the indirect object too often (type Ig vs. type IIId). Notwithstanding these different quantitative trends, corpus data show that in all the instances of the type-III patterns listed in Table 3-14, the direct object is omitted because it is in fact unnecessary to specify the underlying semantic role in the contexts at hand. In effect, I suggest that each of the type-III patterns listed in Table 3-14 may be considered a ‘secondary form’ of its corresponding type-I pattern.71 The overriding principle of pattern selection that leads language users to prefer the type-III pattern to its corresponding type-I pattern is the contextual recoverability of the affected entity or the irrelevance of its specification. Examples (323) to (331) are intended to show that it is, in principle, possible to add an indirect object to each instance of any of the type-III, type-IIIa and type-IIIb patterns in order to identify and/or specify the affected entity (added in square brackets) of the verbal process.

71

As a matter of fact, this label can also be applied to type-I/type-III correspondences with other ditransitive verbs, e.g. GIVE, TELL and SHOW (see sections 3.1.1.2, 3.1.2.2 and 3.2.1). Note, by the way, that the label of ‘secondary form’ is used here in a non-technical sense and is not based on the concept of surface-structural movements as in generative grammar. Nor does it rule out that any type-III pattern may be routinised in its own particular ways, see for example the lexical routines involved in the type-III pattern of GIVE as summarised in (108).

176

Chapter 3

[type I] => type III (323) And unfortunately there isn’t a me… representative from the Arts Council with us tonight so we can’t ask [him/her] the question direct (324) What I wonder however is whether we could take it further and ask [ourselves] the more difficult question about this thing called secularisation (325) My theory was that the councils would read it and write me less often for advice / In fact they simply asked [me] harder questions [type Ib] => type IIIb (326) Yes thank you Miss White / That’s all I wanted to ask [you] (327) ... because I’m used to working with very able-bodied people who are capable of doing more or less anything you ask [them] then uh you don’t have those restrictions ... (328) First, let us consider some of the questions that a designer of such a system may ask [himself] when defining the requirements to see what they reveal about the properties of a good time-recording system [type Ie] => type IIIa (329) And she rang up the other day to ask [me] if I needed to see somebody and she could help and I said no (330) I want to ask [you] what you think about the role of the father today (331) I asked [her] if it was Pams Pam’s Mum and she just said again ‘Can I speak to Pamela?’ A special case is the type-IIId pattern of ASK since the action described in the toinfinitive refers to the subject of the superordinated clause (i.e. the acting entity of ASK itself), e.g. in they may ask to see that. In fact, the to-infinitive can still be ascribed the semantic role of MESSAGE/ORDER as in the type-Ig pattern, but in the type-IIId pattern of ASK the ORDER turns into a request for PERMISSION. In the present study a structural and semantic analogy is drawn between the toinfinitival and any other clausal realisation of an object. With regard to ASK, this analogy implies that the pattern someone asks someone else to do something (type Ig) is equivalent to someone asks to do something (type IIId) insofar as in both cases the recipient (i.e. the affected entity) is expected to do something – namely to perform the action described by the to-infinitive in type Ig, or to grant permission for the action described by the to-infinitive in type IIId. As indicated in (332) and (333), the semantic correspondence between the type-Ig pattern and the type-IIId pattern can be shown by adding an indirect object and the ‘passiviser’ to be allowed. This passiviser captures the additional meaning component of the

Aspects of Description

177

type-IIId pattern which is responsible for the re-interpretation of the semantic role of MESSAGE/ORDER of the to-infinitive in this pattern as PERMISSION. Thus, the semantic correspondence between the type-IIId and the type-Ig pattern of ASK is most straightforwardly obvious in passive examples such as (334).72 [type Ig] => type IIId (332) They may ask [you] [to be allowed] to see that just out of interest (333) Ask [them] [to be allowed] to see a bill of sale in the seller’s name or other evidence such as a hire purchase discharge document (334) I was about to go when Keith asked me to stay. He asked [me] to be excused for a moment as he had a letter to finish Despite the fact that each type-III pattern is ‘secondary’ to a specific type-I pattern, each of the type-III patterns may display its own routines. For example, it turns out that the basic type-III pattern itself is strongly associated with the lexical item question in direct-object position (14 of 18 cases = 77.8%). In essence, the view of a type-III pattern as secondary to a particular type-I pattern just provides the mirror image of the underlying assumption of the present study that ditransitive complementations in which all semantic roles are explicitised are syntactically and semantically more basic than other patterns of a given verb. What is more, the link between more basic type-I patterns and secondary type-III patterns makes it possible, first, to consider all patterns of a ditransitive verb as examples of ditransitivity and, second, to explain why the indirect object is left out in specific contexts. In the type-V pattern, it is not the affected entity but the transferred entity which can be recovered from the context or which does not call for any specification. Accordingly, the direct object is omitted; see (335). Note that this pattern prevails in spoken language: 54 of all 63 cases (85.7%) can be found in the spoken section of ICE-GB. In spoken discourse, the type-V pattern usually serves as an add-on by means of which the focus is shifted to the transfer of a question from the acting entity to a specific affected entity. Either the question itself has already been made explicit somewhere else in the text and is therefore part of the interlocutors’ shared knowledge or the question is still left to be asked, and the type-V pattern is used to anticipate and prepare the question. Examples (336) to (338) illustrate contexts in which the question is explicitised somewhere else in the text (given in italics). Whenever the type-V pattern is used in written language, it fulfils a similar discourse function: the question is already out there, 72

It should be emphasised that traditionally, e.g. in the Comprehensive Grammar, the type-IIId pattern of ASK is taken to exemplify monotransitive complementation, while the type-Ig pattern is subsumed into ditransitive complementation (cf. Quirk et al., 1985: 1187f.). In contrast, I would suggest that both patterns be regarded as examples of ditransitive complementation if they are used with ditransitive verbs such as ASK.

178

Chapter 3

and by using the type-V pattern the focus is shifted to the addressee of the question. Examples (339) and (340) illustrate that very often the type-V pattern is added to a stretch of direct speech in which the question as such has already been formulated. Formulaic sequences that are based on these type-V-related discourse routines include I asked her, she asked me and I’m asking you. The general tendency to have pronouns and proper names in subject position (52 of 63 cases = 82.5%) and pronouns, other pro-forms and proper names in indirect-object position (55 of 63 cases = 87.3%) indicates that it is not the discourse status of the acting entity and the affected entity (as ‘given’ vs. ‘new’) that is important here, but the shift of the focus of attention to one specific aspect of the ASKING event. (335)

V (S) ASK [Oi:NP] Od contextually recoverable or specification irrelevant (all 63 cases = 100%) focus is shifted to the transfer of a given question from the acting entity to the affected entity

(336) A: Do you have any indication of what he can possibly say in that state ment then / All he’s been saying today is I’m not a member of the Security Council B: Don’t ask me (337) A: Did you intend then to become a writer B: Yes / Though I think if you ’d have asked me I wouldn’t have said I did (338) Roy Jenkins could I ask you / in nineteen sixty-three was there a serious alternative to Harold Wilson being Gaitskell’s successor or was his choice absolutely inevitable (339) “Do you admit that you have been living in a dream world?” Mr Bizos asked Mr Kgase (340) “What do we do about this?” Tomaso had asked his wife It is also possible to omit both the direct and the indirect object if the corresponding semantic roles can be recovered from the context or need not be specified, see (341). As shown in Table 3-13 (p. 166), this ASK-pattern, which is type IV, is not at all infrequently used. Not only is this pattern used whenever both the question and the person being asked are specified elsewhere. Unlike the type-V pattern, the type-IV pattern is not used in order to shift the focus on the transfer of the question to the addressee, but rather to put special emphasis on the process of asking itself. In (342) and (343), for example, the question has already been mentioned before and the addressee does not need to be specified. Note that a recurrent formulaic sequence based on the type-IV pattern is it’s worth asking.

Aspects of Description

179

Sometimes, the inexplicitness of both the question and the addressee turns out to be useful for proverb-like usages in which general cultural patterns are described that are independent of any specific question and any particular person being asked. Example (344), which is a headline taken from a press editorial, is a case in point. (341)

IV (S) ASK Oi Od contextually recoverable or specification irrelevant (all 34 cases = 100%) focus is shifted to the process of asking

(342) The music that accompanies the list is called Commuter and it’s by Murray Monroe / I tell you that because a lot of people have asked => affected entity: me => transferred entity: who’s the music by / is the music by Murray Monroe (343) It might and the other thing about it is it’s worth asking at the different schools as well about funding / I mean basically U C if you come here they give everybody a piece of paper all postgraduates a piece of paper saying there is no funding I’m afraid / But it’s worth it / It’s worth asking => affected entity: people at the different schools => transferred entity: what about funding (344) Those who won’t ask don’t get => affected entity: [anyone] => transferred entity: [anything] To sum up, the selection of the eleven most frequent ASK-patterns is mainly guided by three primary principles: (1) the subtype of the semantic role of transferred entity; (2) the explicitation of semantic roles; (3) the arrangement of semantic roles. Specifically, those active type-I patterns that display the canonical order of clause elements have been shown to be selected because of the different kinds of transferred entity they involve: MESSAGE/ORDER in type Ig, MESSAGE/QUESTION in type Ie, and QUESTION/PRODUCT in type I. The active type-Ib pattern is used if a rearrangement of items is considered necessary because the semantic role of QUESTION/PRODUCT needs to be highlighted by moving the question to front-position. The passive type-IPg pattern is used whenever the acting entity is not to be explicitised. Each of the frequent type-III patterns (i.e. types III, IIIa, IIIb, IIId) corresponds to a specific type-I pattern and is selected whenever the affected entity is not to be explicitised because it is

180

Chapter 3

contextually recoverable or its specification is irrelevant. Similarly, the type-V pattern is used whenever the transferred entity can be left unspecified in a given context. If both the affected and the transferred entity are contextually recoverable and/or not to be specified, the type-IV pattern is preferred. 3.2.3 SEND Table 3-15 gives the frequencies of the patterns in which the verb SEND occurs in ICE-GB. Table 3-15: Frequency of SEND-patterns in ICE-GB type I Ib

pattern

(S) SEND [Oi:NP] [Od:NP] [Od: NPantecedent] (rel. pron.) [S] SEND [Oi:NP] miscellaneous IP [S < Oi active] BE sent [Od:NP] (by-agent) IPb [Od:NPantecedent] (rel. pron.) [S < Oi] BE sent (by-agent) II (S) SEND [Od:NP] [Oi:PPto] IIb [Od:NPantecedent] [S] (rel. pron.) SEND [Oi:PPto] IIc (S) SEND [Oi:PPto] [Od:NP] miscellaneous IIP [S < Od active] BE sent [Oi:PPto] (by-agent) IIPb [antecedent]co (S < Od)co (BE) sent [Oi:NPto] (by-agent) miscellaneous III (S) SEND [Od:NP] Oi IIIb [Od:NPantecedent] (rel. pron.) [S] SEND Oi miscellaneous IIIP [S < Od active] BE sent Oi (by-agent) IIIPb [antecedent]co (S < Od)co (BE) sent Oi (by-agent) IV (S) SEND Oi Od V (S) SEND [Oi:NP] Od miscellaneous sum

sum 62 6 1 7 1 64 3 2 5 27 4 1 69 4 2 20 3 2 1 1 285

% 21.8 2.1 0.4 2.5 0.4 22.5 1.1 0.7 1.8 9.5 1.4 0.4 24.2 1.4 0.7 7.0 1.1 0.7 0.4 0.4 100

Phrasal and prepositional verbs such as SEND BACK, SEND OFF and SEND OUT have been excluded from the corpus analysis, which leaves us with 285 instances of SEND proper in ICE-GB. Of the total number of occurrences, the seven most frequent patterns alone account for 255 instances, i.e. more than 89%; see Figure 3-12. Thus, these patterns are particularly routinised, and the following discussion of principles of pattern selection for SEND will concentrate on these patterns.

Aspects of Description

181

24.2% 22.5%

21.8%

10.4%

9.5% 7.0%

Figure 3-12:

O th

eI Ty p

er s

2.1%

b

eI P Ty p

Ty pe III P

Ty pe IIP

Ty pe I

Ty pe II

Ty pe

III

2.5%

The seven most frequent SEND-patterns

At the outset, it should be noted that the ICE-GB data make it difficult to identify a clear default pattern of SEND from a merely quantitative perspective since the frequencies of the structurally basic type-I pattern (21.8%), the slightly more frequent type-II pattern (22.5%) and the even more frequent type-III pattern (24.2%) are in fact very close to each other. It could thus be argued on the basis of the ICE-GB data that all three patterns are equally readily available to the language user and are associated with SEND as routinised patterns to the same extent. However, from larger-scale corpus analyses the conclusion may be drawn that the type-III pattern functions as the default pattern of SEND (in which the affected entity of the SENDING event is not explicitised, which distinguishes it from both the type-I and the type-II pattern). The Longman Grammar, in which frequency information is obtained from a database that is much larger than ICEGB (see section 1.2.5), points out that the pattern ‘SVOd(NP)’ (which is equivalent to the type-III pattern) clearly outnumbers the patterns ‘SVOiOd(NP)’ and ‘SVOdOi(PrepP)’ (i.e. the type-I pattern and the type-II pattern respectively) in all genres (cf. Biber et al., 1999: 390). Even though the Longman Grammar does not provide exact frequencies and does not distinguish between several patterns that are listed individually in Table 3-15 (e.g. active and passive patterns, patterns with fronted elements), the quantitative trend is clearly significant: in all four genres that the Longman Grammar distinguishes (i.e. conversation, fiction, news and academic writing), the ‘SVOd(NP)’ pattern makes up for more than 50% of all occurrences of SEND. The fact that such a striking prevalence of the corre-

182

Chapter 3

sponding type-III pattern is not attested in ICE-GB may be a consequence of the comparatively small corpus size. In light of the pattern distribution reported in the Longman Grammar, however, it makes sense to view this pattern as the default pattern of SEND. In a similar vein to SHOW (see section 3.2.1), the affected entity of the underlying event is, by default, not translated into an explicit indirect object either because it is recoverable from the context (as to everyone in (346)) or because its specification is irrelevant (as in (347) which implicitly refers to any potential recipient of a fax). (345) III (S) SEND [Od:NP] Oi (346) … as I’m really pissed off with writing letters to everyone so usually send postcards instead so I don't have to write much (347) whereas on a fax you can just send a really good message and a picture pictures of other people and pictures of you As for the default type-III pattern of SEND, it should not go unmentioned that in some instances of this pattern there is an adverbial of place which may fulfil a similar function to a to-phrase in the type-II pattern. In (348), for example, the prepositional phrase to AUT headquarters may be considered an adverbial of place but it is at the same time an indirect object of SEND because it is possible to use it as a direct object in the type-I pattern. For reasons of semantic and structural analogy, the sentence in (349) is also analysed as type II, although it is not possible to change it into the basic type-I pattern.73 However, both in (348) and (349), the adverbial of place fulfils the semantic role of affected entity because both to AUT headquarters and to the Gulf refer to the impersonal recipient of the underlying action. Thus, there is at least a semantic analogy between (348) and (349) on the one hand and the use of there in (350) on the other: there also refers to a location as the recipient of the transferred entity, which can be shown by replacing there with, say, to that place, resulting in the type-II pattern of SEND. However, there is a clear structural difference between type I/II on the one hand and type III on the other because of the different syntactic status of objects and adverbials. From the point of view of valency grammar (see section 1.2.3), adverbials are more or less optional and clearly less central to the verb than obligatory clause elements such as objects. It is for this reason that sentences such as (350) are analysed in terms of the type-III pattern although it is clear that the adverbial following the type-III pattern is similar to the semantic role of affected entity in its widest sense.74 73

As will be discussed below, the inadmissibility of changing particular to-phrases to nonprepositional phrases in type I depends on various factors, including the potential for a locative interpretation of the affected entity and the lexical item that refers to the transferred entity. 74 Optional adverbials of place that fulfil a role that is similar to an object as affected entity can, of course, also be found in the passive pattern IIIP, e.g. in ... that’s why I got sent home the night ... .

Aspects of Description

183

(348) type II: ... can you send the information to AUT headquarters => type I: ... can you send AUT headquarters the information (349) type II: Britain is to send another fourteen thousand troops to the Gulf ... => type I: *Britain is to send the Gulf another fourteen thousand troops ... (350) type III: She would have said oh God I wouldn’t send my son there => type II: ... I wouldn’t send my son to that place If not only the affected entity but also the acting entity can be left unspecified, language users select the passive type-IIIP pattern. The optionality of the by-agent is a very forceful factor since in none of the 20 instances of this pattern is it explicitised, see (351)-(354). (351)

IIIP [S < Od active] BE sent Oi (by-agent) left out (all 20 cases = 100%)

(352) And it very much looks as if that document was sent in or about July nineteen eighty-six as well (353) When that was obtained the transcript was sent (354) If an upstairs book was needed, she was sent The analytically basic type-I pattern is preferred to the default type-III pattern whenever language users find it communicatively useful to make explicit the affected entity of the underlying event. This is very often motivated by the need for the language user to point out the person that receives the transferred entity. Note, however, that the recipient has already been activated before – or is recoverable from the situational context – so that in 56 of 62 cases (= 90.3%) a pronoun is used in indirect-object position. In another 4 cases (= 6.5%), other pro-forms (such as everyone/-body) are used. In other words, the type-I pattern is in most cases selected not because the affected entity is new to the discourse but rather because the affected entity has to be re-specified although it is already given in the discourse. Three examples are given in (356) to (358). In (356), the pronoun you (co-referential with Darren) is used in a more or less formulaic sequence for reasons of politeness. In (357), him is used in order to refer back to Mr Lampitt (note that otherwise one could easily misread the passage by wrongly considering Mr Hook the recipient of the information). In (358), her is used in order to emphasise the fact that the flowers were sent to Mrs Thatcher and not to anyone else. In all these cases, which are typical examples of the type-I pattern of SEND, the indirect object does not provide any new information. Rather, a pronoun is used for reasons of politeness, textual clarity or emphasis. Only in two

184

Chapter 3

cases does the affected entity represent genuinely new information so that the indirect object cannot be pronominalised. One example of this untypical context of the type-I pattern of SEND is given in (359). However, what all 62 cases have in common is an indirect object (pronominalised or not) that refers to an animate entity. As will be discussed later on, this is a feature that sharply distinguishes the noun phrase as indirect object in type I from the corresponding to-phrase in most type-II examples. Since in almost all cases short pronominal forms are used in indirect-object position, it is quite clear that the selection of the type-I pattern is in accordance with the principle of end-weight. Note that in (356) and (357) – as two examples of 54 cases (= 87.0%) in total – the direct object in end-position, representing the transferred entity, is considerably heavier than the indirect object. Of course, heaviness of the final constituent is symptomatic of its relative newness, so that in most cases end-weight and end-focus come into operation along with each other. As summarised in (355), the preference for the type-I pattern thus tends to be guided by four principles of pattern selection: (a) the animacy of the affected entity; (b) the need to specify the given affected entity (usually by using a pronoun); (c) the heaviness of the direct object; (d) the newness of the transferred entity (realised by the direct object). (355)

I (S) SEND [Oi:NP] [Od:NP] heavy (54 of 62 cases = 87.0%) => usually new information affected entity: a) animate b) given but re-specified for various reasons => pronouns (56), other pro-forms (4) (60 of 62 cases = 96.8%)

(356) I look forward to your reply Darren, and so for now, I send you warmest wishes and the best of luck (357) Is it possible that you interpreted what he told you in much the same way that you interpreted the request from Mr Lampitt by sending him information about chemical companies in Dorset and other companies in West Sussex and you were just hearing from Mr Hook what you wanted to hear uh and leading him in the way that you assumed that he was selling to you rather than in fact what he was saying to you (358) Mrs Thatcher stayed indoors sending thank you letters to people who ’ve sent her flowers (359) I have spoken with Telecom who have sent my colleague, the Finance & Administration Manager, a letter (enclosed) describing what they feel are their reasons for the problems In comparatively few cases, the direct object of the type-I pattern does not remain in situ, but is placed in front position in order to serve as an antecedent for a relative clause (including SEND, its subject and its indirect object); see (360).

Aspects of Description

185

This type-Ib pattern occurs only 6 times in ICE-GB. In all 6 cases, the unusual rearrangement of items is necessitated by a preceding and/or a subsequent pattern in the text. That is, the transferred entity of the SENDING event may either be part of a preceding pattern, e.g. copies of sth. in (361), or it may be part of a pattern, the rest of which follows to the right, e.g. sth. is made out for sth. in (362). In both cases, the acting entity and the affected entity are placed in a subordinated relative clause because this structure allows for a smoother pattern flow in the text than the basic type-I pattern. (360)

Ib [Od:NPantecedent] (rel. pron.) [S] SEND [Oi:NP] part of a preceding pattern or a subsequent pattern (all 6 cases = 100%)

(361) I enclose copies of the documents which they have sent me (362) The cheque which I am now sending you is therefore made out for the balance of £4293.38 A similarly infrequent derivative type-I pattern is the passive type IP as shown in (363), which is attested only 7 times in ICE-GB. The indirect object, representing the affected entity, becomes the passive subject. The optionality of the by-agent seems to be the most important principle of pattern selection in those 5 cases (= 71.4%) in which the by-agent is left out so that the acting entity remains unspecified (because it is irrelevant); see (364). In the two cases in which the byagent is explicitised, the type-IP pattern is selected because a preceding pattern in the text (e.g. get so. sent sth.) makes it necessary to have the affected entity of the SENDING event in initial position, see (365). (363)

IP [S < Oi active] BE sent [Od:NP] (by-agent) pattern chosen because by-agent can be left out (5 of 7 cases = 71.4%) or because [S < Oi] is part of a preceding pattern (2 of 7 cases = 28.6%)

(364) Uhm well it’s not his fault is it if he hasn’t been uh been sent the forms (365) and she got her sent a huge sheaf of flowers by her son With its 64 occurrences, the type-II pattern is just as frequent as the basic type-I pattern. Although there is a systematic correspondence between the two patterns, they display fundamentally different routines. While in the type-I pattern animate entities, usually realised as personal pronouns, prevail in indirect-object position, this is not the case in the corresponding to-phrase in type II, see (366). In 35 of 64

186

Chapter 3

cases, the affected entity is not animate but refers to a particular location to which the transferred entity is sent: typical examples are given in (367) and (368). As has been noted in (349), most of these locative to-phrases cannot be changed to an indirect object in the type-I pattern because this shift from type II to type I requires animacy (or, at least, the potential for an animate interpretation) of the affected entity.75 Especially in combination with an equally inanimate transferred entity, however, it is sometimes possible to change the type-II pattern into an acceptable type-I pattern, see (369). But not only the locative quality of the affected entity usually blocks the shift from type II to type I. Also, pronouns such as it, when referring to the transferred entity, usually cannot be placed in final position and thus trigger off the type-II pattern; see (370). The important point here is that the structural correspondence between the type-I and the type-II pattern which is assumed in traditional grammars does not very often translate into the possibility of changing the patterns in a given context. The question that arises is, of course, under which conditions language users tend to prefer the typeII pattern of SEND. From what has been said before, two factors emerge quite clearly: the affected entity tends to be inanimate (mostly in a locative sense), and the transferred entity – whether animate or not and whether given or new – cannot be omitted for reasons of grammaticality. Note in this context that it is very unusual for SEND to be used with the affected entity alone (that is, the type-V pattern occurs only once in ICE-GB, cf. Table 3-15, p. 180), while SEND is very often used with the transferred entity alone (i.e. in the default type-III pattern). In other words, once the affected entity is realised as a to-phrase, it is usually not admissible to leave out the transferred entity, even if it is given information in the context at hand; see (371): the construction send to... is not a suitably grammaticalised option in English. In those cases in which the type-I pattern would also be possible, it seems as though the pragmatic principles of end-focus and/or endweight lead language users to prefer the type-II pattern over the type-I pattern. Accordingly, to people who’ve sent her flowers is in final focus position in (372), and the same pertains to the particularly heavy constituent to President Bush President Gorbachev and other world leaders in (373). (366)

II (S) SEND [Od:NP] [Oi:PPto] - if inanimate (35 of 64 cases = 54.7%): location as affected entity - if animate (29 of 64 cases = 45.3%): heavy and/or new - items that are inadmissible in type I: it (8), other pronouns (6) (= 21.9%) - less heavy/less new than [Oi:PP (to...)] (50 of 64 cases = 78.1%)

75

A similar point is made, among others, by Goldberg (1995: 38) and Lee (2001: 75).

Aspects of Description

187

(367) Britain is to send another fourteen thousand troops to the Gulf bringing the British force to more than thirty thousand (368) I ’ve been sending them to 72 St Quintins Ave (369) Please send copies of any responses received by you or your colleagues to the AUT Office => Please send the AUT Office copies of any responses... (370) ... and wonder whether I sent it to you for signature, and it is still with you (371) Therefore if you whiz your boring Edam presumably down through France nip it into Andorra you’ve gone outside the EEC I think because Andorra is not officially part of the EEC / And you then send it to Germany => *... And you then send to Germany (372) Mrs Thatcher stayed indoors sending thank you letters to people who’ve sent her flowers (373) Mrs Thatcher left Downing Street for the Palace just after half past twelve having sent personal messages to President Bush President Gorbachev and other world leaders To sum up, the factors that are involved in the selection of the type-II pattern are multifarious. Most importantly, the locative quality of the affected entity usually results in the type-II pattern and does very often not allow for the type-I pattern. In those contexts in which the type-I pattern would also be a possible option (e.g. if both the transferred entity and the affected entity are inanimate), the type-II pattern is preferred whenever the affected entity is particularly heavy or needs to be placed in final focus position. Finally, the passive type-IIP pattern should be mentioned, which is attested 27 times and is thus much more frequent than the type-IP pattern (cf. Table 315, p. 180). At first sight, this might be surprising, given the quantitative prevalence of the type-IP pattern for GIVE and the virtual absence of the type-IIP pattern for TELL and SHOW (cf. Table 3-7, p. 127; Table 3-11, p. 152). However, in many instances of the type-IIP pattern of SEND, the type-IP pattern – with the indirect object realised as a noun phrase – is not possible because of the locative quality of the underlying semantic role of affected entity. This inadmissibility of the type-IP pattern accounts for 16 of 27 cases (= 59.3%), see (374). An example is given in (375).76 In 10 of the remaining 11 cases, in which the type-IP pattern would be possible as well, the type-IIP pattern is preferred because the direct object of the active voice now functions as the passive subject and is thus placed in initial position. This particular rearrangement of items is preferred whenever the passive subject refers back to a preceding element that has already been activated before in the text and is now taken up, see (376) and (377). While 76 Note that the affected entity can of course be shifted to front position: ...to the Gulf further troops are being sent. However, the affected entity would continue to be realised as a to-phrase so that this form cannot be subsumed into the type-IP pattern. Rather it would represent the type-IIP pattern with additional fronting.

188

Chapter 3

the locative quality of the affected entity and the front position of the transferred entity are factors peculiar to the type-IIP pattern, the optionality of the by-agent is a principle of pattern selection that the type-IIP pattern shares with the type-IP pattern. Note that in 25 of 27 cases (= 92.6%) the by-agent is omitted in the typeIIP pattern. (374)

IIP [S < Od active] BE sent [Oi:PPto] (by-agent) activated before/ taken up (10 of 27 cases = 37.0%)

location as left out affected entity (25 of 27 (16 of 27 cases cases = 59.3%) = 92.6 %)

(375) As you are aware further troops are being sent to the Gulf => *?... the Gulf is being sent further troops77 (376) In order for you to claim additional tax relief I enclose form PP120, which once completed should be sent to your local Inspector of Taxes (377) The letter to all individual members and fact sheet should be distributed later this week. The draft letter to graduating students, and letters to parents and friends has already been sent to our departmental representatives in College The discussion in this section has shown that for routinised SEND-patterns, too, various factors turn out to be responsible for language users’ selection of one particular pattern in a given context. These principles of pattern selection include lexical factors (e.g. the inadmissibility of the pronoun it in particular slots of specific patterns), pragmatic principles (i.e. focus and weight considerations) and semantic factors (i.e. the explicitation/arrangement and the specific subtype of semantic roles). Very often, several of these factors come into operation along with each other. Despite the complex interaction between these factors, they explain to a great extent why language users tend to choose from a variety of possible patterns one specific SEND-pattern in a particular context. Methodologically, it should be emphasised once again that the description of such quantitative trends and their analysis in terms of functionally motivated routines are only possible by drawing on corpus data. 3.2.4 OFFER The last habitual ditransitive verb that will be discussed with regard to the routines involved in its lexicogrammar is OFFER. Of the 198 occurrences of 77

The Gulf in subject function is of course only acceptable if the location is re-interpreted as a recipient of the troops.

Aspects of Description

189

OFFER (as verb) in ICE-GB (cf. Table 3-10, p. 148), only one instance of the phrasal verb OFFER UP was excluded from the corpus analysis. This leaves us with 197 instances of OFFER as a one-place ditransitive verb. The frequencies of the various OFFER-patterns are given in Table 3-16. The nine most frequent make up for 178 instances (= 90.4%) of all instances of OFFER, see Figure 3-13. As in the sections before, the discussion of principles of pattern selection for OFFER-patterns will be restricted to these most frequent, routinised patterns. Table 3-16: Frequency of OFFER-patterns in ICE-GB type I Ib Id

pattern

(S) OFFER [Oi:NP] [Od:NP] [Od: NPantecedent] (rel. pron.) [S] OFFER [Oi:NP] [Od: NPfronted] [S] OFFER [Oi:NP] miscellaneous IP [S < Oi active] BE offered [Od:NP] (by-agent) IPb [Od:NPantecedent] (rel. pron.) [S type III:

(S) OFFER [Od:NP] Oi he offered no reply he had no reply to offer (S) HAVE [Od:NP] to offer Oi You’ve got to I suppose have something very special to offer You’ve got to I suppose offer something very special

Despite this structural correspondence between type III and type IIIh/t, the latter pattern – unlike the former – tends to be used whenever the transferred entity (i.e. the thing being offered) is nothing at all or nothing that could be specified: at least in the seven cases at hand, it seems as though the type-IIIh/t pattern is used whenever the transferred entity is virtually non-existent (nothing else, nothing new, (not) anything new, little) or not to be specified (something very special, so much).80 Two illustrative examples are given in (389) and (390). (389) I thought that was a very significant and perceptive remark from a man who claimed he had nothing new to offer (390) I think that all the careers advisers at your visit agreed that larger medium sized firms have so much to offer and we wish that our students could be more aware of these aspects In the passive type-IIIP pattern, the transferred entity is realised as the passive subject and is thus placed in initial position, see (391). Since in 6 of all 8 cases (= 75.0%) the by-agent is not explicitised, it turns out that the most important factor that leads language users to select this pattern is not the positional shift of the transferred entity but the possibility of leaving the acting entity unspecified for reasons of its contextual recoverability or irrelevance. This is the case in (392), for example. In two cases, however, the acting entity is realised as a by-agent. In fact, in these two cases the acting entity is of particular importance and is thus placed in final focus position by deliberately choosing the type-IIIP pattern. Note 79

Needless to say, it is not in all contexts that both options are equally idiomatic. Note that the Macmillan English Dictionary refers to the type-IIIh/t only by mentioning the phrase ‘have a lot to offer (= to have many attractive features)’ (Rundell, 2002: 982). Similarly, the Collins COBUILD English Dictionary states that “[i]f someone or something has something to offer, they have a particular quality or ability that makes them important, attractive, or useful” (Sinclair, 1995: 1144). In the light of the ICE-GB data, however, it seems questionable whether this construction is really imparted with such a positive semantic prosody. 80

Aspects of Description

193

that in (393), for example, by the family of two sisters who lived there can be considered the most significant bit of information in the context at hand because the subsequent text picks up on this very entity and provides more information on the acting entity of the OFFER event. (391)

IIIP [S < Od active] BE offered Oi (by-agent) either left out (6 of 8 cases = 75.0%) or deliberately placed in final focus-position (2 of 8 cases = 25.0%)

(392) Things looked up when Chevrolet’s first V8 was offered in 1955 (393) Happylands is being offered for sale by the family of two sisters who lived there – one died in 1988 and the second died about six months ago The last type-III pattern to be mentioned here is type IIIPb in which the transferred entity, realised as the passive subject, serves as an antecedent for a subsequent relative clause or a past participle construction; see (394). The five instances of this pattern can be functionally explained by combining the factors involved in the type-IIIb and the type-IIIP pattern as described above. Specifically, the transferred entity is realised as an antecedent in initial position because it is either part of a preceding or of a subsequent pattern in the text. One example is given in (395): the price is the first element of the pattern sth. is sufficient to do..., which is completed in the subsequent text. Additionally, if the acting entity is explicitised as a by-agent (as in 2 of 5 cases = 40.0%), it is in fact the underlying acting entity that turns out to be most important and is therefore placed in final focus position by selecting the type-IIIPb pattern. In (396), the two principles of pattern selection come into operation along with each other: the unimaginative and depressive grid plans is already part of the preceding pattern sth. compares well with sth., and by Foster Associates... is placed in end-focus position in order to contrast it with the acting entity of the subsequent clause (i.e. by MacCormack, Jamieson, Prichard and Wright), which is also in end-position. (394)

IIIPb [antecedent]co (S < Od)co (BE) offered Oi (by-agent) part of a preceding pattern or of a subsequent pattern (all 5 cases = 100%)

if by-agent is explicitised (2 of 5 cases = 40.0%) it needs to be in focus position

(395) his personal shareholding was by now substantial, and the price offered – as well as increasing the value of the funds held in trust for his wife and daughter – was sufficient to make him, as Selena put it, seriously rich

194

Chapter 3

(396) In particular, the varied pattern of incident, interval and allusion is of interest and compares well with the unimaginative and depressing grid plans offered by Foster Associates and by Richard Rogers Partnerships, and with the animal maze-cum rural open-prison cum Japanese factory exercise-yard sketched out by MacCormack, Jamieson, Prichard and Wright The basic type-I pattern differs from the default type-III pattern (and all other type-III patterns) in that the affected entity is made explicit and is realised as an indirect object; see (397). The need to explicitise the affected entity (i.e. the recipient of the offer) can be shown to be motivated by different factors. In 23 of 32 cases (= 71.9%), the affected entity represents given information and is thus referred to by a personal pronoun (e.g. you), any other pro-form (e.g. one) or a definite noun phrase with a general noun as head (e.g. the people). In all these cases, the affected entity is re-specified not because it needs to be introduced to the discourse but either because its omission would make it difficult for the hearer/reader to identify the recipient of the OFFER event, see (398), or because the language user – especially in spoken discourse – establishes common ground and wishes to be more polite by referring explicitly to his interlocutor, see (399). It is only in the remaining 9 cases (= 28.1%) that the affected entity is clearly new to the discourse and is therefore described by a more elaborated noun phrase in indirect-object position, which is exemplified in (400) and (401). Whether the affected entity is given or new, the important point is that the type-I pattern is preferred to the type-II pattern (about which more below) because the transferred entity is placed in final position. In all 32 cases (= 100%), this arrangement is appropriate in the contexts at hand because the transferred entity represents the most important – and new – information in the contexts under consideration. All four examples in (398) to (401) illustrate the particular importance of the transferred entity and, accordingly, its positioning according to the principle of endfocus. That the direct object tends to be heavier than the indirect object in most cases – as in examples (398) to (401) – once again shows the cross-correspondence between the principles of end-focus and end-weight. (397)

I (S) OFFER [Oi:NP] [Od:NP] new and particularly important (all 32 cases = 100%) => usually heavier than [Oi:NP] (19 of 32 cases = 59.4%) affected entity explicitised because: a) given information, but to be re-specified in context (23 of 32 cases = 71.9%) b) new information to be introduced in the discourse (9 of 32 cases = 28.9%)

Aspects of Description

195

(398) but he offered me a job that I could have earned forty grand (399) Dr Sacks I’m not going to ask you to encapsulate your arguments in a few sentences because if that were possible the BBC would feel rather foolish I think at having offered you three hours of air time to develop them (400) ... it’s vital for the career development of young people and also the needs of our economy that we offer each and every young person who wants it a tailor-made training which truly assesses their individual needs ... (401) At the same time, there are new religions that offer their member release from those constraints which exist in a complex, impersonal society ... In the passive type-IP pattern, the passive subject represents the affected entity, while the direct object, referring to the transferred entity, remains in situ. Among the 15 instances of the type-IP pattern of OFFER in ICE-GB, there is not a single one in which the by-agent is explicitised. The most important principle of pattern selection for this pattern thus turns out to be the possibility of leaving the acting entity unspecified. However, this would also be possible by using the type-IIP pattern, which differs from the type-IP pattern with regard to the arrangement of the transferred and the affected entity (cf. Table 3-16, p. 189). Thus, there must be some additional motivation for using the type-IP pattern. In turns out that the type-IP pattern is selected because the affected entity, realised by the passive subject in initial position, refers back to a previously activated element and/or because the transferred entity, realised by the direct object in end-position, needs to be marked as particularly important and placed in focus position. In (402), the three factors that are responsible for language users’ choice of the type-IP pattern are summarised. The examples in (403) and (404) illustrate typical contexts in which this pattern is used. Specifically, in (403) he refers back to Patrick so that the type-IP pattern is more suitable than, say, the type-IIP pattern in this context (i.e. ...the job was offered to him). In (404), too, the passive subject they refers back to those who remain, but here it is also obvious that the most important information is that provided by the transferred entity in end-position (i.e. three year contracts rather than...). Again it would be less appropriate to use the typeIIP pattern with the transferred entity in initial and the affected entity in final position. (402)

IP [S < Oi active] BE offered [Od:NP] (by-agent) previously activated/ taken up (7 of 15 cases = 46.7%)

new/to be left out focused (all 15 (8 of 15 cases cases = 53.3%) = 100%)

196

Chapter 3

(403) Patrick, who had been at Social Security, had me thrust upon him by the Prime Minister at the very moment he was offered the job (404) But uhm I understand that of those who remain uh their contractual position is improved in that they ’re being offered three year contracts rather than annual renewable uhm but uh The type-II pattern resembles the type-I pattern in that the affected entity is made explicit, which is not the case in the default type-III pattern of OFFER. The structural difference between type I and type II is the different order of the transferred and the affected entity: the affected entity, realised as a to-phrase, is in endposition in type II; see (405). (405)

II (S) OFFER [Od:NP] [Oi:PPto] new/to be focused (7 of 15 cases = 46.7%) specific lexical items in Od-position (8 of 15 cases = 53.3%): 1. words that are associated with the preposition to in general: answer, benefit, challenge, condolence, education, resistance, sacrifice 2. it

(406) A NEW card offering discount and benefits to poll taxpayers has been labelled a ‘bribe’ by a Brent pressure group (407) Since the Theatre is a Department of University College we only offer this casual work to students Give us some more drinks … (416) Indeed, Saddam Hussein ought to have learned from his own experience in the pointless and futile war against Iran, which he initiated and which profited him nothing => … which gave him nothing As in the case of DELIVER, it is unusual for both SUPPLY and PROFIT to be used in the basic form of ditransitive complementation. SUPPLY tends to be used in supply so. with sth., supply sth. to so. and SUPPLY sth. (without specifying the recipient). The first two of the preferred patterns of SUPPLY are particularly important because they cast light on the ditransitive potential of the verb which is exploited in (415). Two typical examples of SUPPLY are given in (419) and (420). (417) The foods which supply you with fibre also supply you with calories. (418) COMPANIES that supply optical fibres to British Telecom are stepping up their efforts to cut the price of the fibres in the face of international competition. The similarity between the underlying SUPPLY event and the ditransitive situation schema is most obvious in examples (417) and (418), in which a transfer of a transferred entity to an affected entity, which is accomplished by an acting entity, is verbalised. This gives rise to the following correspondences between the semantic roles that are explicitised in (417) and (418) on the one hand and the semantic roles that are involved in the ditransitive situation type: • acting entity: • transferred entity: • affected entity:

(417) the foods fibre you

(418) companies optical fibres British Telecom

TRANSFER

As for PROFIT, the verb is used in almost all cases in combination with from sth.; see examples (419) and (420).

208

Chapter 3

(419) The interests of those who profit from slavery should play no role whatsoever in deciding to abolish the institution from which they profit. (420) dust, they profit directly from our negligence The basic form of ditransitive complementation is licensed for PROFIT – see example (416) – on the grounds of a more complex semantic reinterpretation of the underlying event and the semantic roles involved. Specifically, (1) the source of the profit is reinterpreted as the acting entity (and realised as the subject), (2) the acting entity of the PROFITING event, which is typically realised as the subject, is reinterpreted as the affected entity (and thus realised as the indirect object), (3) and the nature of the profit itself is introduced as the transferred entity (and realised as the direct object). The introduction of new semantic roles that are usually not explicitised with potentially ditransitive verbs also explains the grammatical institutionalisation of many other verbs as peripheral ditransitive verbs. PURCHASE, for example, is a classic monotransitive verb and is typically associated with two semantic roles, i.e. the purchaser and the purchased object; see examples (421) and (422). (421) With these proceeds he was able to return home to Polperro and purchase a small coasting schooner. (422) If you purchase an audio mixer, look for one which has built-in level meters. In using PURCHASE in the ditransitive type-I pattern, an affected entity is introduced and the purchased object is interpreted more specifically as the transferred entity. Thus, the usual event type with which PURCHASE is habitually associated is adapted to the ditransitive situation schema, licensing example (423). (423) I also purchased Antonio a really nice shirt in Benetton sale The same explanation applies to the rare occurrences of DESIGN, DRAW and FILE in the ditransitive type-I pattern both in ICE-GB and in the BNC. These verbs, too, are usually used with one object only (representing whatever is designed, drawn or filed), but it is possible to attribute ditransitive meaning to these verbs by adding the semantic role of an affected entity as the recipient of a transferred entity. As exemplified in (424) to (427), this process results in the basic ditransitive situation schema: (424) Anyway OK well just for the sake of the exercise should you not have him and should you want to design yourself a new one (425) Just design yourself a new man

Aspects of Description

209

(426) Are you volunteering to draw us a tree as well (427) Our industrial correspondent Ian Ross is at Heathrow has just filed us this report With other verbs, the new semantic role that is introduced is not the affected entity but the transferred entity. The verb FINE, for example, is usually used with one object only, which refers to the person being fined. Examples (428) and (429) show that it is possible to re-interpret this entity as the affected entity (i.e. Mr Patrick Nichols, her) of a transfer event when a transferred entity (i.e. two hundred and fifty pounds, £250) is explicitised.93 (428) The former Environment Minister Mr Patrick Nichols has been banned from driving for a year and fined two hundred and fifty pounds (429) However, in choosing the appropriate sentence to pass he took account of her cultural background and fined her £250 The semantic component that is involved in grammaticalisation by analogy may be based on metaphorical extension. A case in point is DROP the core meaning of which is ‘let something fall’. In this core meaning, the type-I pattern is attested neither in ICE-GB nor in the BNC. The attribution of ditransitive meaning to DROP requires a metaphorical extension in that the dropped object is a (usually written) verbal message.94 It is only by metaphorically extending the process of letting something fall to a process of leaving a message that the message can be re-interpreted as a transferred entity that is to be transferred to an affected entity. See examples (430) to (433). (430) If he answers me I ’ll drop you a note (431) I must drop him a line (432) Perhaps you could ask him to drop me a line and tell me (433) I wanted to drop you a short note to say how sorry I was not to be able to come to your leaving reception on Monday

93

Although the ditransitive use of FINE is attested neither in the Collins COBUILD English Dictionary (Sinclair, 1995) nor in the Macmillan English Dictionary (Rundell, 2002), a quick glance at the BNC data shows that it is not as rare as for the other peripheral ditransitive verbs under consideration and occurs some 60 times. Taking grammatical institutionalisation and conventionalisation as a gradient, it could thus well be argued that FINE is much more conventionalised as a ditransitive verb than, say, DELIVER, which is corroborated by the fact that even a passive example is attested in ICE-GB; see (428). 94 Accordingly, the Macmillan English Dictionary (Rundell, 2002: 427) indicates a ditransitive pattern only for the more or less fixed phrase ‘drop sb a line/note’, but not for any of the general meaning-groups.

210

Chapter 3

Similarly, the type-I pattern cannot be used with the two core meanings of KEEP, which may be circumscribed as ‘stay in a specific state/condition’ and ‘continue (to have) something’. Only if the meaning of KEEP is metaphorically extended to ‘provide a service’, the verbal meaning fits in the ditransitive situation schema and can thus be used in the basic form of ditransitive complementation. As the following examples from ICE-GB and the BNC show, this metaphorical extension is closely linked to company as the service that the acting entity provides (or is asked to provide) for the affected entity.95 In fact, the type-I pattern of KEEP only occurs with company as direct object in the two corpora.96 (434) Did you keep her company at all for the rest of the holiday (435) Will you keep me company on Tuesday? (436) I went, but my friend wouldn’t speak to me, let alone come out to keep me company. (437) I go to the pub a bit, but I haven’t got the money, or I see my boyfriend, or I keep my mam company. (438) It all started when she saw a hamster in a pet shop and decided to get another to keep him company. In conclusion, many verbs turn out to be potentially ditransitive in that they can be grammaticalised as ditransitive verbs by analogy and, in some cases, by metaphorical extension. The ten examples of verbs that rarely occur in the type-I pattern (which is taken to be the formal criterion for ditransitivity) show how such processes of grammatical institutionalisation come into play in extremely peripheral ditransitive verbs, i.e. verbs whose verbal meaning is not straightforwardly ditransitive but which have already been successfully adapted to the ditransitive situation schema. Despite the fact that these verbs are grammatically institutionalised as ditransitive verbs in English, they are not at all conventionalised ditransitive verbs and continue to be typical members of other verb classes. In the present section it has been suggested that a distinction be made between grammatical institutionalisation and conventionalisation, the former exemplifying creativity in language use and the latter being intricately interwoven with the notions of routine and frequency. The following section is devoted to a

95

In contrast to the figures given in Table 3-17 (p. 199), two of the three instances of KEEP that are parsed as ditransitive in ICE-GB are not relevant examples of ditransitivity, leaving us with example (434) only. In the other two examples (i.e. and ), KEEP is followed by TELL (…keep telling…), and it is TELL that is the ditransitive verb. 96 Note that also verbs (e.g. CRY) that seem to be totally unrelated to the ditransitive meaning may be used in the type-I pattern on the grounds of a metaphorical extension and in combination with a specific lexical item (e.g. river) that allows for this meaning extension: The Tribesmen’s (2002) and Justin Timberlake’s (2003) song with the title Cry me a river is a good case in point. This example can already be found in Green (1974).

Aspects of Description

211

brief discussion of various aspects of conventionalisation that are relevant to the description of ditransitivity. 3.3.2 Conventionalisation Once a verb is grammatically institutionalised as a ditransitive verb, it may be increasingly used as a verb that refers to the ditransitive situation schema. It is this complex process in the aftermath of grammatical institutionalisation that I wish to refer to as conventionalisation.97 Initially, the conventionalisation of a verb as a ditransitive verb requires its fairly frequent use in the basic form of ditransitive complementation because it is this link between a given verb and the type-I pattern – the only pattern in English that is unequivocally associated with a ditransitive meaning – that may lead to a firm association of a verb and the ditransitive meaning in a speech community. Later in the process of conventionalisation, however (i.e. once a given verb is habitually considered a ditransitive verb), the avenue for conventionalisation becomes broader in that the verb is understood to refer to the ditransitive situation schema even though it may at times not be used in the basic type-I pattern. The underlying assumption, then, is that there is an initial threshold level with regard to the use of a given verb in the type-I pattern above which the verb at hand is, by default, regarded as a ditransitive verb. It is only above this threshold level that the verb becomes conventionalised as ditransitive in other patterns as well. It is impossible to determine this threshold level, but its existence – even though it cannot by any means be specified – is corroborated by the fact that there is a difference between attributing the label ‘ditransitive verb’ to typical/habitual ditransitive verbs on the one hand and to peripheral ditransitive verbs on the other. That is, while there is unanimous agreement on viewing GIVE and TELL, for example, as ditransitive verbs, this label is not at all as readily assigned to, say, DELIVER and KEEP, although all four verbs can be used in the type-I pattern. This difference is due to the different frequencies with which the verbs occur in the type-I pattern from which we may conclude that while all four verbs are grammatically institutionalised as ditransitive verbs, only GIVE and TELL are also conventionalised as such. As Thompson and Hopper (2001: 49) note, for example, “the extent to which a predicate seems to be imaginable in terms of ‘participants on stage’ at all is a function of frequency.” In other words, the number (and, we may add, the kinds) of semantic roles with which a verb is usually associated is a matter of frequent use in a specific pattern – i.e. for ditransitive verbs it is their frequency in the 97

Conventionalisation is taken to include here both an increasing overall frequency of a linguistic structure in language use in general and an increasing frequency in specific contexts such as genres, spoken or written language (the latter not being in the focus of the present study). This mirrors Fenk-Oczlon’s (2001: 432) related concept of “[h]igh familiarity, including high familiarity within a certain context,” which allows for a reduction of the ‘cognitive costs’ that are necessary for encoding/decoding such highly familiar linguistic structures.

212

Chapter 3

type-I pattern. However, Thompson and Hopper (2001: 49) make it clear that even if a verb is associated with specific participants, “predicates vary greatly in the extent to which they specify what Payne (1997) describes as the ‘number of participants’ that must be ‘on stage’.” This includes the use of a ditransitive verb in type-III, type-IV and type-V patterns in which specific semantic roles are not explicitised but are implicitly understood so that the ditransitive verb retains its ditransitive meaning in these (seemingly non-ditransitive) patterns. In effect, conventionalisation refers to the process of establishing a firm link between a given verb and the ditransitive meaning (and situation schema) on grounds of frequency. It is, however, of vital importance that the verb remains linked to the ditransitive meaning in non-type-I patterns once it is conventionalised as a ditransitive verb. In fact, it is for this reason that all the patterns in which typical and habitual ditransitive verbs occur in the corpus data were taken to represent ditransitive patterns in sections 3.1 and 3.2. This approach is, of course, clearly at odds with Goldberg’s (1995) description of a ‘ditransitive construction’. She takes the ditransitive construction to represent an ‘argument structure construction’, that is to say, “a special subclass of constructions that provides the basic means of clausal expression in a language” (Goldberg, 1995: 3). The verb fax, for example, is seen as being associated with the ditransitive construction as in Pat faxed Bill the letter. As has already been noted in section 1.2.7, the ditransitive construction itself is believed to carry meaning and to refer to a basic scene which is based on the argument roles of the construction and which may be fused with the participant roles of specific verbs (namely ditransitive verbs) but not of other verbs. In combining the concepts of ditransitive construction and fusion (with ditransitive verbs), the underlying assumption is that verbs are ditransitive because they tend to be used in the ditransitive construction. While Goldberg’s (1995) approach is particularly useful for explaining why, for example, a novel verb is used in the ditransitive construction, she neglects those aspects of grammatical institutionalisation and conventionalisation that go beyond the ditransitive construction, e.g. the fact that specific verbs may well be ditransitive (both grammatically institutionalised and conventionalised) but yet occur less frequently in the ditransitive construction than in other patterns. In Goldberg’s (1995) model, ditransitivity is defined as a specific construction, i.e. the type-I pattern, and ditransitive verbs are defined as those verbs that are possible in this construction – without taking into consideration the frequency of the type-I pattern and the other patterns of a given verb. As Thompson and Hopper (2001: 51) point out in an in-depth analysis of spoken corpus data, however, TELL, SEND, and GIVE are important cases in point which call into question the construction-oriented approach to ditransitivity. 98 As has been argued in the present study, it is beyond doubt that these three verbs remain ditransitive in meaning in all patterns in which they are used because they represent conventionalised ditransitive verbs which language users, by default, 98

However, some of Thompson and Hopper’s (2001) conclusions warrant a critical review (see section 4.1.2).

Aspects of Description

213

associate with the ditransitive situation schema in all their occurrences (even though, for example, specific semantic roles may not be explicitised for various reasons). In a wider setting, it seems doubtful, in my view, whether the notion of ditransitive construction is a useful concept. Rather, I would contend that ditransitivity is a semantic potential of a verb if its verbal meaning is able to fit in with the ditransitive situation schema, of which its use in the basic form of ditransitive complementation is a syntactically feasible signpost. This does not rule out that in a substantial number of all its occurrences a ditransitive verb is used in a pattern which is different from the type-I pattern (i.e. the ‘ditransitive construction’). Finally, brief mention should be made of the various processes that are covered by the umbrella term of conventionalisation. While conventionalisation is taken to refer to the frequency-induced establishment of a verb as ditransitive, this general process is usually accompanied by the emergence of particular kinds of linguistic routines that turn out to be characteristic of the most frequent patterns of a ditransitive verb. For typical and habitual ditransitive verbs, these routines – as quantitatively significant trends – were described at length in sections 3.1 and 3.2 in terms of significant principles of pattern selection and their influence on the lexicogrammar of ditransitive verbs: • Lexical routines A ditransitive pattern tends to be associated with specific lexical items in specific slots. That is, specific lexical items can serve as pointers to specific patterns. On the other hand, a specific pattern may be seen as functioning as a frame for specific lexical realisations. • Pragmatic routines A ditransitive pattern tends to be selected – and preferred over other possible patterns in a given context – due to pragmatic principles. Of particular importance are the principle of end-weight and the principle of end-focus which may demand the final position of a specific element. • Textual routines Preceding and anticipated subsequent patterns in a text may favour the selection of a particular ditransitive pattern of a given verb. This may help put into practice a smooth pattern flow. • Semantic routines Specific ditransitive patterns are used in a given context because the semantic roles to which the various clause elements refer are arranged and/or explicitised in a particularly suitable way (i.e. they may help language users to keep to pragmatic and textual routines). Also, patterns with a specific realisation of a clause element (e.g. direct object of TELL as noun phrase or that-clause or toinfinitive) may be preferred because this realisation is the preferred verbalisation of a particular subtype of the underlying semantic role (e.g. MESSAGE/ PRODUCT or MESSAGE/FACT or MESSAGE/ORDER respectively).

214

Chapter 3

At the extreme point of the conventionalisation gradient we find formulaic sequences (cf. Wray, 2002), i.e. more or less fixed word combinations which may resemble one of the patterns but which should best be regarded as lexical fossilisations of a specific pattern (e.g. I tell you what as a formulaic sequence which represents a fossilised realisation of the type-I pattern of TELL). This may be regarded as the most extreme example of lexical routine. 3.3.3 Grammatical institutionalisation, conventionalisation and peripheral ditransitive verbs Even if we try to systematise the emergence of peripheral, habitual and typical ditransitive verbs along the lines of the two processes of grammatical institutionalisation and conventionalisation, it is obvious that the notion of ditransitivity remains a fuzzy concept.99 Specifically, the pluralist approach to ditransitivity which is at the heart of the present study is based on lexical, grammatical, semantic and pragmatic features so that it is difficult to exactly define the boundaries of the concept in terms of the verbs it includes and the ones it does not include. However, for typical and habitual ditransitive verbs, there most presumably is general agreement on their being prime examples of ditransitivity on grounds of their frequent use in the basic form of ditransitive complementation and their typically ditransitive meaning. In other words, conventionalised ditransitive verbs are clearly at the centre of the category of ditransitive verbs. Peripheral ditransitive verbs, on the other hand, pose some problems in this regard. In particular, the question arises as to whether a verb such as DELIVER is ditransitive if it is attested only once in the basic form of ditransitive complementation in the corpus under consideration. I would contend that it is – despite the extremely low frequency of the type-I pattern for this verb. This naturally occurring example alone (given that it is not intended to be deliberately ungrammatical) proves that the verbal meaning can be adapted to the ditransitive situation schema, turning the potentially ditransitive verb into a grammatically institutionalised ditransitive verb.100 As has been argued in section 3.3.1, many verbs are potentially ditransitive. However, there must be at least one authentic and testable example which vindicates a particular licensing strategy that turns a potentially ditransitive verb into a peripheral ditransitive verb. Of course, verbs that are on the periphery of the class of ditransitive verbs continue to be typical 99 Thus, ditransitivity ought to be treated as a linguistic category which is prototypical in nature (see section 4.2.1). 100 In contrast, the mere invention of a sentence with DELIVER in the type-I pattern does not prove this point. The availability of an attested context as given in corpus data (infrequent as it may be) is of paramount importance because it is only by analysing such an attested and contextualised example that the naturalness of the ditransitive use of the verb under consideration and its relevance to a description of actual language use can be proven.

Aspects of Description

215

examples of other verb classes, e.g. DELIVER of the class of monotransitive verbs. Although ditransitivity is based on a specific situation type with its particular meaning, those verbs which may evoke this situation type but are not conventionally associated with it are simultaneously peripheral members of the class of ditransitive verbs and more typical members of other transitivity classes. 3.4

Creativity, frequency and routine in using ditransitive verbs

The discussion of various aspects of the usage of ditransitive verbs provides ample testimony to the fact that in actual language use creativity and recurrent routines are in equilibrium. Generally speaking, the question of whether linguistic models should focus on language users’ principal ability to produce and understand novel structures or on their highly routinised language behaviour in actual language use has exerted an enormous influence on the emergence of particular linguistic schools which tend to place particular emphasis either on creativity or on routine. Generative grammar (see section 1.2.2) and corpus linguistics (see sections 1.2.5 and 1.2.6) are good examples of the two different approaches to linguistic theory with their different objects of inquiry: generative grammar is primarily concerned with what is possible in a language while corpus linguistics has traditionally been much more interested in the conventionalisation of language. In a wider setting, the discussion in the present chapter shows that both aspects are relevant to a comprehensive description of ditransitive verbs. While I would be wary of making any sweeping claims concerning the intricate interrelation between creativity and routine in general, I do think that a clear-cut separation of creativity and routine is neither possible nor desirable. There is no point in ignoring the basic fact that while language users stick to various kinds of routines in the vast majority of communicative events they are able to deviate from these routines and produce (‘generate’, if you wish) novel or unusual linguistic forms and structures – and actually do so in exceptional cases. It is for this reason that Wray (2002) forcefully and convincingly argues for a ‘dualsystems solution’ that includes both a creativity-oriented and a routine-oriented component: Neither a grammar-only nor a formula-only model can accommodate both the linguistic competence of the ‘ideal speaker listener’ (Chomsky 1965:3) and the idiomaticity with a preference for some grammatical strings over others. The grammar on its own will overgenerate acceptable strings, relative to what sounds nativelike (Pawley & Syder 1983), while prefabricated units offer only a restricted range of forms and meanings, and are of little use when dealing with something novel. But between them, they can explain both novelty and idiomaticity. (Wray, 2002: 15; boldface mine)

216

Chapter 3

I do subscribe to the point of view that there is no viable alternative to a dualsystems solution that is able to explain both the various routines and the creative capacity that we encounter in actual language use. However, it is important to note that creativity and routine are not distinct categories but should best be regarded as a gradient. In fact, Wray (2002) – by using the terms given in boldface in the quotation above – hints at various phenomena that can be plotted on different positions on this cline from creativity to routine: • ‘Idiomaticity’ refers to preferred, idiomatic ways of putting things. Whether or not a specific string of words is idiomatic or not may or may not be related to its frequency. As was pointed out in section 3.3.1, Wray (2002) herself draws our attention to idiomatic strings (e.g. proverbs) that are not at all frequent but nevertheless culturally anchored in a speech community. Thus, linguistic routine is not always and necessarily linked to frequency. • ‘Preference’ captures those aspects of linguistic routines that occur frequently and can thus be identified by means of quantitative analyses. • ‘Prefabricated units’ are idiomatic and more or less fixed multi-word units. • ‘Grammatical strings’, on the other hand, are much closer to the concept of (lexico-)grammatical patterns, which allow for considerable lexical variation and do not represent fixed or semi-fixed multi-word units. On the creativityroutine gradient, grammatical strings are much closer to the creativity pole than, say, prefabricated units. • ‘Novelty’ in language use refers most typically to linguistic forms, structures and meanings that are newly introduced in a language. This clearly indicates aspects of language use that are highly creative. If we regard creativity and routine not as distinct domains but as a gradient, the ‘dual-systems solution’ that Wray (2002: 15) envisages should be translated into a model of language use in which the two systems shade into each other. For the description of ditransitive verbs, the continuum between creativity and routine in language use can be systematised along the lines of the categories sketched out in Figure 3-15,101 which shows that the most creative aspect can be found in the field of peripheral verbs. It is here that language users introduce new ditransitive verbs or institutionalise new ditransitive verbs (e.g. EMAIL) or use existing verbs (e.g. PROFIT) ditransitively in the type-I pattern, see (439):102 (439) Indeed, Saddam Hussein ought to have learned from his own experience in the pointless and futile war against Iran, which he initiated and which profited him nothing 101

Weinert (1995: 198), Hunston and Francis (2000: 12), too, view routine and creativity as a continuum. 102 Some of my native-speaker informants regard the use of PROFIT in the type-I pattern as in example (439) as old-fashioned. This, however, does not change anything about the status of PROFIT as a peripheral ditransitive verb.

Aspects of Description

217

creativity peripheral ditransitive verbs [new or rare verbs / emergent type-I pattern] see ex. (439)

routine habitual / typical ditransitive verbs frequent lexicogrammatical prefabricated units/idioms routines (‘formulaic language’) pattern pattern lexically frequencyculturally frame stabilised based anchored idiom see ex. see ex. see ex. see ex. see ex. (440) (441) (442) (443) (444)

grammatical institutionalisation

conventionalisation

Figure 3-15: A dual-systems approach to ditransitivity103 The type-I pattern of PROFIT is unusual and infrequent and does not belong to the ‘core area’ of language use:104 In addition there can be cases of newly emerging patterns which have not reached the level of general acceptance in the language community and thus do not yet belong to the core area. Some of these will probably stay at the bottom while others may make it to the surface. (Mindt, 2002: 211) Picking up on the terminology that was suggested in section 3.3, these lowfrequency emerging patterns of ditransitive verbs represent ‘grammatically institutionalised’ ditransitive patterns, but they do not (yet?) belong to the core area of ‘conventionalised’ ditransitive patterns. Such infrequently occurring patterns of verbs are a good example of language use where language users’ 103

In contradistinction to the specific reference to the type-I pattern in the first column (i.e. in the context of grammatical institutionalisation), the concept of ‘pattern’ in the second column refers to all patterns of a verb after the verb has been used in the type-I pattern (and thus been grammatically institutionalised as a ditransitive verb). 104 It should be noted that Mindt (2002) defines the so-called ‘core area’ as the entirety of those instances of a given grammatical phenomenon that make up for some 95% of all cases; but he admits that this 95% level represents an approximation rather than a fixed threshold since in the examples which he discusses the boundary varies between 96% and 99.5%. For the description of the lexicogrammar of ditransitive verbs, the 90% level seems more suitable as it emerges most clearly from the quantitative data obtained from ICE-GB. Note, by the way, that the distinction between ‘core’ and ‘periphery’, which is now strongly associated with prototype theory, has a long tradition in Prague-school linguistics (cf. e.g. Vachek, 1966; Sgall, 2002). These notions will be discussed in more detail in section 4.2.2.

218

Chapter 3

creativity plays a major role – creativity that Mindt (2002: 211) views as one important aspect of the language-as-compost metaphor that he draws on: In garden compost, we find seeds of new plants which are starting into a new life without having reached the visible surface yet. In language compost, there are new grammatical patterns which may end up within the compost or may make it to the surface of general use … . (Mindt, 2002: 211) As sketched out in the middle part of Figure 3-15, frequent lexicogrammatical routines can be identified for habitual and typical ditransitive verbs. The most flexible kind of routine is represented by the entirety of frequent lexicogrammatical patterns of a given ditransitive verb, e.g. the type-Ig pattern of ASK: (440)

Ig (S) ASK [Oi:NP] [Od:to-infinitive] I ’d ask the tenant to either rebuild or underpin the wall

This most frequent pattern of ASK represents a grammatical pattern that is strongly associated with the verb at hand. It still allows for a wide range of variation (and, thus, creative language use) because each preverbal and postverbal slot is open to an infinite number of lexical realisations. This, however, does not rule out that for virtually all lexicogrammatical patterns of all typical and habitual ditransitive verbs, many significant principles of pattern selection can be identified on the basis of corpus data. The entirety of the principles of patterns selection that were identified for typical and habitual ditransitive verbs (see sections 3.1 and 3.2) represents a systematisation of factors that are responsible for significant quantitative trends in the use of particular ditransitive patterns with specific ditransitive verbs in given contexts. Notwithstanding the flexibility of a given pattern, it was shown in this chapter that some patterns tend to be associated with a fairly restricted set of lexical items in one or more of the pattern slots. A case in point is the type-I pattern of TELL, for which a pattern frame was suggested in Figure 3-5 (p. 137), which is replicated in (441) for convenience. (441)

you me ... I

TELL

us her him ...

this/that any-/some-/every-/nothing what all* more* story* truth* thing* a little bit* ...

... *about

Aspects of Description

219

By including the frequent lexical realisations of a given pattern in the pattern itself, the concept of pattern frame highlights the fact that a lexicogrammatical pattern may at times be lexically restricted. Here, the degree of creativity in the use of patterns is clearly lower than, say, in the case of the type-Ig pattern of ASK. A step further from creativity to routine becomes visible in examples of lexically stabilised idioms such as the idiom give rise to sth.: (442) but when you follow that through you’ve got the means to give rise to a change in the method of accounting that’s adopted in the company Pattern-wise, (442) exemplifies the type-II pattern of GIVE. However, it is an idiomatic use of GIVE that is triggered by rise, leading to a metaphorical extension of the meaning of GIVE: there is no process of literal GIVE involved here, but the meaning is much closer to ‘allow for’. Since the type-I pattern is no alternative option for this meaning (*…to give a change in the method of… a rise), the use of rise in the direct-object position of the type-II pattern of GIVE leads to a lexically stabilised idiom with a specific meaning that is bound to the sequence of the lexemes involved. Prefabricated units – or instances of ‘formulaic language’ (Wray, 2002) – are even more routinised because they are even more rigidly fixed than idioms. In other words, the association between a ditransitive pattern and particular lexical items can become so strong that the resulting lexicogrammatical unit may be established as a formulaic sequence: (443) I tell you what go and ask Toni where it is I tell you what, for example, is a frequently occurring prefabricated unit which does not allow for any kind of inflectional change of the verb: *he tells you what, for example, is not admissible. In point of fact, it is the string of word-forms rather than the sequence of lexemes that is essential for prefabricated units of a formulaic kind. In Figure 3-15 (p. 217), examples of the I-tell-you-what type are described as frequency-based because they occur frequently in language use and are conventionalised strings on grounds of their frequency. Some prefabricated units, however, are also formulaic and have a specific idiomatic extended meaning but are not at all frequently used. This applies, for example, to obsolete idioms: (444) OED: to give one the back (obsolete) ‘to turn away from, disregard him’ Although most native speakers will presumably know the idiomatic meaning of give one the back, this meaning is no longer stabilised through frequent use in actual usage but is part of a culturally anchored knowledge about language. It is here that idiomaticity and frequency fall apart.

220

Chapter 3

Figure 3-15 (p. 217) not only provides an overview of the categories along the creativity-routine gradient for the description of ditransitive verbs and their patterns, but it also shows that frequency information cannot shed light on all aspects of linguistic creativity and routine. Specifically, frequencies in language use – as obtained from corpus data – are without any doubt important for the description of lexicogrammatical patterns, pattern frames, lexically stabilised idioms and frequency-based prefabricated units/idioms. In contrast, the description of new ditransitive verbs and emergent ditransitive patterns on the one hand and the analysis of infrequent, culturally anchored idioms on the other defy a merely quantitative analysis. In other words, whenever language users exploit the creative potential of language and whenever routine is no longer associated with frequency, the linguist cannot rely on quantitative data alone. Thus, a full picture of the process of grammatical institutionalisation and the process of conventionalisation can only be achieved by combining quantitative analyses with qualitative considerations that go beyond frequency information.

Chapter 4 Aspects of a usage-based model of ditransitive verbs The present chapter will propose a model of speakers’ linguistic knowledge about ditransitive verbs that is firmly based on the quantitative and qualitative analysis of corpus data. Unlike a model of language cognition along the lines of generative grammar, such a usage-based model is not taken to represent psychological reality. Rather, the usage-based model to be developed in the following sections serves as a cognitive-linguistic abstraction of language use (see section 2.5). Picking up on the pronouncements offered in section 2.4, I will start by describing four major principles of such a usage-based model; in this context, it is necessary to combine the general cognitive-linguistic framework provided by Langacker (1999) with specific corpus-linguistic considerations (see section 4.1). Ditransitivity in general is a good example of a fuzzy category with a central core area and a periphery with fluid boundaries. Additionally, the lexicogrammar of each individual ditransitive verb also displays features of fuzziness and gradience. Important concepts that need to be taken into consideration are the cognitivelinguistic and psycholinguistic notions of prototype and schema as well as the Prague-school notions of core and periphery (see section 4.2). By drawing on the principles of a usage-based model and the notions of prototype, schema, core and periphery, a usage-based model will be outlined for the two typical ditransitive verbs GIVE and TELL, which will be visualised as lexical networks (see section 4.3). The mirror image of lexical networks is provided by constructional networks (see section 4.4). The present chapter is rounded off by a general discussion of creativity and routine in language cognition and of how – and to what extent – the two aspects of language behaviour are accounted for in a usage-based model (see section 4.5). 4.1

Principles of a usage-based model

Some general aspects of the usage-based model of language cognition as suggested by Langacker (1987, 1999, 2000) have already been introduced in section 1.2.7. Also, it was noted that the cognitive-grammar framework could and should be reconciled by corpus-linguistic methodology in that it is the quantitative and qualitative analysis of corpus data that may render a model of language cognition truly usage-based. In the following sections, I will delve more deeply into the principles that underpin this from-corpus-to-cognition approach and make it possible to bridge the gap between cognitive grammar and corpus linguistics.

222

Chapter 4

4.1.1 A real-data model In general, a usage-based model of speakers’ linguistic knowledge differs from a generative model of ‘competence’ in that it does not draw a clear-cut line between language cognition and language use (see section 1.3.3). Rather, the model is developed on the basis of a close inspection of actual language data. In this context, Langacker (1999) argues that two particularly important psychological phenomena provide a link between language usage and a usage-based model: ‘entrenchment’ and ‘abstraction’.1 Entrenchment refers to the cognitive routinisation of linguistic units and structures on grounds of repetitive events in language use: “Through repetition, even a highly complex event can coalesce into a well-rehearsed routine that is easily elicited and reliably executed” (Langacker, 1999: 93). It is this usage-based concept of entrenchment that makes it possible to regard each individual – and sufficiently frequent – pattern of a ditransitive verb as a well-entrenched unit in its own right. The notion of abstraction (and, for that matter, ‘schematisation’) also refers to an inherent link between language use and language cognition since it designates … the emergence of a structure through reinforcement of the commonality inherent in multiple experiences. By its very nature, this abstractive process ‘filters out’ those facets of the individual experiences which do not recur … . Structures that appear very different when examined in fine-grained detail may nonetheless be quite comparable in a coarse-grained view. A schema is the commonality that emerges from distinct structures when one abstracts away from their points of difference by portraying them with lesser precision and specificity. (Langacker, 1999: 93) The repeated encounter with different linguistic forms and structures in actual usage (with something particular in common) is thus at the basis of the formation of linguistic schemas.2 For the present study of ditransitive verbs, there are at least three distinct levels at which such an abstraction can be detected: (1) the abstraction of a stable ditransitive meaning of a given verb from individual language events in which this verb is used; (2) the abstraction of a recurrent ditransitive pattern from individual language events in which this pattern is used; 1

Other psychological phenomena on which Langacker (1999: 94f.) establishes his usagebased model include ‘comparison’ (e.g. in metaphorical extensions), ‘composition’ (i.e. the integration of simpler structures into more complex structures) and ‘association’ (i.e. the mapping between form and meaning). 2 There is a difference between ‘schema’ and ‘prototype’. While a schema captures those features that all instantiations of a given category have in common, a prototype represents particularly typical core instantiations of a category. As will be discussed in section 4.2.1, it is nevertheless possible and reasonable to make use of both concepts in a usage-based model of ditransitivity.

Aspects of a Usage-based Model

223

(3) the abstraction of ditransitivity as a stable conceptual category from individual language events in which ditransitive verbs and patterns are used. It is important to note that all these abstractive processes are firmly based on actual language use: abstraction can only take place as a generalisation from real data (cf. Langacker, 1999: 144). The process of schematisation is involved at the first two levels of abstraction mentioned above, which are sketched out in Figure 4-1. At the first level, the stable meaning components of a ditransitive verb in all its occurrences allow for a generalisation of a lexical schema in which a particular verb is represented with its particular ditransitive semantics (see box ‘A’ and arrow ‘a’ in Figure 4-1). At the second level, the recurrent patterns of this ditransitive verb, e.g. the type-III pattern of GIVE, are represented in the same schema as lexicogrammatical realisations of the verb (see box ‘B’ and arrow ‘b’ in Figure 4-1). Figure 4-1 thus visualises the two-fold process of schematisation by exemplifying the way in which language users abstract away from recurrent occurrences of GIVE on the one hand and the type-III pattern of GIVE on the other a lexical schema that integrates the verb with its pattern to form a lexicogrammatical cognitive unit in its own right (see right-hand circle in Figure 4-1). individual events in language use instances of GIVE in various patterns: Give me a warning next time I meant to give it to you earlier The sermon he gave when his daughter was married … … … A

abstractions

a

schematisation of the type-III pattern of GIVE

III (S) GIVE [Od:NP] Oi instances of the type-III pattern of GIVE: he wanted physical love and I couldn't give that we can give a very nice account of b coarticulation Figures 3.2, 3.3, and 3.9 give examples of data … c … … … B Figure 4-1:

abstraction of principles of pattern selection for the type-III pattern of GIVE

Schematisation and ditransitivity: from real data to lexical schemas

224

Chapter 4

Figure 4-1 shows that it is on the basis of a large number of individual events in authentic language use that schematisation of a lexicogrammatical pattern (here: the type-III pattern of GIVE) takes place. But not only the authenticity of data is important for a real-data model of ditransitive verbs. Note also that from the actual contexts in which, say, the type-III pattern of GIVE tends to be used (in contradistinction to other GIVE-patterns), language users are taken to abstract away significant principles of pattern selection that lead language users to prefer the type-III pattern of GIVE over other available patterns (see box ‘B’ and arrow ‘c’ in Figure 4-1). As pointed out in (108) on p. 107, two principles are particularly relevant in this context: (1) the contextual recoverability of – or the lack of any need to specify – the affected entity (resulting in the omission of the indirect object); (2) specific lexical items in direct-object position (e.g. account, evidence, lecture). Using the analysis of corpus data for a usage-based model thus has two important advantages. Firstly, the authenticity of the database renders the model realistic and empirical. Secondly, the fact that corpus data give access to the natural contexts in which ditransitive verbs and patterns are used makes it possible to not only describe the repertoire of lexicogrammatical patterns available for a given verb, but also to identify important principles and factors that make language users opt for one pattern or another. The results reported in Chapter 3 have shed light on the versatility of such principles of pattern selection in actual language use. In the light of these results, it seems doubtful whether the wide-spread tendency to focus on the alternation between, say, specific GIVEpatterns and very few of the relevant principles, e.g. the influence of heaviness and newness on the alternation between the type-I and the type-II pattern of GIVE (cf. e.g. Thompson, 1990: 246; Hawkins, 1994: 213ff.; Arnold et al., 2000: 36ff.), can provide us with a complete picture of the mechanisms that are involved in pattern selection. In contrast, a realistic model can only be envisaged, in my view, by starting off from large amounts of real data and taking into consideration a much broader range of competing lexicogrammatical patterns and significant principles of pattern selection. 4.1.2 A frequency-oriented model Not only should the cognitive framework provided by Langacker’s (1999) usagebased model be complemented with the analysis of real data in general, but it should also be based on a quantitative analysis of representative corpus data in particular (see section 1.3.3). For a truly usage-based model of the lexicogrammar of ditransitive verbs, it is important to describe the extent to which a particular pattern of a given verb is cognitively entrenched. An empirical yardstick for the assessment of the entrenchment is frequency in actual language use. In criticising traditional models of argument structure that are not based on quantitative analyses and by picking up on various other studies, Thompson and Hopper (2001), for example, argue that such intuition-based conceptions should be replaced by a probabilistic theory:

Aspects of a Usage-based Model

225

What appears to be a fixed ‘structure’ is actually a set of schemas, some more ‘entrenched’ (Bybee 1985, 1998; Langacker 1987) than others, arising out of many repetitions in daily conversational interactions. The way in which verbs and nouns come to pattern is thus an intriguing example of an adaptive self-organizing system (Du Bois 1985; Lewin 1992). That is, as these studies show, ‘argument structure’ needs to be replaced by a greatly enriched probabilistic theory capturing the entire range of combinations of predicates and participants that people have stored as sorted and organized memories of what they have heard and repeated over a lifetime of language use. (Thompson and Hopper, 2001: 47) It is beyond question that a model of language that is intended to explain trends in language use must be essentially probabilistic in nature: only then is the model able to account for the undisputed fact that language users do not make use to the same extent of all linguistic forms and structures that the system allows for. Corpus data show that various kinds of patterning are characteristic of natural language, of which lexicogrammatical patterns are one important example (see section 2.4). In this context, modern, large and representative corpora provide a goldmine for probabilistic theories. From a cognitive point of view, frequency in usage should be best regarded as a quantitative signpost of the degree of entrenchment. This assumption is also mirrored in the from-corpus-to-cognition approach that underpins the present study (see section 2.5). Accordingly, the corpus-based analysis of ditransitive verbs and patterns in chapter 3 was firmly based on quantitative findings which were then explained from a qualitative and functional perspective. However – and despite the indisputable importance of frequency for a genuinely usage-based model of language cognition –, there are two caveats that need to be mentioned. Firstly, there is a growing intellectual climate in corpus-informed branches of linguistics in which frequency is increasingly viewed as the only explicandum in a usage-based model of language. An extreme example of this behaviourist backlash is provided by Thompson and Hopper (2001):3 Clearly what speakers know about the clauses of their language has everything to do with the kinds of language they have participated in and been exposed to during their lifetimes. (Thompson and Hopper, 2001: 53) In many such frequency-focused studies, there is a tendency to ignore a second, equally important aspect that is involved in linguistic knowledge-formation, namely speakers’ continuous abstraction of cognitive categories from individual 3

See also the discussion of recent trends in grammaticalisation theory in section 3.3.1. Similar arguments as to the overriding importance of frequency are put forward, for example, by Bybee (1985), Bybee (2001), Bybee and Hopper (2001a).

226

Chapter 4

language events. Of course, frequency and abstraction are not mutually exclusive; rather they complement each other. The important point here is that neither aspect should be ignored. Thompson and Hopper’s (2001) study, in my view, is a good example of emphasising the importance of frequency – and rightly so – but at the same time mistakenly calling into question abstract argument-structural categories such as the ditransitive situation schema (or ‘scene’, for that matter). Specifically, they argue that because in their corpus of 446 clauses from spontaneous face-to-face conversation an explicit ditransitive syntax occurs only sporadically with ‘ditransitive’ verbs (such as TELL and PAY), it would be better not to unify the frequent ‘intransitive use’ of such verbs (e.g. in you can tell, they pay in advance) and their infrequent ‘ditransitive use’ (e.g. in she tells her a story, they pay him $100) into one and the same argument structure. Rather, they favour a model in which the different uses of these verbs are treated as different, cognitively unrelated verbs, i.e. the one-argument verbs TELL1 and PAY1 vs. the three-argument verbs TELL2 and PAY2. In contrast, not only traditional models of argument structure (cf. Payne, 1997) but also structuralist and functionalist grammar (cf. Jackson, 1990) and cognitive grammar (cf. Langacker, 1987) have in common that they view the ‘intransitive use’ of ditransitive verbs as variants of their ‘ditransitive use’. Two concepts that are intended to capture this relationship are Matthews’s (1981) notion of ‘object deletion’ and Payne’s (1997) distinction between ‘semantic’ valency and ‘syntactic’ valency. I would contend that even if, for a given ditransitive verb, patterns that explicate all three argument roles are less frequent than patterns with only one or two explicitised argument roles, it remains useful to regard all patterns as lexicogrammatical realisations of one and the same ditransitive verb and, thus, to relate them to one and the same argument structure (or ‘scene’ or, by using the term preferred in the present study, the same underlying ‘situation type’). Consider the following examples of the verb ASK: (445) Yes thank you Miss White / That’s all I wanted to ask (446) My theory was that the councils would read it and write me less often for advice / In fact they simply asked harder questions (447) I asked if it was Pams Pam’s Mum and she just said again ‘Can I speak to Pamela?’ As was argued in section 3.2.2, such instances of ASK in which the affected entity is not realised as the indirect object can be explained by taking into consideration the actual contexts: in examples (445) to (447) there is simply no need to make explicit the affected entity because this entity can be recovered from the context (see the italicised elements). In other words, it is in the light of the contextual information that speakers deviate from the basic type-I pattern of ASK (i.e. the ‘ditransitive use’ of ASK in Thompson and Hopper’s (2001) terminology). Since the affected entity is inferrable from the context, it is indeed useful to distinguish between the semantic valency and the syntactic valency of ASK (see

Aspects of a Usage-based Model

227

section 1.2.3): while all three semantic valencies are filled in the contexts at hand, the ASK-pattern itself only explicitises the elements for two of these valencies syntactically. In effect, it is thus more than appropriate to relate these instances of ASK to the same underlying situation type: the various ASK-patterns do not reflect differences at the level of situation type, but provide speakers with different lexicogrammatical instantiations of one and the same situation type which includes an acting entity conveying a transferred entity (i.e. the question) to an affected entity (i.e. the person being asked).4 The concept of situation type makes it possible to unify various lexicogrammatical patterns of a given ditransitive verb into one underlying cognitive situation-type category. The quantitative analysis of each and every individual pattern of a given verb is no doubt important and insightful, but the focus on individual pattern frequencies should not lead us to abolish useful abstract cognitive categories which shed light on how all the patterns of a verb are systematically and semantically related to each other in a language-as-a-whole model. If we want to generalise away from individual frequencies a usage-based model of language cognition, there is no viable alternative to combining quantitative analyses of actual usage with qualitative abstractions both of context-dependent principles and factors that are at work in actual usage and of semantic and argument-structural categories that help to systematise and unify individual language events. Thus, instead of replacing traditional argument-structure models (such as cognitive grammar), it would be much more useful, in my view, to complement such plausible models with quantitative analyses (and modify them whenever necessary). A second caveat in this context is that – despite the welcome fact that quantitative methods have become mainstream in linguistics – one should not be tempted to look for linguistic interpretations of the data in statistical techniques alone. For one, many statistical measures (such as the z-score representing the deviation of a specific value from the mean value; cf. Butler, 1985: 47ff.) are based on the assumption that language is a system in which linguistic forms and structures could in principle be normally distributed. This assumption, however, is open to debate (see, for example, Baayen’s (2001) illuminating discussion of word frequency distributions). Additionally, significance tests such as the chisquare test may show strong associations between various variables which are 4

It is probably by failing to take into account the actual contexts of instances such as I forgot, they pay in advance and you can tell that Thompson and Hopper (2001: 46) draw the conclusion that abstract cognitive categories such as underlying ‘scenes’ or situation types are useless. However, these forms tend to be used only if the deleted objects are reconstructible from the context or if their specification (though not their existence) is irrelevant. In fact, any dictionary proves that the meaning of FORGET and PAY cannot be defined if the definition does not include the entity that is forgotten or paid. You can tell is an interesting example because it shows that, as pointed out by Fillmore (1986), specific patterns may show particular semantic properties. Accordingly, the corresponding type-IV pattern of TELL was described in (232) as being linked to metaphorically extended meanings of TELL. But at the core of the metaphorically extended meanings of the type-IV pattern of TELL is the basic meaning of TELL which refers to the usual TELLING event.

228

Chapter 4

linguistically secondary because they are caused by other, primary factors that are not covered by the test variables (see the discussion of the significant association between active/passive and GIVE-patterns in section 3.1.1.3). Finally, it should also be noted that even very small (and, strictly speaking, statistically unreliable) populations may provide interesting linguistic insights and should therefore not be discarded from a functional analysis (see the discussion of rare ditransitive patterns and grammatical institutionalisation in section 3.3.1). In the light of these caveats, Hoard (1998: 226) is thus certainly right in pointing out that “from a linguistic point of view, statistical techniques are not ends in themselves, but are tools to get a knowledge about language or the world.” As for a usage-based model of ditransitive verbs, frequencies in corpora provide important insights, but the quantitative analysis of distribution and significance alone cannot explain speakers’ linguistic knowledge. 4.1.3 A lexicogrammatical model A usage-based model should overcome the traditionally established boundary between lexis and syntax. As discussed in section 1.2.7, the establishment of an integrated lexicogrammatical level of analysis is one of the most striking commonalities between corpus-linguistic pattern grammar and cognitive grammar. Both in corpus linguistics and in functional grammar, there has always been a strong tendency to favour unified lexicogrammars (cf. Sinclair, 1991: 137; Halliday, 1991: 31f.). In a similar vein, usage-based models in cognitive grammar do not attempt to separate a list of lexical entries from a set of syntactic rules on how to combine these lexical entries. Such a clear-cut separation runs counter to the way natural language is used, and Langacker’s (1999) concepts of lexical and constructional networks provide a framework that is suitable for accommodating the intricate interrelation of lexical and syntactic choices in usage. Thus, a usagebased model of ditransitivity should be based on an integration of ditransitive verbs with the ditransitive patterns in which these verbs tend to be used. It is such verb-pattern associations that ought to be taken to be stored as cognitive entities in their own rights. Of course, these associations may be strong or weak. In a frequency-oriented model (see section 4.1.2), such different degrees of cognitive entrenchment of verb-pattern associations are taken to be mirrored in frequencies in usage (cf. Lamb, 2002: 91). The lexicogrammatical nature of a usage-based model is in stark contrast to many generative models of the lexicon. An influential model of a generative lexicon has been suggested by Pustejovsky (1998), which I view as a typical (if not representative) example of a generative approach to the lexicon. He especially criticises ‘sense enumerative lexicons’ (Pustejovsky, 1998: 39ff.) because the traditional way of defining lexical items by listing their meaning components (i.e. by enumerating their senses) cannot explain, in his view, the creative use of words, the semantic overlap between particular senses of one and the same word and the fact that words occur in multiple syntactic forms. In order to solve these problems, he suggests a fundamentally different – i.e. a generative – approach.

Aspects of a Usage-based Model

229

The approach is based on a description of the lexicon at four levels (i.e. the ‘argument structure’, the ‘event structure’, the ‘qualia structure’ and the ‘lexical inheritance structure’), by means of which Pustejovsky (1998) intends to reach the following goal: … our goal is to provide a formal statement of language that is both expressive and flexible enough to capture the generative nature of lexical creativity and sense extension phenomena. (Pustejovsky, 1998: 61) Even without getting into details about this generative approach, it is obvious that an attempt is being made here to include very specific semantic features in the lexicon in a highly complex and logically structured way so that the entire range of well-formed sentences in which a lexical item may occur is accounted for. While this model is certainly able to explain important aspects of lexical creativity, its major shortcoming is that it is exclusively based on invented and decontextualised sentences. As a consequence, neither frequency information nor authentic contexts are taken into consideration. Throughout Pustejovsky’s (1998) study, we thus re-encounter the old generative pitfall, namely the merely intuition-based assessment of the grammaticality of isolated sentences, leading him to view sentences like John gave a book, John mailed a book and Bill showed a book as ungrammatical (cf. Pustejovsky 1998: 11f.). Needless to say, functional grammarians (see section 1.2.4) have always argued that such sentences do occur in authentic language and that their acceptability can be explained by taking into account the context at hand. In fact, for various ditransitive verbs (including GIVE and SHOW) the corpus analysis in chapter 3 has shown that object deletion after ditransitive verbs does not render the syntactic structure per se ungrammatical but is functionally motivated. It is only fair to note that Pustejovsky (1998: 11) does not ignore the fact that constructions such as John gave a lecture, John mailed a letter and Bill showed a movie should not be regarded as ungrammatical, but his explanation of the grammaticality of such seemingly ‘simple transitive’ uses of ditransitive verbs is unfortunately restricted to a formalist account of “the interaction of the verbal semantics with semantic information from the complement itself.” In other words, the combinations of GIVE and lecture, MAIL and letter, SHOW and movie are taken to result in grammatical forms because the combined meanings of the verbs and the lexical items do not make it necessary to specify the affected entity, whose existence is already part of the ditransitive meaning of the verb (cf. (108) on p. 107). This may of course explicate lexically stabilised idioms such as give a lecture, but it fails to provide an explanation of the wide range of contextually motivated object deletions. But under specific contextual conditions, forms such John gave a book, John mailed a book and Bill showed a book may well be fully admissible. In a lexicogrammatical model, no attempt is made to account for all instances of a lexical item (such as a ditransitive verb) by confining the model to the specification of the lexical item itself. Rather, ditransitive verbs are taken to

230

Chapter 4

be cognitively embedded in their patterns. This is not to say that the semantics of a lexical item is irrelevant to a usage-based model: it is the verbal meaning of a ditransitive verb that is at the basis of the cognitive interrelation between all the patterns of a given verb. However, this verbal meaning is described in a lexicogrammatical model in terms of an abstract underlying situation type with specific semantic roles that are in a particular relationship to each other. The actualisation of this abstract meaning of a ditransitive verb is only partly anchored in the lexical item itself. For example, GIVE and TELL share the same abstract situation type of a transfer event, but the different verbal meanings of GIVE and TELL fill this ditransitive situation schema with different – though similar – meanings: literal GIVE typically refers to the transfer of a physical object, while literal TELL typically refers to the transfer of a verbal message. There is no reason why these semantic differences could not be captured by a ‘sense enumerative’ description of the two verbs.5 Why the two verbs differ considerably in their lexicogrammar, however, should be best explained by positing their individual lexicogrammatical patterns as cognitive units in their own right. 4.1.4 A unified core-periphery model Perhaps the most important overarching insight that corpus-linguistic research has brought to the fore is the large extent to which actual language use turns out to follow linguistic routines (see sections 1.2.5, 1.2.6 and 2.4). Such collocational, lexicogrammatical and other routines that can be identified by investigating large amounts of authentic data are without any doubt as important for native-like language use as speakers’ ability to use language creatively, i.e. to produce and understand novel forms and structures. While corpus linguistics has paid particular attention to routines in language use, other linguistic schools have focused on linguistic creativity. As was pointed out in section 3.4, a usage-based model should ideally try to account both for major linguistic routines and for important mechanisms that enable speakers to deviate from these routines and use language creatively. Only such a ‘dual-systems solution’ (Wray, 2002) is able to offer a realistic model of how language is used by actual speakers in natural contexts. In other words, the routinised core and the creativity-guided periphery of language use must be combined in a viable usage-based model. While it may be possible to define the core by taking into consideration frequencies in corpora, much of what has been termed the periphery does not occur even in large corpora. It is here that we meet a major limitation of modern corpus-linguistic methodology (see section 3.3.1). It is thus clear that a corpus-based study – such as the present one – can only provide a core-centred starting-point for a comprehensive model of core and periphery.

5

Newman’s (1996) typologically-oriented study of GIVE provides ample testimony to the fact that the multiple meanings of GIVE can be captured by an enumeration of its meaning components and by their systematisation in various meaning domains (see section 4.2.1).

Aspects of a Usage-based Model

231

The concepts of core and periphery are central to any cognitive model of language. While the terms ‘core’ and ‘periphery’ have a long tradition in Pragueschool linguistics (cf. e.g. Vachek, 1966; Sgall, 2002), major aspects of these concepts are covered in modern cognitive linguistics by the notions of ‘prototype’ and – in its broad sense – ‘schema’ (cf. e.g. Langacker, 1987; J.R. Taylor, 1995; Lee, 2001; J.R. Taylor, 2002). Before sketching out major aspects of a usagebased – and, for that matter, a core-periphery – model of ditransitivity (see section 4.3), it is therefore useful to discuss the various fields in which the concepts of core, periphery, prototype and schema come into play in ditransitivity. 4.2

Core and periphery in ditransitivity

Until the early 1970s, the categorisation of linguistic elements into abstract cognitive classes was widely believed to take place on the basis of shared features displayed by all members of one and the same category. This Aristotelian approach – i.e. the ‘classical theory’ (J.R. Taylor, 1995: 20ff.) – is characterised by sharp boundaries between different categories so that a specific element is considered to be either a member or a non-member of a particular category, depending on whether the element at hand exhibits the defining features or not. Together with the context-independent definition of the defining features, the sharp category boundaries render this classical model highly abstract and static. Most importantly, no distinction is made between core and periphery within a category. In the 1970s, experimental data on the categorisation of concrete physical objects – such as different vessels ranging from typical cups via intermediate forms to typical mugs – showed that such sharp boundaries between categories (e.g. between CUP and MUG) do not exist (cf. e.g. Labov, 1973; Rosch, 1973; Rips, 1975). From these results, a fundamentally different theory of natural categorisation evolved, namely prototype theory. In this approach, any category is seen as consisting of a core area – in which the most prototypical member(s) can be found – and a periphery with less prototypical members. Non-prototypical members can at the same time be members of other categories, which is indicative of the fuzzy and overlapping boundaries between different categories. Membership in a category is based on family resemblance with other members of the same category. That is, there must be a partial overlap of attributes between different members of the category.6 In effect, a prototypical category may thus include two members that share no attributes at all if each of them shares some attributes with some other members of the category (cf. Mervis, 1980: 286). Prototype theory has been widely applied to the modelling of linguistic categories, e.g. prepositions (cf. Herskovits, 1986), noun classes (cf. Craig, 1986), 6

I follow J.R. Taylor (1995: 40f.) in distinguishing terminologically between ‘features’ of categories in the classical approach and ‘attributes’ of properties of prototypical categories. One important conceptual difference between the two notions is that while features tend to be regarded as decomposed, semantic primitives, attributes may represent graded concepts themselves.

232

Chapter 4

raising constructions (cf. Langacker, 1995), conditional constructions (cf. Sweetser, 1996) and word classes (cf. Rauh, 2002). In the following section, some major implications of prototype theory – and the related concept of linguistic schema – for a usage-based model of ditransitivity will be discussed. 4.2.1 Prototypes and schemas According to J.R. Taylor (1995), the term ‘prototype’ can be applied to two different concepts: We can apply the term to the central member, or perhaps to the cluster of central members, of a category. Thus, one could refer to a particular artefact as the prototype of CUP. Alternatively, the prototype can be understood as a schematic representation of the conceptual core of a category. On this approach, we would say, not that a particular entity is the prototype, but that it instantiates the prototype. (J.R. Taylor, 1995: 59) In favouring the second, more abstract approach, J.R. Taylor (1995: 60ff.) regards the prototype as a schematic abstraction that includes only the most central attributes of the category without being necessarily specified for all attributes.7 Thus, “the prototype of DOG will be unspecified for sex; yet each exemplar of the category is necessarily either male or female” (J.R. Taylor, 1995: 60). In fact, as Hudson (1984: 40) points out, “the ‘fuzziness’ of a prototype-based concept lies … in the deviations which the world allows between it and its instances.” In this context, it should be noted that very often members of a larger category may themselves form a prototypical category, e.g. HUNTING-DOG within DOG. Although the definition of the prototype in terms of those attributes that are most central to the category at hand is intuitively appealing, it has to be borne in mind that the attributes as such are very often prototypical categories themselves. This ‘recursiveness’ of prototypicality can be exemplified by drawing on Wittgenstein’s discussion of games: Characteristic of a number of games is the need for skill on the part of the players. But skill is not a primitive semantic feature. It is not just that skill is a graded concept, in the sense that some games might require more skill than others. More important is the fact that the skill needed in tennis is a very different kind of entity to the skill needed in chess. (J.R. Taylor, 1995: 61)

7

In other words, the prototype of a category is not a specific member of the category. The prototype is an abstract cluster of attributes that may be instantiated to different extents by more or less prototypical members.

Aspects of a Usage-based Model

233

The same caveat holds true for prototypical categories in linguistics because specific attributes (e.g. animacy) of a particular category (e.g. the acting entity in ditransitivity) are very often gradient concepts themselves (e.g. the gradience of animacy in the acting entity). Notwithstanding this caveat, the formation of a prototypically-structured category is based on the identification of specific salient attributes that are central to – and typical of – the category at hand (cf. Rosch and Mervis, 1975). Ditransitivity in the sense of the ditransitive situation schema is a prototypical category.8 Following the basic assumption that ditransitivity is intricately intertwined with the meaning of a verb, it makes sense to assume that the immediate members of the category of ditransitivity are ditransitive verbs.9 At a basic level, a verb can be a member or a non-member of the category of ditransitivity, depending on whether the meaning of the verb is in line with – or can be metaphorically extended to – the ditransitive situation schema. Thus, for example, GIVE is a member, while PUT is not. Within the category of ditransitivity, specific verbs can be regarded as more prototypical of ditransitivity than others. In the light of the pluralist approach to ditransitivity in the present study, three relevant dimensions of attributes should be taken into account that help distinguish between more prototypical and less prototypical ditransitive verbs: (1) the situation-type dimension; (2) the lexicosemantic dimension; (3) the lexicogrammatical dimension. In the following, I would like to briefly characterise the relevance of these dimensions to the assessment of the prototypicality of ditransitive verbs. (1) The situation-type dimension The more typical the underlying transfer event is that is evoked by a given verb, the more prototypically ditransitive the verb is. For example, in their literal meanings verbs such as GIVE, HAND and SEND evoke a situation-type in which a physical object is transferred to an affected entity by an acting entity. This situation-type of GIVING is more typical of the ditransitive situation schema than, say, the situation-type of SPEAKING (usually evoked by verbs such as ASK, TELL and PROMISE) in which the semantic role of transferred entity is realised as a verbal message rather than a physical object. The SPEAKING situation-type in turn is more typical of ditransitivity than the AFFECT type, which may be evoked by verbs such as BAKE, MAKE and DENY. Of course, this GIVING-SPEAKING-AFFECT gradient represents a very coarse cline of ditransitivity. This cline may be refined in two regards: (a) For each individual verb that may be plotted on this cline, one needs to distinguish between its various meanings which may imply different kinds of ditransitive 8

In essence, this prototypical approach to ditransitivity picks up on Hopper and Thompson’s (1980) ‘scalar’ understanding of transitivity in general. 9 Of course, it is also possible to regard particular constructions as members of such a category. This, for example, is suggested by Taylor (1995: 206ff.) for the category of ‘transitive construction’. Goldberg (1995), too, defines ditransitivity in terms of a construction and not in terms of lexical semantics.

234

Chapter 4

situation-types. Note, for example, that the figurative meaning of GIVE in she gives a lecture is very close to the literal meaning of TELL in she tells a story. In other words, these two instances of GIVE and TELL evoke the same ditransitive situation-type, i.e. SPEAKING. (b) Each of the three ditransitive situation-types embraces several subtypes which may be more or less prototypical of the ditransitive situation schema. Consider for example the two verbs OWE and DENY, both of which are of the AFFECT type (since there is, strictly speaking, no transfer of a physical object or a verbal message involved). It may be argued, however, that OWE is a more typical member of ditransitivity because the affected entity is positively affected by the transfer event, whereas DENY evokes a negative transfer.10 Notwithstanding these two caveats, it is a reasonable assumption that the first dimension of ditransitivity as a prototypical category is based on situationtype attributes. Generally speaking, more prototypical situation-types are associated with those ditransitive verbs that tend to evoke more basic and central instances of the ditransitive situation schema. It is quite clear, then, that the situation-type dimension is intricately linked to the second dimension, i.e. the lexicosemantic dimension, because it is the meaning of the verb that evokes a specific situation-type. (2) The lexicosemantic dimension Ditransitivity – like transitivity in general – may be regarded as a clausal phenomenon, but it is clearly triggered by the meaning of the ditransitive verb which evokes the ditransitive situation schema with its characteristic constellation of the three semantic roles involved. It is thus obvious that a lexicosemantic dimension comes into play in the prototypicality of the category of ditransitivity. Apart from the fact that specific ditransitive verbs tend to evoke more typical instances of the ditransitive situation schema than others (see above), it is equally important to note that from a lexicosemantic point of view specific verbs such as GIVE and TELL are by default interpreted within the context of a ditransitive situation schema while, for example, DELIVER and PAY are usually understood as monotransitive verbs. In other words, GIVE and TELL are clearly more prototypical ditransitive verbs than, say, DELIVER and PAY not only in the situationtype dimension but also in the lexicosemantic dimension. (3) The lexicogrammatical dimension Ditransitivity is prototypically associated with the type-I pattern as the basic form of ditransitive complementation (S:NP – DV – Oi:NP – Od:NP), e.g. in I’ll give you a warning next time. It is the only pattern in English that is exclusively linked to the ditransitive situation schema. Derivative type-I patterns such as type-Id (as in Somebody she gave me) are less prototypical than the type-I pattern but still 10 Consider, for example, Goldberg’s (1995: 38) distinction between ditransitive verbs that “imply that agent causes recipient to receive patient” (e.g. OWE) and verbs that have a meaning according to which the “[a]gent causes recipient not to receive patient” (e.g. DENY).

Aspects of a Usage-based Model

235

more prototypical than the type-II pattern (as in I meant to give it to you earlier) and its derivative patterns (e.g. type-IIc as in …to give to you an impression). However, type-II patterns are clearly more prototypical than type-III (e.g. I couldn’t give that) and type-V patterns (e.g. I'll tell you tomorrow) because in the latter groups, one entity is no longer realised as an object but omitted altogether. The patterns that provide least prototypical attributes in this dimension are type-IV patterns, in which both objects are deleted (as in Builders always give). In a wider setting, then, it turns out that in this dimension, a verb that is strongly associated with type-I patterns (e.g. TELL) is a more prototypical member of ditransitivity than a verb that occurs only rarely in type-I patterns and much more frequently in, say, type-III patterns (e.g. SHOW). As far as the operationalisation of these three dimensions is concerned, it is of course difficult to actually ‘measure’ – in the strict sense of the word – the prototypicality of a particular meaning of a verb and the situation-type that it evokes. More specifically, the problem is, firstly, to identify and clearly distinguish different meanings and situation-(sub)types and, secondly, to determine which meaning and situation-(sub)type is more central and typical than another one. Rather than to describe different degrees of prototypicality by solely drawing on semantic considerations and distinctions, I would suggest that frequency information be used as an additional, empirically sound and testable reference point. As discussed in section 2.2.3, the prototypicality of ditransitive verbs can be assessed by taking into account two kinds of frequency information: (1) the overall frequency of a verb whose meaning is compatible with the ditransitive situation schema; (2) the frequency with which such a verb occurs in an explicit ditransitive syntax. In effect, I would contend that the distinction between typical, habitual and peripheral ditransitive verbs that was introduced in Table 2-5 (p. 84) is useful not only from a descriptive point of view but also from a cognitive perspective: this distinction, by and large, captures three zones of prototypicality within the category of ditransitivity. As shown in Figure 4-2 below, the frequency-based distinction can be readily mapped onto the three dimensions of prototypicality sketched out above. (1) The situation-type dimension For example, GIVE is the most prototypical ditransitive verb because the typical GIVING event represents the most basic instantiation of the ditransitive situation schema. On the other hand, the PURCHASING event, for example, refers to a situation-type that is much more remote from the ditransitive situation schema. As pointed out in section 2.2.3, a frequency-based indication of prototypicality in this dimension is provided by the overall frequency and the frequency of an explicit ditransitive syntax for a given verb (cf. Figure 2-4, p. 84).11 11 The combination of the two frequencies makes it possible to assess whether and to what extent a specific ditransitive verb is the preferred choice for the verbalisation of the ditransitive situation schema. It is thus related to what Hoffmann (2004) calls ‘conceptual frequency’.

236

Chapter 4

the ditransitive situation schema: acting entity ditransitive verb

transferred entity

affected entity

GIVING or AFFECT or SPEAKING

less prototypical

Figure 4-2:

typical

GIVE TELL SHOW ASK SEND OFFER

peripheral

more prototypical

habitual

dimension:

… DELIVER DROP PURCHASE SUPPLY …

situationtype

lexicosemantics

lexicogrammar

more typical of ditransitive situation schema

verbal meaning more closely linked to ditr. situation schema

verb is strongly associated with type I / explicit ditr. syntax

less typical of ditransitive situation schema

verbal meaning less closely linked to ditr. situation schema

verb is weakly associated with type-I / explicit ditr. syntax

Ditransitivity as a prototypical category12

(2) The lexicosemantic dimension SEND, for example, has a verbal meaning which is strongly associated with the three typical semantic roles of the ditransitive schema. It is therefore a much more prototypical member of the category of ditransitivity than, say, DELIVER (which, by default, is associated with a monotransitively encoded event type in which one entity delivers another entity). On the other hand, the meaning of

12

The visualisation of the underlying ditransitive situation schema in the upper part of this figure is taken over from Figure 1-8 (p. 36).

Aspects of a Usage-based Model

237

SEND is less typical of the ditransitive situation schema than the meaning of, say, GIVE, which occurs much more frequently.13 (3) The lexicogrammatical dimension Typical ditransitive verbs (GIVE and TELL) occur in an explicit ditransitive syntax in some 50% of all instances or more and are therefore more prototypical than habitual ditransitive verbs (less than 30%) and peripheral ditransitive verbs (less than 5%). Figure 4-2 shows that specific ditransitive verbs are more prototypical members of the category of ditransitivity (at the basis of which is the ditransitive situation schema) because they can be shown to be more typical in the situation-type, the lexicosemantic and the lexicogrammatical dimension.14 As pointed out above, frequency information from corpora provide quantitative signposts of the evaluation of the prototypicality of a ditransitive verb in the situation-type dimension and in the lexicogrammatical dimension. What is important to note is the fact that a description of the prototypicality of ditransitive verbs along the lines of Figure 4-2 would be about the prototypicality of abstract ‘types’ or exemplars or subcategories (cf. Gries, 2003). That is, at this level we are not concerned with the prototypicality of specific instances in language use, i.e. the prototypicality of ‘tokens’. For the description of the prototypicality of individual language events (as ‘tokens’) – as for example collected in corpora – we have to zoom in on individual ditransitive verbs and establish a prototypical category for each individual verb. For example, GIVE as a ditransitive verb may be taken to form a prototypical category in its own right. Members of this category are not other subcategories (i.e. ‘types’), but instances of the verb GIVE in language use (i.e. ‘tokens’). Under the assumption that the situation-type is relatively stable for a specific verb such as GIVE (though variation may be involved, see above), two of the three dimensions distinguished in Figure 4-2 remain variable and may provide information on the prototypicality of a specific instance of the verb at hand: (1) the lexicosemantic dimension; (2) the lexicogrammatical dimension. According to the first dimension, a particular instance of a given verb such as GIVE has to be considered more prototypical than another instance if the former displays a more central (or more ‘literal’/less ‘figurative’) meaning of the verb than the latter. It is obvious that in this lexicosemantic dimension intuitive 13

One could argue, by the way, that each of the three most frequent ditransitive verbs GIVE, TELL and SHOW provide matrix verbs for the three ditransitive situation-subtypes, namely GIVING, SPEAKING and AFFECT respectively. 14 While in Figure 4-2 the ditransitive verb is considered the primary member of the category of ditransitivity, it is also possible, as noted before, to define the category as consisting of other kinds of members. For example, Goldberg’s (1995: 141ff.) approach to ditransitivity is strictly based on constructions; Beermann (2001), on the other hand, starts off from a taxonomy of different ‘event-types’ as members of the ditransitive situation schema.

238

Chapter 4

judgments are legion. An entirely lexicosemantic, network-like model of the prototypicality of the various meanings of GIVE is provided by Newman (1996: 233). The model is replicated in Figure 4-3.

Figure 4.3:

Literal GIVE and figurative extensions (Newman, 1996: 233)15

15 Note that the model is not restricted to English but is intended to summarise the most important extensions of GIVE across languages. Also, Newman’s (1996: 232) typological model is confined to broad semantic categories and does not attempt “to include every submeaning which is found”.

Aspects of a Usage-based Model

239

Note that this model may be taken as a visualisation of the lexicosemantic dimension of GIVE as a prototypical category. Literal GIVE is at the centre of the category, and the various figurative/metaphorical extensions of the verbal meaning are on the periphery. In principle, the more remote the meaning is from literal GIVE (e.g. in the case of ‘interpersonal communication’ as in give a speech), the more peripheral the meaning is in this visualisation. Note also that the various meaning extensions are systematically related to each other and can be arranged in similarity clusters due to semantic commonalities: “So, for example, enablement and causation both involve one entity having some role in determining some later event and these two large areas of extensions are therefore grouped together” (Newman 1996: 232). The second dimension of GIVE as a prototypical category is the lexicogrammatical one. In this dimension, instances of GIVE are not primarily analysed with regard to the verbal meaning, but the focus here is on the pattern with which the verb is used (and the relevant principles of pattern selection). In this context, the frequency with which a given verb occurs in a specific pattern is an important indication of how prototypical this pattern is for the verb at hand because it can be readily assumed that the association of a verb and a frequent pattern is a lexicogrammatical cognitive entity in its own right (see section 1.2.8). On the other hand, in the lexicosemantic dimension the diagnostic potential of frequency is of much less importance. Literal GIVE, for example, may be the most prototypical meaning of GIVE for a variety of reasons, but whether or not it is also the most frequent meaning is another matter altogether. Both dimensions are important for the degree of prototypicality of a particular instance of a ditransitive verb. Picking up on GIVE as a prototypical category, then, each instance of GIVE would have to be given a lexicosemantic attribute (in terms of, say, the categories in Figure 4-3 above) and a lexicogrammatical attribute (in terms of the frequency of the GIVE-pattern). The combination of these two attributes could be a basis for establishing a semantically and empirically sound description of the cline from the highly prototypical core to the less prototypical periphery of GIVE. It is not my intention to provide a detailed account of this kind of prototypicality gradient based on lexicosemantic and lexicogrammatical attributes; but a few illustrative examples may be in order. For example, (448) and (449) may be regarded as extremely prototypical examples of GIVE because literal GIVE occurs in the most frequent GIVE-pattern, i.e. the type-I pattern. (448) I mean she did give us a great many books and and she did uhm there was a sort of warmth in her as well (449) He really got into Jack Kerouac so I gave him a Jack Kerouac book when he went away Examples (450) and (451) are clearly less prototypical of GIVE. We still have the prototypical type-I pattern, but the meaning of GIVE is now metaphorically extended to what Newman calls a ‘schematic interaction’: “GIVE sometimes occurs

240

Chapter 4

in constructions where it appears to contribute little more than the idea of an interaction between entities, as in give the car a wash” (Newman, 1996: 201), which is equivalent to wash the car. Such a schematic interaction can also be found in give him a surprise (= surprise him) in (450) and give him a shock (= shock him) in (451). (450) So so she thinks I ’ll give him a surprise (451) She was obviously trying to do something to give him a shock trying to motivate him into some kind of action […] Schematic interaction may go hand in hand with another metaphorical extension of the meaning of GIVE, namely into a verb of interpersonal communication. This is the case in (452), which could thus be regarded as less prototypical than (450) and (451). Example (453) marks a further step down the protypicality gradient: the lexicosemantic attributes are the same as in (452), but GIVE is now used in the less frequent type-III pattern. (452) Kate shall I give you a ring this week (453) Oh just give a ring Even closer to the peripheral pole of the prototypicality gradient are those instances of GIVE in which extended meanings occur in even less frequent patterns, e.g. type II. A case in point is the construction give way to someone, which Newman (1996: 182ff.) subsumes into the ‘give permission type’: With literal GIVE, the more salient part of the overall meaning is probably that a thing changes hands, with the concomitant change in possession an intangible and less striking component of meaning (though nevertheless real). With give way …, on the other hand, it is the change in control over something which is the salient aspect of the overall meaning, with the literal meaning of way backgrounded. (Newman, 1996: 185) Apart from the metaphorical extension inherent in give way to someone, the fact that the basic type-I pattern is not an acceptable alternative to the sentences in (454) and (455) – as pointed out in section 3.1.1.2 – shows that these examples are lexicosemantically and lexicogrammatically very distant from the prototypical core of GIVE as a cognitive category.16 16

It should be noted in passing that any instance of GIVE is not only a ‘token’ member of the category of GIVE as a ditransitive verb, but simultaneously also of the superordinate category of ditransitivity (of which GIVE is a ‘type’ member). That is, each instance of a ditransitive verb could also be described and categorised with regard to its prototypicality of ditransitivity. As pointed out in Figure 4-2 (p. 236), this description would require a categorisation of the prototypicality of the verbal meaning(s) of each ditransitive verb and the situation-(sub)type(s) it evokes in contradistinction to all other ditransitive verbs.

Aspects of a Usage-based Model

241

(454) Did we give way to other dictators (455) I give way to the honourable gentleman These examples show that a description and categorisation of usage events with ditransitive verbs along the lines of prototype theory must take into account both lexicosemantic attributes and lexicogrammatical attributes. What is more, the combined analysis of these attributes is only possible by complementing corpus data (on the frequency and distribution of ditransitive verbs in actual usage) with intuition-based considerations of how to group individual events together in similarity clusters in general and how to plot them onto a prototypicality gradient in particular. Since the cognitive-linguistic objective of the present study is not to provide a fine-grained semantic categorisation of all the occurrences of all ditransitive verbs in the corpus data but to describe and exemplify the extent to which the in-depth analysis of corpus data may contribute to a usage-based model of language cognition, I will refrain from such a detailed lexicosemantic analysis. Rather, I will concentrate on the lexicogrammatical dimension because it is here that quantitative data on the lexicogrammatical patterns of ditransitive verbs come into play.17 In keeping in line with the descriptive focus on lexicogrammatical patterns in chapter 3, I am not so much concerned with the multitude of meanings of individual ditransitive verbs, but rather with the variety and frequency of the patterns of individual ditransitive verbs. From a semantic perspective, then, the underpinning assumption in this lexicogrammatically-oriented analysis is that all instances of, say, GIVE share essential semantic features, be it literal GIVE or any metaphorical extension of the verb. Despite the various semantic distinctions that can no doubt be made between various meanings of GIVE, all these meanings are interrelated (cf. Figure 4-3, p. 238) and indisputably share a ‘semantic common core’, as it were. This semantic common core – which is a combination of the ditransitive situation schema and the general specification of that schema by means of the verbal meaning – can be used in a variety of lexicogrammatical patterns. It was pointed out in section 4.1.1 that from a cognitive perspective each of the resulting word-pattern combinations can be regarded as a lexical schema of the verb at hand (cf. Figure 4-1, p. 223). The schema as a cognitive entity emerges from the abstraction (or the ‘schematisation’) from many individual language events and is “an ‘abstract’ … representation vis-à-vis its more fully specified instances” (J.R. Taylor, 2002: 591). It is in this sense of a cognitive representation of a lexicogrammatical pattern that the term ‘schema’ is used in the present chapter. In section 4.3, I will exemplify a usage-based model of speakers’ linguistic knowledge that is based on lexical schemas by describing appropriate models of GIVE and TELL. It is of course also possible to take a pattern as a 17

Note, however, that very often the lexicogrammar of a ditransitive verb mirrors broad lexicosemantic distinctions. The fact that give way to someone (like give birth to, give rise to etc.) is bound to the type-II pattern is a case in point (see section 3.1.1.2). As for TELL, another example is the correlation between semantic roles of the transferred entity and specific syntactic realisations of the corresponding direct object (see section 3.1.2.2).

242

Chapter 4

starting point of description and base the model of speakers’ linguistic knowledge on ‘constructional’ schemas. However, I will discuss in section 4.4 that, firstly, this alternative approach would provide a mirror image only and that, secondly, it is open to debate whether there is any need at all for a construction-centred component (as for example in Goldberg’s (1995) approach) in cognitive models. Before I come to the lexical-schematic and the constructional-schematic aspects of a usage-based model of ditransitive verbs, a few general remarks on the notions of ‘core’ and ‘periphery’ are necessary. More specifically, it is important to be aware of the extent to which a model that starts out from corpus data is able to cover the core and the periphery of language. 4.2.2 Core and periphery While the beginnings of prototype theory were closely associated with experimental work in the 1970s (see section 4.2.1), the notions of ‘core’ (or ‘centre’) and ‘periphery’ have a comparatively long tradition in Prague-school linguistics (cf. Vachek, 1966). The core refers to the typical and frequent forms and functions in language (in this resembling the prototypical instantiations of linguistic categories); the periphery covers unusual and new forms and functions. In fact, as Sgall (2002: 320) argues, the ‘openness of the system’, which is one of the ‘constitutive properties’ of natural language, stems from – and manifests itself in – the very existence of the periphery. It is here that new forms and functions, idiosyncracies and other deviations from the norms of the core can be found: The speaker chooses among the varying items, creates new collocations and words; what starts as an individual usage can find broader response, the individual’s choice can lead to a change in the system. (Sgall, 2002: 314) As for ditransitive verbs, such developments can for example be found in the field of peripheral ditransitive verbs and the grammatical institutionalisation of ditransitive patterns (see section 3.3.1). Not only does Sgall (2002: 321ff.) put into perspective the core-periphery nature of language, but he also discusses in this context two opposing approaches to the description of language: (1) the ‘standard mathematical approach’; (2) the ‘typical approach of linguistics as an empirical science’. While the first approach captures formalist frameworks that are mainly based on logic and rules (most notably in Chomskyan linguistics), the second approach refers to functionalist, structuralist and empirical approaches (such as the Prague School and, more recently, much work in corpus linguistics). In order to explain the fundamental difference in perspective between the two approaches, Sgall (2002) draws on an abstract visualisation of language, which is replicated in Figure 4-4. It captures some important aspects about core and periphery in language and linguistics. First, it is important to note that the periphery in language is relatively unstructured. That specific forms are grammatical (e.g. TELL in the ditransitive type-I

Aspects of a Usage-based Model

Figure 4-4:

243

Core and periphery in language and linguistics (Sgall, 2002: 321)

pattern), while others are not (e.g. SPEAK in the ditransitive type-I pattern), may be accounted for by a semantic model, but in the last resort there often is no apparent reason for the admissibility of a linguistic form. Thus, Sgall is certainly right in not representing the periphery as just a larger circle around the core circle, but as an unstructured patchwork outside the core circle. Second, Figure 4-4 sheds light on the difference between a formalist, logical and mathematical approach on the one hand and a structuralist and empirical and – we may add – a corpus-linguistic description on the other: The standard mathematical approach starts with the specification of the outer rectangle and of all general conditions and factors relevant for the space defined in this way. On the other hand, the typical approach of linguistics as an empirical science starts with an examination of the inner ‘rounded’ space, in which the typical relationships obtain, and then proceeds to the specific study of the individual deviations, exceptions, collisions, and so on. (Sgall, 2002: 321) In putting into practice the ‘standard mathematical approach’, generative grammarians start off from overgenerating rules, which define the outer rectangle. In additional steps, the rules are specified, modified or complemented by other rules so that as much as possible of the area that does not belong to either the core or the periphery is no longer generated by the rules. Note also that no distinction is made in generative grammar between core and periphery; the main difference is the one between possible/grammatical linguistic forms (i.e. anything that is in the grey zones in Figure 4-4) and inadmissible/ungrammatical linguistic forms (i.e. anything that is in the white area in Figure 4-4). In a structuralist and empirical approach and most notably in modern corpus linguistics, on the other hand, the starting-point is the core area. A large corpus is intended to be a representative

244

Chapter 4

sample of language use, the quantitative analysis of which allows the linguist to focus on frequent and typical forms while not paying undue attention (as in precorpus times) to interesting but infrequent forms in the periphery (see section 2.3). The larger the corpus is, the more peripheral forms it will contain, but there will always be a remainder that the corpus will not include. This gap between what the corpus contains and what is possible in language may be bridged by using other corpora, by introspection and/or by informant data (see section 2.1). As discussed in section 4.1, a truly usage-based model of ditransitive verbs should not only be based on real data, frequency-oriented and lexicogrammatical, but also represent a unified core-periphery model. This has three implications. Firstly, a distinction should be made between the core and the periphery, and a corpus-informed usage-based model ought to focus on what is frequent and typical, i.e. the core area. Secondly, a ‘unified’ core-periphery model means that the model must ideally be such that peripheral cases may be explained by drawing on components of the core-centred model (e.g. specific principles of pattern selection). This of course is a heuristic process, and both de Mönnink’s (2000) ‘data cycle’ and the cycle in Figure 2-1 (p. 71) are operationalisations of such a from-core-to-periphery approach. From this it follows that, thirdly, a usage-based model must always be open to extensions and modifications in the light of additional data that are not included in the corpus material on which it is initially based. In the light of the fact that the language is in constant flux and an open system where new forms may become part of the periphery, peripheral forms may become part of the core and vice versa. Thus, a usage-based model of, say, ditransitive verbs will, by definition, never be complete or finished. 4.3

Examples of individual usage-based models based on lexical networks

In the following sections, a usage-based model of GIVE and TELL, based on the exhaustive analysis of all their occurrences in ICE-GB, will be offered. The model of speakers’ linguistic knowledge about the two ditransitive verbs are based on the corpus findings as reported in section 3.1 and pays particular attention to the lexicogrammatical core of their use. 4.3.1 A lexical network of GIVE A usage-based model of ditransitivity should include three components: (a) a lexical set of ditransitive verbs, (b) a constructional set of ditransitive patterns, (c) a functional set of principles and factors that are responsible for the pattern selection in language use. However, for practical reasons it is better to focus on an individual ditransitive verb and, thus, to rearrange the underlying network in terms of interaction between (a) a specific ditransitive verb (here: GIVE), (b) the patterns with which this verb is attested in actual usage (here: GIVE-patterns), and (c) the principles of pattern selection for the lexicogrammar of this particular verb.

Aspects of a Usage-based Model Table 4-1:

GIVE in ICE-GB: an overview of routinised patterns and principles of pattern selection18

GIVE-pattern: formula and example I Ib

IP

245

(S) GIVE [Oi:NP] [Od: NP] Give me a warning next time [Od: NPantecedent] (rel. pron.) [S] GIVE [Oi:NP] Those batteries that you gave me lasted an hour [S < Oi active] BE given [Od:NP] (by-agent) You’ve been given the answers

% 38.0

- (default pattern: unmarked lexicogrammatical choice)

2.2

- [Od: NP] part of a previous pattern Æ becomes antecedent

7.9

II

(S) GIVE [Od:NP] [Oi:PPto] I meant to give it to you earlier

11.6

IIP

[S < Od active] BE given [Oi:PPto] (by-agent) more time should have been given to sanctions

2.2

III

(S) GIVE [Od:NP] Oi I couldn't give that

23.2

IIIP

[S < Od active] BE given Oi (by-agent) the treatment is given every week

[antecedent]co (S < Od)co (BE) given Oi (by-agent) IIIPb … when considering the evidence given by Mr Holt 18

principles of pattern selection

3.6

2.6

- [S < Oi active] = affected entity activated before/taken up - [Od:NP] heavy - acting entity irrelevant - [Od:NP] lexically restricted: it, words usually followed by to, idioms with to - [Oi:PPto] heavy - [S < Od active] = transferred entity activated before/taken up - [Oi:PPto] heavy - acting entity irrelevant - [Od:NP] lexically restricted: e.g. account, detail, evidence - affected entity irrelevant/ recoverable - [S < Od active] lexically restricted: e.g. approval, detail - acting entity irrelevant - affected entity irrelevant/ recoverable - [S < Od] part of a previous pattern Æ becomes antecedent - affected entity irrelevant/ recoverable

In merely summarising the data and their analysis as detailed in section 3.1.1, Table 4-1 is restricted to the eight GIVE-patterns that make up 90% of all instances of GIVE in ICE-GB, does not delve into all semantic nuances of GIVE (but is for the most part restricted to the semantic common core shared by all instances of GIVE as a lexicosemantically stable unit of meaning), does not provide information on the distribution of GIVEpatterns across genres (but only about their frequency in language as a whole), and includes only one illustrative example of each pattern to which some of the corresponding principles of pattern selection may therefore not apply.

246

Chapter 4

The quantitative and qualitative corpus findings for the frequency and use of the routinised GIVE-patterns in ICE-GB are summarised in Table 4-1. The left column lists and exemplifies the patterns of GIVE, the middle column indicates the frequency of each pattern, and the right column summarises the principles of pattern selection for each pattern (including relevant semantic considerations). The entirety of the quantitative and quantitative findings summarised in Table 4-1 can now be translated into a model of the cognitive representation of the lexicogrammar of GIVE. This is visualised in Figure 4-5. Figure 4-5 goes to show that GIVE tends to be used in a restricted range of lexicogrammatical patterns and

Figure 4-5:

A usage-based model of GIVE

Aspects of a Usage-based Model

247

that these patterns are not chosen randomly but according to specific principles of pattern selection. In two regards, then, the model suggested in Figure 4-5 is more elaborated and more ‘usage-based’, as it were, than traditional lexical networks in cognitive grammar. Firstly, the thickness of the connections between GIVE and and its patterns depends on the frequency of GIVE in each pattern. Figure 4-5 thus puts into operation what has been suggested by Lamb (2002: 91), namely that different “[d]egrees of entrenchment [can be] accounted for by variability in the strengths of connections.” Secondly, on all lines connecting GIVE and its patterns there is information on why a particular pattern tends to be used in a given context. Both the frequencies and the principles of pattern selection can be identified only by looking at large amounts of natural data in context. In these two regards, corpus-linguistic methodology opens up new perspectives in the cognitive modelling of language. In effect, the model in Figure 4-5 illustrates how Schmid’s (2000: 39) ‘from-corpus-to-cognition principle’ can be put into operation at the level of lexicogrammar. Since the model captures frequently occurring trends in actual language use – and since such conventionalised routines are highly characteristic of native-like selection – it seems reasonable to expect a usage-based cognitive representation of GIVE to include the lexicogrammatical information given in Figure 4-5.19 Note that in Figure 4-5 various principles of pattern selection (e.g. the irrelevance of the acting entity, the lexical restriction of [Od:NP]) apply to several GIVE-patterns. Despite being more reader-friendly, this visualisation hides the fact that the suggested model is network-like in nature. In fact, the network-like character of the model would become more obvious if all patterns on the one hand and all principles of pattern selection on the other were clearly separated from each other and multiply linked to each other whenever appropriate. A fragment of such a visualisation is given in Figure 4-6 to illustrate the complex interaction between the constructional set of patterns, the pattern-selectional principles and factors and the lexical set of ditransitive verbs. To be precise, Figure 4-6 is a fragment of a potentially infinite network that is restricted to the ditransitive verb GIVE (in the right-hand circle), five patterns with which GIVE is associated (in the left-hand circle), and three specific principles of pattern selection (in the middle circle). Note that the default status of the type-I pattern of GIVE is taken into consideration in Figure 4-6 by linking it to the verb GIVE and by not associating it with any particular principle of pattern selection. It is obvious that it is virtually impossible to draw a diagram that captures all ditransitive verbs, patterns and principles of pattern selection in their entirety. But the fragment as such already shows that what is at the basis of the model of the lexicogrammar of GIVE in Figure 4-5 is a genuinely network-like concept of language cognition.20 19

The frequency of GIVE-patterns and the relevant principles of pattern selection form part of the ‘grammatical information’ that an entry for GIVE in the ‘mental lexicon’ should include (Katamba, 1994: 225f.). 20 This is in line with the general fact “that considerable linguistic evidence exists for the network model, impressive in its abundance and variety” (Lamb, 2002: 93).

248

Figure 4-6:

Chapter 4

Illustrating the network-like character of the usage-based model of GIVE

Finally, it needs to be emphasised that the usage-based model visualised in Figure 4-5 focuses on the core area of the lexicogrammar of GIVE. In other words, it does not capture the entire array of lexicogrammatical verbalisations of GIVING events, but is confined to more or less frequent patterns and more or less functionally and quantitatively significant principles of pattern selection. This is due to several reasons. First, since the model is based on corpus data, there will always be usages of GIVE that do not occur in the corpus and are therefore not taken into account. Second, since the corpus analysis is restricted to the most frequent patterns which together account for 90% of all instances of GIVE, rare GIVE-patterns are not taken into consideration either. In essence, Figure 4-5 is intended to capture the core area of language in the sense of frequently occurring and strongly routinised ways of verbalising GIVING events. Even in using any of the eight frequent patterns specified in Figure 4-5, language users may infringe the principles of pattern selection that usually apply: a frequency-oriented model does not, by definition, capture all the forms, functions and motivations that are possible but focuses on what is probable. Due to this limitation, the model should be regarded as a probabilistic and selective starting-point rather than a finalised and comprehensive model of how GIVE and its lexicogrammar may be cognitively represented. It would be easily possible, for example, to modify the model in light of the exhaustive analysis of corpora larger than ICE-GB. Also, it would be possible and reasonable to add to the periphery of this core model those patterns that are infrequently used in order, for example, to integrate creative and unusual lexicogrammatical options with the routinised usage of GIVE. This would result in an elaboration of the slot of ‘other patterns’ in Figure 4-5. In its present version, Figure 4-5 focuses on the lexicogrammatically prototypical instantiations of GIVE.

Aspects of a Usage-based Model

249

4.3.2 A lexical network of TELL In the same vein to GIVE, a usage-based model of the core area of the cognitive representation of TELL and its lexicogrammar should include both the frequencies of each routinised TELL-pattern and the relevant lexical, pragmatic and other principles of pattern selection. This information on how TELL tends to be used in actual usage – as reported in section 3.1.2 – is summarised in Table 4-2.21 Brief mention should be made of two issues in this context. First, by zooming in on the cognitive representation of the ditransitive verb TELL (for practical reasons), it is not at all ruled out that in a greater network-like model the ditransitive verb TELL could be closely linked to the various phrasal and prepositional verbs containing TELL (e.g. TELL ABOUT, TELL FROM, TELL OF). However, these phrasal and prepositional verbs should be treated not only as separate verbs at the descriptive level of grammar (see section 3.1.2.1), but also at the level of language cognition. That is to say, although there may be a strong semantic link between TELL and, say, TELL ABOUT at some point in a network-like cognitive-linguistic model, the two verbs nevertheless form two distinct prototypical categories of their own. Second, Table 4-2 highlights the fact (which has already been discussed at length in section 3.1.2.2) that genuinely semantic principles play an important role in the selection of specific TELLpatterns, especially for all type-I patterns (because of the various semantic roles that the transferred entity, realised as the direct object, may fulfil) and for the type-IV pattern (which is linked to metaphorically extended meanings of TELL). The importance of such semantic principles marks a clear difference between the core areas in the lexicogrammar of TELL on the one hand and GIVE on the other (cf. Figure 4-5, p. 246). The corpus findings as summarised in Table 4-2 may again be visualised in the form of verb-pattern associations in which (1) the strength of connections depends on the frequency of occurrence, and (2) the factors involved in selecting one specific verb-pattern association are indicated. Such a visualisation is given in Figure 4-7.22 It is beyond doubt that the usage-based model of TELL in Figure 4-7 – and the one of GIVE in Figure 4-5 (p. 246) – can only be regarded as very coarse and incomplete representations of speakers’ linguistic knowledge about ditransitive verbs. Nonetheless, the information included in the two figures certainly forms part of native speakers’ ‘communicative competence’ (Hymes 1972, 1992). 21

Note that the same general remarks on the focus and limited scope of the model of GIVE (see section 4.3.1) also apply to the model of TELL suggested in this section: (1) only those patterns that together make up 90% of all instances of TELL are taken into consideration; (2) there is no attempt to offer a fine-grained distinction of all the semantic nuances of TELL; (3) genre distinctions are not included in the model. Thus, the model of TELL, too, should be regarded not as a finalised product but as a starting-point for possible extension and/or refinement. 22 As has been noted for GIVE in section 4.3.1, the suggested model is network-like in nature (cf. Figure 4-6 on p. 248).

250

Chapter 4

Table 4-2:

TELL in ICE-GB: an overview of routinised patterns and principles of pattern selection

TELL-pattern: formula and example

I

Ie

If

Ig

(S) TELL [Oi:NP] [Od: NP] I’ll tell you a funny story about working class later (S) TELL [Oi:NP] [Od:whclause] Can you tell us how you first got involved in this project (S) TELL [Oi:NP] [Od:thatclause] Tell him he needs it (S) TELL [Oi:NP] [Od:toinfinitive] I shall have to tell him not to try so much

[S < Oi active] BE told [Od:that-clause] (by-agent) IPf I’m told that the general practitioner is now dead (S) TELL [Od:NP] Oi these figures don't tell the III whole story

IV

V

(S) TELL Oi Od racing experience here will tell (S) TELL [Oi:NP] Od And I had to tell them because…

[S < Oi active] BE told Od (by-agent) VP … long before I’d officially be told

%

13.6

13.7

30.4

3.7

5.2

3.8

1.6

16.4

1.6

principles of pattern selection - transferred entity: semantic role of MESSAGE/PRODUCT - [Od:NP] lexically restricted: this/that, any/some/every/ nothing, story, truth… - [Oi:NP] pronominalised - transferred entity: semantic role of MESSAGE/ANSWER - [Od:wh-clause] introduced by what, whether/if, how, why - [Oi:NP] pronominalised - (default pattern: unmarked lexicogrammatical choice) - transferred entity: semantic role of MESSAGE/FACT - transferred entity: semantic role of MESSAGE/ORDER - [Od:to-infinitive]: neutral or negative semantic prosody - [Oi:NP] pronominalised - [S < Oi active] = affected entity given/activated before - [Od:that-clause] heavy/new - acting entity irrelevant - affected entity recoverable/ irrelevant - [Od:NP] lexically restricted: story/stories, truth, lies, facts… - metaphorically extended meaning: ‘have clear effect’, ‘fail to keep secret’ - formulaic ‘as (far as) … tell(s)’ - transferred entity recoverable/ irrelevant - [Oi:NP] pronominalised - (S) pronominalised - transferred entity recoverable - acting entity irrelevant - [S < Oi active] pronominalised

Aspects of a Usage-based Model

Figure 4-7:

251

A usage-based model of TELL

Usage-based models like the ones in Figures 4-5 (p. 246) and 4-7 above put into perspective a particular way of how the gap between the exhaustive analysis of large and representative corpora and the modelling of speakers’ linguistic knowledge may be bridged within a truly usage-based framework. It is obvious that for various reasons, the models could be refined and/or modified in the light of (1) larger corpora, (2) a closer inspection of peripheral usages of the verbs at hand (i.e. in relatively infrequent patterns), (3) a comprehensive account of fixed prefabricated units involving the verb at hand, (4) a more fine-grained semantic analysis of all instances of the verbs at hand, and possibly (5) genre-specific

252

Chapter 4

analyses. In the terminology discussed earlier in the present study, then, Figures 4-5 and 4-7 provide comparatively broad representations of a very general ‘abstracted corpus norm’ for GIVE and TELL (see section 2.3), which could be easily elaborated by scrutinising more data and other corpora along the lines of either of the five dimensions listed above. The figures should also be seen as two illustrative examples of the general design features of usage-based models which could also be outlined for any other ditransitive verb. 4.4

Constructional networks as mirror images

In Figure 4.6 (p. 248), a network-like macro-model of ditransitive verbs has been offered. At first sight, it seems to be based on the assumption that a viable cognitive-linguistic model would have to include both a lexical network (with the ‘lexical set of ditransitive verbs’ at its core) and a constructional network (with the ‘constructional set of ditransitive patterns’ at its core). However, the separation of a lexical set and a constructional set, which is useful for showing how specific principles of pattern selection lead to the combination of a verb and a pattern in actual usage, does not imply a distinct view on the question as to whether constructions (e.g. the type-II pattern) should be taken to exist independently of particular verbs that instantiate them (e.g. GIVE). Although this question is crucial because it points to the usefulness of delexicalised constructions as cognitive entities in their own right, it is my intention to remain largely agnostic on this point because, firstly, a constructional network would not add anything substantially new to a usage-based model that is grounded on lexicogrammatical patterns anyway and because, secondly, there are good reasons not only for, but also against the positing of an independent level of constructions in a usage-based cognitive grammar. In the following, I will briefly discuss the two aspects in turn. As discussed in section 1.2.7, Goldberg (1995: 3) starts off from the uncontroversial idea that ‘argument structure constructions’ have a meaning themselves: the abstract meaning of the ‘ditransitive construction’, i.e. ‘Subj V Obj Obj2’, is thus described as ‘X CAUSES Y to RECEIVE Z’. In other words, the construction itself – with none of its slots bound to any particular lexical item – is considered a semantic unit with an identifiable and a systematic range of meanings:23 Several constructions [e.g. the ditransitive construction] can be shown to be associated with a family of distinct but related senses, much like the polysemy recognized in lexical items. (Goldberg, 1995: 4) 23

At the level of grammar, this is of course common ground in linguistics. Consider, for example, Lyons’s (1981: 156f.) remarks on the ‘grammatical meaning’ of the clause type SVO and Quirk et al.’s (1985: 754) overview of the various semantic functions for each of the seven clause types SV, SVC, SVA, SVO, SVOC, SVOA, SVOO.

Aspects of a Usage-based Model

253

In analogy to polysemous lexical items in a mental lexicon, it is argued that the semantic range of a particular construction is restricted and systematic and, what is more, that a model of language cognition must embrace a construction-specific component. This is reminiscent of Langacker’s (1999: 122) characterisation of ‘constructional schemas’ such as [[V][NP][NP]] as “symbolic assemblies with unit status” (cf. Figure 1.9, p. 56). While this constructional approach has no doubt gained wide currency in recent cognitive grammar and construction grammar, the question remains as to whether or not it is intuitively appealing to regard an entirely abstract configuration of semantic roles or clause elements or phrases – with no specified linguistic forms at all – as cognitive entities in their own right. In the present study, the concept of ‘schema’ has been reserved for the cognitive representation of a lexicogrammatical pattern, i.e. a combination of a specific verb and a particular pattern with which this verb is attested in actual usage (see section 4.2.1). Since the concept of lexicogrammatical pattern links up a delexicalised ‘construction’ with a particular verb, all instances of a specific construction can be captured by virtue of all verbal instantiations of the construction at hand. There is thus no need to establish an additional constructional level in a usage-based model that is based on the analysis of lexicogrammatical patterns. It would of course be possible to start off from a particular construction (e.g. in terms of the type-I pattern without an instantiating verb) and to relate to this construction all the verbs that are used in this construction (e.g. GIVE, TELL, SEND). This may result in some sort of a constructional network. However, this constructional network only provides a mirror image of what a lexical network of each individual ditransitive verb, linking the verb to all its patterns, also covers. Thus, there is no compelling reason for a reduplication of the descriptive information – and its cognitive representation – by complementing a lexical network with a constructional-network mirror image.24 The second reason for not explicitly describing constructional networks in a usage-based model of language cognition lies in the fact that alternative, lexicosemantic approaches have been shown to have the same (or even a greater) explanatory power. Nemoto (1998), Iwata (2002) and Boas (2003), for example, argue that it is better to restrict oneself to lexical instantiations of a construction. In particular, they – unlike Goldberg (1995) – do not regard an independently existing construction as the syntactic and semantic template for the verbalisation of a specific scene (e.g. the ditransitive situation schema). Rather, it is a specific 24

As pointed out in section 1.2.7, the exclusive focus on constructions also hides important facts about the nature of the systematic relationship between the occurrences of one and the same verb in different constructions. However, this is not to say that a constructional approach is meaningless per se; it is certainly not, even from a more lexical point of view. As Hunston and Francis (2000: 3) point out, “words which share a given pattern tend also to share an aspect of meaning.” This shared meaning is of course linked to the shared pattern, which – once dissociated from the instantiating verbs – is a ‘construction’. In principle, it is thus without any doubt a viable enterprise to analyse constructions semantically for particular purposes. However, I do think that a usage-based model should be based on lexicogrammatical patterns rather than on constructions.

254

Chapter 4

instantiation that is taken to serve as a template in the sense of a pathbreaking lexicogrammatical pattern. As for ditransitive verbs, the type-I pattern of GIVE would thus be regarded as a syntactic and semantic template that is used for a ‘grammaticalisation by analogy’ (Hoffmann, 2004) of other potentially ditransitive verbs (cf. Figure 3-14, p. 205) because GIVE is the most prototypical ditransitive verb (cf. Figure 4-2, p. 236) and the type-I pattern is the default pattern of GIVE. But also other instantiations of ditransitive verbs and ditransitive patterns may be regarded as templates. Consider, for example, the type-I pattern of TELL, i.e. ‘(S) TELL [Oi:NP] [Od: NP]’. This lexicogrammatical pattern may well be the syntactic and semantic template for other verbs of verbal communication, leading language users to use novel verbs of verbal communication in the same pattern, e.g. FAX and E-MAIL. It would thus not be necessary to construe a ‘fusion’ between the verbal meaning and the meaning of an independent ditransitive construction as Goldberg (1995) does (see section 1.2.7). Rather, specific prototypical instantiations such as the type-I pattern of TELL may well be taken to provide a model for other formations on grounds of processes of semantic and syntactic analogy. It should be noted that a cognitive model that is based on lexical instantiations of patterns is also intuitively more convincing than a strictly construction-grammatical model. As Hunston and Francis (2000: 25) pointedly state: “Common sense suggests that phrases, or units of meaning, will be centred around items with lexical meaning.” In fact, it seems reasonable and realistic to prioritise lexical choices over grammatical choices simply because … lexis is communicatively prior to syntax. As communicators we do not proceed by selecting syntactic structures and independently choosing lexical items to slot into them. Instead, we have concepts to convey and communicative choices to make which require central lexical items, and these choices find themselves syntactic structures in which they can be said comfortably and grammatically. (Francis, 1995; quoted in Hunston and Francis, 2000: 31) Moreover, models of language cognition should account for the basic fact of language acquisition and language use that, while it is possible to realise individual words without making any syntactic choices, a syntactic structure can only be realised if words are instantiated. In a sense, then, Goldberg’s (1995) notion of construction seems to be much more of an artefact than the concept of lexicogrammatical patterns. It goes unchallenged that corpus-linguistic research has highlighted the fact that in actual usage lexis and syntax are inseparable and, as Francis (1995) correctly points out, ‘co-selected’: Particular syntactic structures tend to co-occur with particular lexical items, and – the other side of the coin – lexical items seem to occur in a particular range of structures. In short, syntax and lexis are coselected, and we cannot look at either of them in isolation. (Francis, 1995; quoted in Hunston and Francis, 2000: 30)

Aspects of a Usage-based Model

255

This ‘co-selectional’ reason for a pattern-based approach to the description of English lexis and grammar in use is also relevant to the level of models of language cognition if such models are to be genuinely usage-based. Accordingly, a model based on lexicogrammatical patterns should be preferred to strictly construction-based models. 4.5

Creativity and routine revisited from a cognitive perspective

In section 3.4, it was argued that creativity and routine are not two distinct domains but form a continuum of two systems that shade into each other. It is useful to re-assess the two aspects of language use from a cognitive-linguistic perspective and sketch out how they are related to other aspects of a usage-based model of language cognition. While there seems to be general agreement on the point that language use is guided by both some sort of creative impetus and some sort of routine, Lee (2001) is certainly right in critically pointing out that mainstream linguistic research has for a very long time tended to over-emphasise the importance of creativity: Linguists often claim that the everyday use of language involves a high degree of creativity. Take any arbitrary sentence from a book or newspaper, the argument goes, and you will find that you have probably never encountered that particular sequence of words in your life before. Yet you have no difficulty in understanding it. Therefore, it is suggested, not only was the act of producing that sentence highly creative, but so was the act of interpretation. In the normal course of your daily life, whether you are taking part in a conversation, reading a book or a newspaper, listening to the radio, watching television or a film, you supposedly perform such creative acts hundreds – perhaps thousands – of times a day. There are a number of ways in which one might challenge this claim. (Lee, 2001: 198) In the present study, such countervailing evidence has been provided for the use of ditransitive verbs. As shown in Figure 3-15 (p. 217), routinised language not only includes more or less fixed prefabricated units and idioms (that is, formulaic sequences). These may be the most striking examples of routine in language use, but certainly not the only ones. In fact, linguistic routines exert an influence on the entirety of lexicogrammatical patterning, ranging from relatively open ‘patterns’ over lexically more restricted ‘pattern frames’ to ‘lexically stabilised idioms’. These routines seem to have been neglected in much linguistic research for probably two related reasons: (1) they are not as easily and intuitively identifiable as prefabricated units; (2) since these routines capture quantitative tendencies in language use, they can only be described by looking at large and representative corpora. Without modern corpus-linguistic resources, it would be

256

Chapter 4

virtually impossible to describe and systematise the wide range of quantitatively feasible lexicogrammatical co-selections. There is of course no doubt that creativity in language use is an important factor, too. As for the object of inquiry of the present study, it has thus been shown that both the general process of grammatical institutionalisation and the particular mechanisms involved in this process (especially analogy and metaphorical extension) are inherently creative (see section 3.3.1). However, there is no use in ignoring the point that language users are by no means continuously creative but adhere to various kinds of routines. What is more, even within the range of what is readily available as grammatically institutionalised forms, language users for the most part keep to frequently occurring, conventionalised forms. In fact, it is not – at least, not only – the creative use of language but the knowledge about such linguistic expectancies in a speech community that turns a language user into a native speaker: The problem we are addressing is that native speakers do not exercise the creative potential of syntactic rules to anything like their full extent, and that, indeed, if they did so they would not be accepted as exhibiting nativelike control of the language. (Pawley and Syder, 1983: 193) In various regards, corpus-linguistic research has verified this hypothesis: native speakers’ language use is marked by what Pawley and Syder (1983: 191) call ‘nativelike selection’, i.e. “the ability of the native speaker routinely to convey his meaning by an expression that is not only grammatical but also nativelike”.25 As discussed in section 2.4, the kind of usage-based model that has been described and exemplified in the present chapter for ditransitive verbs, does not reflect the abstract linguistic competence along the lines of generative theory, which, according to Chomsky, should be … concerned primarily with an ideal speaker-listener, in a completely homogeneous speech community, who knows its language perfectly and is unaffected by such grammatically irrelevant consitions as memory limitations, distractions, shifts of attention and interest, and errors (random or characteristic) in applying his knowledge of the language in actual performance. (Chomsky, 1965: 3) That, of course, is a ‘Garden of Eden view’ (Hymes, 1972: 272) of linguistic competence. If a model of language cognition is intended to be usage-based in terms of being able to explain actual usage, the model cannot be entirely disso25 The routinised, native-like selection of linguistic forms obviously helps explain another design feature of native-like usage, namely ‘nativelike fluency’, i.e. “the native speaker’s ability to produce fluent stretches of spontaneous connected discourse” (Pawley and Syder, 1983: 191).

Aspects of a Usage-based Model

257

ciated from linguistic reality. Cognition and usage – or, in Chomskyan terms, competence and performance – are related to each other. It is not surprising that only by acknowledging the inseparability of language cognition and language in use is it possible to combine creativity and routine in a usage-based model: our cognitive capacity as ‘competent’ language users allows us, in principle, to produce all possible linguistic forms and create new forms, although for the most part in actual language use we keep to a restricted range of “preferred ways of putting things” (Kennedy, 1992: 335). Thus, Hymes’s (1972) concept of ‘communicative competence’ not only bridges the gap that exists in the generative distinction between competence and performance but also combines the creative potential of language and the routinised core of actual usage: If an adequate theory of language users and language use is to be developed, it seems that judgements must be recognized to be in fact not of two kinds but of four. And if linguistic theory is to be integrated with theory of communication and culture, this fourfold distinction must be stated in a sufficiently generalized way. I would suggest, then, that for language and for other forms of communication (culture), four questions arise: 1. Whether (and to what degree) something is formally possible; 2. Whether (and to what degree) something is feasible in virtue of the means of implementation available; 3. Whether (and to what degree) something is appropriate (adequate, happy, successful) in relation to a context in which it is used and evaluated; 4. Whether (and to what degree) something is in fact done, actually performed, and what its doing entails. (Hymes, 1972: 281) While the first level refers to the entirety of all linguistic forms and structures that are possible, the following levels gradually narrow down the choices that are made in actually using language: of all that is possible, only a restricted range is cognitively feasible (e.g. on grounds of memory limitations, cf. Hymes, 1972: 285); of all that is feasible, only a restricted set is appropriate in a given context; of all that is appropriate, only a restricted set is actually performed. 26 At the same time, this concept links native speakers’ cognitive ability to produce creatively a wide range of formally possible forms to their actual language behaviour, which is habitually characterised by restricting themselves to a conventionalised and frequently occurring subset. It is obvious, then, that the four levels are intended to 26 It should be noted that Hymes (1972: 282) is not in favour of viewing the four levels of communicative competence as subsets: “One might think of the four as successive subsets; more likely they should be pictured as overlapping circles.” However, while this suggestion may apply to the levels of ‘appropriate’ and ‘performed’, it is inapplicable to the relationship between the level of ‘possible’ and the other levels because the entirety of what is formally possible, by definition, must include all the other circles.

258

Chapter 4

represent a gradient of increasing contextualisation (from the highly abstract and decontextualised entirety of all that is possible to the concrete and attested performance in context). Of particular importance is the fact that modern corpora make it possible to describe empirically and quantitatively the choices on two distinct levels: what is actually performed and what is appropriate in a given context. Also, it is amazing that Hymes (1972) envisages quantitative trends on all four levels, which is captured by the focus not only on ‘whether’ or not something is possible/feasible/appropriate/performed but also on the ‘degree’. More than thirty years ago, it was difficult, if not to say impossible, to put this concept of communicative competence, connecting creativity and routine as well as cognition and actual usage, into practice.27 In the light of modern corpuslinguistic resources, this has changed. The combination of a corpus-based description of language use and a usage-based model of language cognition makes it possible to describe both the cognitive aspects of communicative competence and its implications for how language is actually used. Figure 4-8 is intended to visualise somewhat simplistically the cross-correspondences between the concept of communicative competence on the one hand and the from-corpus-to cognition approach as suggested in the present study on the other.

Figure 4-8: 27

Communicative competence and the from-corpus-to-cognition approach

Hymes’s (1972: 269) first sentence is thus telling: “This paper is theoretical. One connotation of ‘theoretical’ is ‘programatic’; a related connotation is that one knows too little about the subject to say something practical.”

Aspects of a Usage-based Model

259

In Figure 4-8, the four levels of communicative competence that Hymes (1972) distinguishes are represented as four concentric circles: most importantly, what is actually performed is seen as a subset of what is formally possible.28 While actual performance is to a very large extent guided by linguistic routines, it is usually necessary to exploit the creative potential of language to produce formally possible forms that remain unperformed under normal conditions. Because through actual performance linguistic routines are reinforced and stabilised, the knowledge about the linguistic forms and structures that are usually performed is at the core of language users’ communicative competence, while the knowledge about the creative potential is on its periphery. Although the corpus, by definition, only contains actual performance (and should thus be included in the smallest circle), it should best be seen from a theoretical perspective as cutting across the four circles of communicative competence; see the box in Figure 4-8. The corpus is a sample of all that is actually performed, and this linguistic performance reflects – and is based on – the choice of linguistic forms and structures that are at the same time formally possible, psychologically feasible and contextually appropriate. Note that the corpus will also include instances that are ungrammatical and unacceptable and are thus outside the most outward circle of what is formally possible. These cases notwithstanding, the corpus thus essentially represents not only a sample of actual performance but also of speakers’ choices at the level of possibility, feasibility and appropriateness that underlie their performance. A usage-based model that is derived from the in-depth analysis of corpus data will thus capture essential parts of speakers’ linguistic knowledge in terms of their communicative competence. In effect, a usage-based model of language cognition that follows the guidelines laid down in section 4.1 is a first approximation to a model of communicative competence. In the present study, major aspects of such a model of communicative competence have been sketched out for ditransitive verbs in general and for GIVE and TELL in particular (cf. Figure 4-5, p. 246; Figure 4-7, p. 251). In the last resort, all genuinely usage-based models of speakers’ linguistic knowledge are models of communicative competence: • they are real-data models because they are based on authentic corpus data; • they are frequency-oriented models because they include quantitative information obtained from corpus data; • they are lexicogrammatical models because they are based on lexicogrammatical patterns as linguistic units and the principles that are responsible for the coselection of a specific verb and a specific pattern; • they are core-periphery models because they focus on the core area of language use but are open to refinement and elaboration on their periphery.

28

The visualisation is less optimal for the intermediate levels of feasibility and appropriateness because they can only refer to specific conditions of a particular communication situation and not to language in its entirety.

Chapter 5 Summary and conclusion: corpus – co-selection – competence As outlined in section 1.1, the principal objectives of the present study have been (1) to develop a pluralist theory of ditransitivity, (2) to describe the usage of ditransitive verbs by drawing on corpus-linguistic resources, and (3) to sketch out a usage-based model of speakers’ linguistic knowledge of ditransitive verbs by deducing from the corpus findings features of a corpus-informed cognitive model. Thus, I started off from an overview of various existing approaches to ditransitivity in chapter 1, with the intention of identifying useful points of reference for an integrated model as well as potential cross-correspondences between the theories. It was argued that, for the purpose of the present study, the structuralist and usage-oriented tradition of the descriptive reference grammars, culminating in the Comprehensive Grammar (cf. Quirk et al., 1985), ought to be preferred over generative and competence-oriented models for three main reasons: (1) the structuralist framework à la Quirk et al. (1985) relates actual linguistic forms to functional categories and is based on the concepts of structural analogy and multiple analysis; (2) it does not intend to draw a clear line between lexical and grammatical choices; (3) there is no such attempt as in generative grammar to introduce remedy-like descriptive devices (such as vp-shells and light verbs) in order to be able to keep to theory-internal principles (such as strict binary branching and dative shift) (see sections 1.2.1 and 1.2.2). Also, it turned out that useful concepts from valency theory (e.g. the distinction between syntactic and semantic valency, see section 1.2.3), functional grammar and semanticosyntactical approaches (e.g. the notion of semantic types, see section 1.2.4) could be integrated into a generally structuralist framework. What is more, this eclectic approach was shown to be open to the application of corpus-linguistic methodology (cf. Biber et al., 1999) and to the incorporation of categories that have emerged in corpus-based grammar (e.g. the formal demarcation of ditransitive verbs, see section 1.2.5) and in corpus-driven lexicogrammar (e.g. the notion of pattern, see section 1.2.6). With regard to cognitive-linguistic theories, Langacker’s (1999) cognitive grammar, which is based on lexicogrammatical entities comparable to patterns in corpus-driven lexicogrammar, was preferred to Goldberg’s (1995) construction grammar, a framework much more focused on the grammatical choice of a ‘ditransitive construction’ and its cognitive equivalents (see section 1.2.7). Experiments in the cognitive sciences (cf. Bock et al. 1992) also vindicate the general assumption that ditransitivity as a lexicogrammatical phenomenon is inherently linked to the ditransitive verb as a lexical item (and its verbal meaning) – an assumption which underlies structuralist, valency, functional and corpus-based grammar alike (see section 1.2.8). In the light of the in-

Summary and Conclusion

261

depth discussion of the various models of ditransitivity, a multi-layered definition of ditransitive verbs was offered (see section 1.3.1) in order to link the ditransitive verb to the variety of ditransitive patterns with which it is associated and in order to bridge the gap between a formal description of verbs and patterns on the one hand and a functional analysis on the other (in terms of underlying situationtypes and semantic roles as well as actual usage in authentic contexts): A working definition of ditransitive verbs A ditransitive verb (DV) is a trivalent verb that requires a subject (S), a direct object (Od) and an indirect object (Oi) for a complete syntactic complementation. It is necessary for all clause elements to be realisable as noun phrases (NPs): this realisation (S:NP – DV – Oi:NP – Od:NP) is called the basic form of ditransitive complementation. If a verb is attested in the basic form of ditransitive complementation in actual language use, it is also considered a ditransitive verb in all other forms of complementation. All ditransitive verbs and ditransitive complementations are associated with an underlying proposition that represents the situation type of TRANSFER with three semantic roles involved: the ditransitive verb denotes an action in which the acting entity transfers a transferred entity to the affected entity. This definition, which has emerged from the theoretical discussion, is at the basis of the pluralist approach to ditransitivity in the present study. In chapter 2, I discussed how this pluralist definition of ditransitivity could be operationalised by analysing how ditransitive verbs are used in the ICE-GB corpus. Capitalising on the tagging and parsing information included in ICECUP (cf. Nelson et al., 2002), an exhaustive list of 70 verbs was generated that occurred in ICE-GB and met the standards of the definition of ditransitive verbs above (cf. Table 2-4, p. 82). Also, by combining the overall frequency of each individual verb with the number of its occurrences in an explicit ditransitive syntax (i.e. instances parsed as ‘ditransitive’ in ICE-GB), it was possible to group all ditransitive verbs into three clusters of prototypicality (cf. Figure 2-4, p. 84): (1) typical ditransitive verbs (GIVE, TELL); (2) habitual ditransitive verbs (SHOW, ASK, SEND, OFFER); (3) peripheral ditransitive verbs (all other verbs, e.g. AFFORD, THROW). Some general issues and problems that are related to corpus-linguistic methodology were also discussed in chapter 2. Firstly, in taking up the distinction – and conflict – between ‘corpus-based’ and ‘corpus-driven’ approaches (J. Aarts, 2002), I argued that the linguist’s intuition is inevitable in corpus linguistics, rendering a strictly corpus-driven approach not a viable option (see section 2.1). Secondly, a position statement on corpus linguistics as both a method and a discipline in its own right was sketched out (see section 2.3). Thirdly, I suggested that a corpus-based description of actual usage be seen as an appropriate starting point for a model of language cognition that would capture speakers’ linguistic knowledge along the lines of Hymes’s (1972) concept of ‘communicative competence’ (see sections 2.4 and 2.5).

262

Chapter 5

In chapter 3, I delved more deeply into the use of the typical ditransitive verbs GIVE and TELL (see sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.2) as well as the habitual ditransitive verbs SHOW, ASK, SEND and OFFER (see sections 3.2.1 to 3.2.4) in ICE-GB. For each of the six verbs, a quantitative and a functional analysis was offered. In the quantitative analysis, the frequencies with which a ditransitive verb is associated with all of its patterns was scrutinised. In the functional analysis, the focus was on the (±10) most frequent patterns of a given verb that together made up 90% of all instances of the verb at hand. That is, the functional analysis of each ditransitive verb put into perspective the routinised ‘core area’ (Mindt, 2002) of language use. Here, special emphasis was placed on the contextdependent description of principles of pattern selection, i.e. factors that could be shown to be responsible in a more or less significant proportion of all relevant instances for language-users’ preference of a given pattern of a specific verb over other patterns of the verb. These principles of pattern selection are versatile and vary to some extent from verb to verb. For GIVE, for example, the following factors turned out to be relevant (cf. Figure 3-2, p. 111): • lexical factors: for example, specific words in direct-object position, e.g. example, tend to trigger off the use of particular patterns, e.g. the type-III pattern of the verb [(S) GIVE [Od:NP] Oi], as in ...by giving an actual example of what he means. • textual factors: for example, if the transferred entity has already been part of an immediately preceding pattern in the text, e.g. grateful for sth., a GIVE-pattern is chosen in which this entity is placed in intial position, e.g. [[Od: NP (antecedent)] (rel. pron.) [S] GIVE [Oi:NP]], as in I would … be grateful for any financial assistance that the college could give me. • pragmatic factors: according to the principle of end-weight, language users tend to choose, for example, the type-II pattern [(S) GIVE [Od:NP] [Oi:PP (to…)]] if the indirect object is considerably heavier than the direct object, as in You give the hours to those that are going to be regulars. • semantic factors: for example, if the semantic role of the acting entity is irrelevant or recoverable in a given context, a passive pattern is chosen in which the by-agent can be left out, e.g. the type-IP pattern [[S < Oi active] BE given [Od:NP] (by-agent)], as in You’ve been given the answers already. It was noted for many patterns that several principles of pattern selection very often come into play at the same time, e.g. the previous activation of the initial element, the heaviness of the final element and the optionality of the by-agent in the case of the type-IP pattern of GIVE. Besides identifying principles of pattern selection for each typical and habitual ditransitive verb, it was also argued that a corpus-based description of ditransitive verbs in the English language as a whole – by generalising away from individual genres – remains a useful and viable enterprise because genre-specific tendencies can be shown to be based on the linguistic devices that the language as a system offers (see section 3.1.1.3). After the corpus analysis of typical and habitual ditransitive verbs, I focused on the

Summary and Conclusion

263

periphery of ditransitivity in language use by discussing the grammatical institutionalisation of peripheral ditransitive verbs, i.e. verbs that occur rarely in general and/or rarely in an explicit ditransitive syntax (see section 3.3.1). Here, it turned out that both data from larger corpora such as the BNC and intuitive data were necessary because linguistic forms and structures on the edge of language use are very often not attested in (small) corpora. New ditransitive verbs were shown to evolve on grounds of specific licensing strategies (e.g. metaphorical extension) that make it possible to extend the meaning of the verb to the typical ditransitive situation schema. While the process of grammatical institutionalisation refers to the periphery of language use, the emergence of frequent routines points to the core area and should thus be seen as a different process, i.e. conventionalisation (see sections 3.3.2 and 3.3.3). Whereas grammatical institutionalisation is thus strongly linked to creative language use, conventionalisation captures the various kinds of routines in language use. In this context, creativity and routine were defined not as distinct domains but as a gradient from very creative usage to very routinised usage. On this gradient, the various categories of creative/routinised use of ditransitive verbs were plotted, including the emergence of new ditransitive verbs, the concept of lexicogrammatical patterns, and prefabricated units (see section 3.4). In chapter 4, the corpus findings served as a starting-point for a discussion of what a truly usage-based model of language cognition should look like. In trying to reflect – and explain – actual usage, such a usage-based model ought to (1) be based on the analysis of large and representative samples of real language data, (2) include frequency information (without being restricted to quantitative data), (3) be based on lexicogrammatical patterns as basic units, and (4) distinguish between the routinised core area and the creativity-guided periphery of language use (see section 4.1). It was also argued that ditransitivity should be treated at the cognitive level as a prototypical category, based on defining attributes in the situation-type dimension, the lexicosemantic dimension and the lexicogrammatical dimension (cf. Figure 4-2, p. 236). The members of this category are ditransitive verbs which in turn form prototypical categories themselves (see section 4.2). For GIVE and TELL, I sketched out usage-based models that are (1) based on real data, (2) frequency-oriented, (3) lexicogrammatical and (4) focused on the core area of language use (see section 4.3). Most importantly, these models are usage-based because they do not simply list the range of the lexicogrammatical patterns that are available for GIVE and TELL, but rather include information about whether, to what extent and under which contextual conditions language users select a specific routinised GIVE-pattern or TELLpattern (cf. Figure 4-5, p. 246; Figure 4-7, p. 251). I also made a plea for not restricting oneself to constructional networks, as favoured by Goldberg (1995), because, firstly, they provide information that would already be included in a usage-based model resting on lexical networks and, secondly, models that start off from lexical semantics are widely considered to be more appealing and appropriate (see section 4.4). Finally, I showed that the kind of usage-based model sketched out in this chapter could be easily related to Hymes’s (1972)

264

Chapter 5

concept of communicative competence in that it would include not only the knowledge about linguistic forms and structures (such as ditransitive verbs and patterns), but also speakers’ ability to use these forms in actual contexts, especially by containing relevant principles of pattern selection (see section 4.5). The from-corpus-to-cognition approach to ditransitive verbs in the present study, as summarised above, is thus based on three principal steps: (1) the observation of corpus data (here: esp. ICE-GB); (2) the description of co-selections (here: esp. lexicogrammatical patterns and various principles of pattern selection); (3) the modelling of speakers’ communicative competence (here: esp. usagebased lexical networks of GIVE and TELL). It needs to be pointed out that the analysis of both lexicogrammatical co-selections (in terms of the patterns of ditransitive verbs) and the principles and factors that are responsible for these coselections provide ample testimony to the importance of corpus-linguistic methods. Such co-selectional trends cannot be captured by intuition and/or introspection alone but can only be identified by scrutinising large amounts of natural data in context. From a more theoretical point of view, such co-selections show that the Saussurean distinction between a syntagmatic and a paradigmatic dimension with its ‘slot-and-filler’ view of language (which is captured by Sinclair’s (1991) ‘open-choice principle’) is to a considerable extent at odds with linguistic reality. In natural language, there is no clear-cut distinction between syntagmatic and paradigmatic choices because, firstly, frequent lexicogrammatical patterns turn out to be used as entities and because, secondly, various kinds of lexical, textual, pragmatic and semantic principles of pattern selection can be shown to exercise restraint on language users’ ‘open choice’.1 From a sample analysis of the collocational and colligational patterns of the word birthday in the BNC, Esser (1999) thus draws the following conclusion:2 Sinclair’s doubts about the pervasiveness of the open-choice principle clearly deserve careful attention. As one of the consequences of the approach presented here, the relation between the Saussurean concepts of a paradigmatic and a syntagmatic axis has to be rethought. As we have seen, paradigmatic choices are made within a network of coselections which are statistically driven. (Esser, 1999: 165) In the present study, such a ‘network of co-selections’ has been described for the lexicogrammar of the typical and habitual ditransitive verbs GIVE, TELL, SHOW, ASK, SEND and OFFER. The frequency of these complex co-selections as linguistic routines and the infrequency or non-occurrence of many theoretically possible combinations (of lexis and grammar as well as of pattern and pattern1

Compare, in this context, Figure 3-2 (p. 111) which visualises the interdependence between lexis and grammar as well as between pattern and principles of pattern selection for GIVE and its patterns. 2 See also Stubbs’s (1993: 18) conclusion that “paradigmatic choices are not made independently of the position in syntagmatic chain”.

Summary and Conclusion

265

selectional factors) confirms Sinclair’s (1991) view that the freedom of combination in natural language is much more restricted than the wide range that grammars based on intuition alone allow for. In the light of these basic insights obtained from corpus-based research over the past decades, it seems to me that future descriptive-linguistic studies should no longer attempt to confine themselves to describing lexis independently of grammar, grammar independently of lexis and/or language use independently of context. Accordingly, the present study has provided a description of ditransitive verbs both from an integrated lexicogrammatical perspective and by analysing actual usage in context. When it comes to the corpus-based description of the network of routinised co-selections in actual usage, it is of particular importance not to fall into the trap of regarding only fixed multi-word sequences as routines. The amazing versatility of linguistic routines has been brought to the fore by Stubbs (2001): It is often thought that corpus analyses show that much of language use is made up of fixed phrases or prefabricated chunks, but this is a misleading way of looking at things. There are certainly such fixed phrases, but it turns out to be surprisingly difficult to find phrases which are absolutely fixed. The finding is rather that there are many recurring semantic patterns which have expected lexical realizations, but which can be highly variable in their lexis. These patterns are often very simple in their structure but, due to contextual variables, very complex in their consequences. (Stubbs, 2001: 243) In general, this also holds true for ditransitive verbs. As has been discussed in section 3.4, the variability of the routines in using ditransitive verbs can be systematised along a gradient from relatively fixed (i.e. formulaic, prefabricated units) over recurrent patterns/pattern frames/idioms (with more or less internal variation) to creative language events that do not follow any kind of linguistic routines (e.g. the use of an extremely rare ditransitive pattern or the use of a pattern that violates a specific principle of pattern selection). The important point in this context is that corpus linguistics should pay particular attention to the wide range of routinised patterns in language use because they form part of the frequent core area of language use. It is here that the quantitative analysis of corpus data is of paramount importance: Repeated events are significant. The first task of corpus linguistics is to describe what is usual and typical. Unique events certainly occur, but can be described only against the background of what is normal and expected. The frequent occurrence of lexical or grammatical patterns is good evidence of what is typical and routine in language use. (Stubbs, 2001: 221)

266

Chapter 5

Thus, modern corpus linguistics offers us unprecedented resources and methods for an empirical description of what is frequently attested, especially in the field of lexicogrammar and context-dependent language use. While fixed prefabricated units may be identified more or less automatically by corpus software, the description of the more fuzzy and variable kinds of linguistic routines is only possible if the corpus data are analysed by informed linguists. Whether, for example, it is the abstraction of a seemingly simple but variable lexicogrammatical pattern (as possible input for later automatic searches) or the decision on whether a specific principle of pattern selection should be taken into consideration – it is only by envisaging an interaction between the corpus and the linguist that the entire range of linguistic routines that guide actual language use can be unveiled. While frequent co-selections are characteristic of the typical core area of language use, the ‘unique events’ that Stubbs mentions refer to the less frequent periphery of language use. It is here that corpus linguists need to acknowledge to a much larger extent than previously assumed that intuitive data may at times shed more light on phenomena and processes on the periphery of language use, e.g. when it comes to the grammatical institutionalisation of new ditransitive patterns (see section 3.3.1). This is a field which also reveals that the description of creative and comparatively unique events – in contradistinction to the routinised core area – is important because they put into perspective the extreme points on the continuum of contexts in which a linguistic form may be used. For example, it was shown in section 3.3.3 that new verbs can be used in the type-I pattern only if their meaning can be extended in one way or another so that it matches the semantic core of the ditransitive situation schema. The combination of a corpus-based quantitative focus on the core area and a corpus-cum-intuitionbased awareness of creative language use on the periphery is probably the only viable option for a comprehensive description of native-like language use because it brings together actual distributions of forms on the one hand and abstract semantic categories which may help explain the range of what is possible on the other. The quantitative and qualitative description of the ‘network of co-selections’ on the basis of corpus data is not only important for models of language use but also for usage-based models of language cognition: all the co-selections are part of competent speakers’ linguistic knowledge in the sense of Hymes’s (1972) ‘communicative competence’. To use language in a native-like way presupposes a communicative competence which includes as a central component the ability to adhere to commonly expected linguistic routines. For any given ditransitive verb, a model of communicative competence must therefore include the frequent lexicogrammatical patterns of the verb and identify the various principles of pattern selection that are relevant to any of these patterns. Of course, such a cognitive model must also account for native speakers’ ability to produce – and understand – non-routinised, unique events: that is to say, also at the cognitive level the focus on the core and the focus on the periphery are not mutually exclusive but should rather complement each other. However, this does not rule

Summary and Conclusion

267

out that at the cognitive level, too, one may easily envisage a certain division of labour between corpus-based research into the core area of communicative competence and a corpus-cum-intuition-based identification of what is possible on the periphery of language.3 Corpus – co-selection – communicative competence: this three-step procedure is at the heart of the from-corpus-to-cognition approach to English ditransitive verbs in the present study. In the light of the summary of the evidence and the general conclusions offered so far, it is useful to refer to the three steps individually in order to sketch out some vital prospects for future research for each of them. (1) Corpus – the methodological level • As indicated in Figure 2-1 (p. 71), the cyclical procedure could be extended by analysing a corpus larger than ICE-GB (such as the BNC) exhaustively. This would make it possible to verify and/or falsify specific conclusions drawn from ICE-GB in the present study and, what is more, to describe more specifically those forms (i.e. ditransitive verbs) and co-selections (i.e. patterns and principles) that are are only infrequently attested in ICE-GB. • A major methodological challenge in this regard, however, is the automatic retrieval of all individual patterns of a given ditransitive verb, which exemplifies a general problem in corpus-based syntactic analysis (cf. Gilquin, 2002). Even if one restricts oneself to the annotation available in parsed corpora such as ICE-GB, this makes it necessary to also accept all the shortcomings in the parsing scheme (see section 2.2.2). For larger corpora such as the BNC, such parsing information is not available anyway. Here, the general problem remains as to how to automatically and exhaustively search for, say, a given pattern of a ditransitive verb. • A related field in which further research is needed is the automatic identification of relevant principles of pattern selection and the quantification of the influence that each principle exerts on language users’ choices in a given context. The multifactorial analysis that Gries (2001, 2003) suggests is a very useful framework for the calculation of some sort of factor loading, but it still requires manual coding of a limited set of data. Here, too, further research in corpus linguistics and computer linguistics is needed. (2) Co-selection – the descriptive level • At the level of language description, it will be useful to complement the language-as-a-whole description offered in the present study with a more finegrained analysis of genre-specific trends in using ditransitive verbs. In this context, further thought should be given to the problem as to how to map genrespecific descriptions onto models of general language use; the question of how to relate the language as a system to genres as subsystems is still open to debate (see section 3.1.1.3). 3

It is obvious that in the present study more weight has been given to the former aspect.

268

Chapter 5

• It may also be fruitful to investigate aspects of regional variation in ditransitive verb complementation more systematically. Olavarría de Ersson and Shaw’s (2003) comparison of verb complementation patterns between Indian Standard English and British English, for example, is an important pilot study that opens up new research perspectives. • While the present corpus-based study has concentrated on the routinised core area, it may well be useful to scrutinise in more detail the creative and nonroutinised use of ditransitive verbs in order to describe, for example, the full range of analogies and metaphorical extensions that language users draw on. • It goes without saying that the use of other resources and new methods will have an effect on the description of ditransitive verbs and patterns too: for example, larger corpora will make it possible to delve more deeply into the way peripheral ditransitive verbs are used. The world-wide web will also be a valuable resource for tracking on-going grammatical change (cf. Mair, forthcoming) in the field of ditransitive verb complementation. (3) Communicative competence – the cognitive level • If corpus evidence is to be at the basis of cognitive models of language, these models need to unify lexis and grammar into a lexicogrammar. Therefore, models that make a clear-cut distinction between the lexicon and grammar in language cognition and that have been suggested on intuitive (e.g. Chomsky, 1995) or experimental grounds (e.g. Ullman et al., 1997) have to be rejected. On the other hand, cognitive-grammar models (e.g. Langacker, 1999) and connectionist models (e.g. Eikmeyer et al., 1999) are much more suitable for an integration of corpus findings. • In particular, it will be necessary in future research to analyse in much more detail whether and to what extent there is a cross-correspondence between traditional semantic networks of a given ditransitive verb and a lexical network of the verb and its patterns. • In the final analysis, it should be feasible to develop a network-like model of ditransitivity as a prototypical category in which fine-grained semantic nuances, many more ditransitive verbs and their patterns as well as the relevant principles of pattern selection are included and visualised according to the strengths of connections – a model that covers both what is routinised/frequent and what is unusual/infrequent. Although the object of inquiry in the present study has been English ditransitive verbs, I believe that the underlying from-corpus-to-cognition approach, proceeding from the corpus analysis to the description of co-selections and finally to a model of communicative competence, holds considerable promise for describing a wide range of other linguistic phenomena as well.

References cited Aarts, B. (2000), ‘Corpus linguistics, Chomsky and fuzzy tree fragments’, in: C. Mair and M. Hundt (eds.) Corpus linguistics and linguistic theory: papers from the twentieth international conference on English language Research on computerized corpora (ICAME 20) Freiburg im Breisgau 1999. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 5-13. Aarts, B. (2004), ‘Conceptions of gradience in the history of linguistics’, Language sciences, 26: 343-389. Aarts, F. (1975), ‘The great tradition of grammars and Quirk’s grammar’, Dutch quarterly review of Anglo-American letters 5: 98-126. Aarts, F. and J. Aarts (1982), English syntactic structures. Oxford: Pergamon. Aarts, J. (1991), ‘Intuition-based and observation-based grammars’, in: K. Aijmer and B. Altenberg (eds.) English corpus linguistics: studies in honour of Jan Svartvik. London: Longman. 44-62. Aarts, J. (2000), ‘Towards a new generation of corpus-based English grammars’, in: B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk and P.J. Melia (eds.) PALC’99: Practical Applications in Language Corpora. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. 17-36. Aarts, J. (2002), ‘Does corpus linguistics exist? Some old and new issues’, in: L. E. Breivik and A. Hasselgren (eds.) From the COLT’s mouth … and others’: language corpora studies in honour of Anna-Brita Stenström. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 1-17. Aarts, J., H. van Halteren and N. Oostdijk (1996), ‘The TOSCA analysis system’, in: C. Koster and E. Ottmans (eds.) Proceedings of the first AGFL workshop. Nijmegen: CSI. 181-191. Aijmer, K. (1996), Conversational routines in English. London: Longman. Allerton, D.J. (1982), Valency and the English verb. London: Academic Press. Anagnostopoulou, E. (2003), The syntax of ditransitives: evidence from clitics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Anttila, R. (1972), Introduction to comparative and historical linguistics. New York: Macmillan. Arnold, J.E., T. Wasow, A. Losongco and R. Ginstrom (2000), ‘Heaviness vs. newness: the effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering’, Language, 76: 28-55. Aston, G. and L. Burnard (1998), The BNC handbook: exploring the British National Corpus with SARA. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Baayen, R.H. (2001), Word frequency distributions. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Baker, C.L. (1978), Introduction to generative-transformational syntax. Englewood Cliffs/NJ: Prentice-Hall. Barlow, M. (1996), ‘Corpora for theory and practice’, International journal of corpus linguistics, 1: 1-37.

270

References

Barlow, M. and S. Kemmer (1994), ‘A schema-based approach to grammatical description’, in: S. Lima, R. Corrigan and G. Iverson (eds.) The reality of linguistic rules. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 19-42. Beermann, D. (2001), ‘Verb semantics and double object constructions’, in: M. van Oostendorp and E. Anagnostopoulou (eds.) Progress in grammar: articles at the 20th anniversary of the Comparison of Grammatical Models group in Tilburg. Available at . Biber, D. (1988), Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Biber, D. (1995), Dimensions of register variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Biber, D., S. Conrad and R. Reppen (1998), Corpus linguistics: investigating language structure and use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Biber, D. and E. Finegan (1986), ‘An initial typology of English text types’, in: J. Aarts and W. Meijs (eds.) Corpus Linguistics II. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 1946. Biber, D., S. Johansson, G. Leech, S. Conrad and E. Finegan (1999), Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson Education. Birner, B.J. and G. Ward (1998), Information status and noncanonical word order in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Boas, H.C. (2003), A constructional approach to resultatives. Stanford/CA: CSLI Publications. Bock, K., H. Loebell and R. Morey (1992), ‘From conceptual roles to structural relations: bridging the syntactic cleft’, Psychological Review, 99: 150-171. Borsley, R.D. and R. Ingham (2002), ‘Grow your own linguistics? On some applied linguists’ views of the subject’, Lingua, 112: 1-6. Brandt, P. (2001), ‘In the double object construction’, Linguistics in the Netherlands, 17(1): 31-43. Brazil, D. (1995), A grammar of speech. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bresnan, J. (1982), ‘Control and complementation’, in: J. Bresnan (ed.) The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge/MA: MIT Press. 282-390. Bresnan, J. (2000), Lexical-functional grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. Burnard, L. (2000). Reference guide for the British National Corpus (world edition). Available at . Butler, C. (1985), Statistics in linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell. Bybee, J. (1985), Morphology: a study of the relationship between meaning and form. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Bybee, J. (1998), ‘The emergent lexicon’, CLS 34: the panels, 421-435. Bybee, J. (2001), ‘Frequency effects on French liaison’, in: J. Bybee and P. Hopper (eds.) Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 337-359.

References

271

Bybee, J. and P. Hopper (2001a), ‘Introduction to frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure’, in: J. Bybee and P. Hopper (eds.) Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 1-24. Bybee, J. and P. Hopper (eds.) (2001b), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Campbell, A.L. and M. Tomasello (2001), ‘The acquisition of English dative constructions’, Applied psycholinguistics, 22: 253-367. Cattell, R. (1984), Syntax and semantics, vol. 17: composite predicates in English. Sydney: Academic Press. Chafe, W.L. (1979), ‘The flow of thought and the flow of language’, in: T. Givón (ed.) Syntax and semantics, vol. 12: discourse and syntax. New York: Academic Press. 159-181. Chafe, W.L. (1987), ‘Cognitive constraints on information flow’, in: R.S. Tomlin (ed.) Coherence and grounding in discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 21-51. Chafe, W.L. (1992), ‘The importance of corpus linguistics to understanding the nature of language’, in: J. Svartvik (ed.) Directions in corpus linguistics: proceedings of Nobel symposium 82. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 79-103. Chafe, W.L. (2000), ‘Verbs and their objects and the one new idea hypothesis’, in A.K. Melby and A.R. Lommel (eds.) LACUS forum XXVI: the lexicon. Fullerton/CA: LACUS. 5-18. Chafe, W.L. and J. Danielewicz (1987), ‘Properties of spoken and written language’, in: R. Horowitz and S.J. Samuels (eds.) Comprehending oral and written language. San Diego: Academic Press. 83-113. Chomsky, N. (1965), Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge/MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, N. (1980), Rules and representations. New York: Columbia University Press. Chomsky, N. (1986), Barriers. Cambridge/MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, N. (1995), The minimalist program. Cambridge/MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, N. (2000), New horizons in the study of language and mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Comrie, B. (1989), Language universals and language typology. Second edition. Oxford: Blackwell. Cornbleet, S. and R. Carter (2001), The language of speech and writing. London: Routledge. Coseriu, E. (1974), Synchronie, Diachronie und Geschichte. München: Fink. Craig, C. (ed.) (1986), Noun classes and categorization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Croft, W. (1990), Typology and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Croft, W. (1995), ‘Intonation units and grammatical structure’, Linguistics, 33: 839-882. Crystal, D. (1995), The Cambridge encyclopedia of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

272

References

Culicover, P.W. (1997), Principles and parameters: an introduction to syntactic theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Daneš, F. (1987), ‘On Prague school functionalism in linguistics’, in: R. Dirven and V. Fried (eds.) Functionalism in linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 3-39. Delancey, S. (1984), ‘Notes on agentivity and causation’, Studies in language, 8: 181-213. Delancey, S. (1987), ‘Transitivity in grammar and cognition’, in: R.S. Tomlin (ed.) Coherence and grounding in discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 53-68. Dik, Simon C. (1978), Functional grammar. Amsterdam: North Holland. Dik, Simon C. (1987), ‘Some principles of functional grammar’, in: R. Dirven and V. Fried (eds.) Functionalism in linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 81-100. Dik, S.C. (1989), The theory of functional grammar: part I. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Dik, S.C. (1997), The theory of functional grammar: part II. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. den Dikken, M. (1995), Particles. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dixon, R.M.W. (1965), What is language? A new approach to linguistic description. London: Longmans. Dixon, R.M.W. (1979), ‘Ergativity’, Language, 55: 59-138. Dixon, R.M.W. (1991), A new approach to English grammar, on semantic principles. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Dixon, R.M.W. (1994), Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dryer, M.S. (1986), ‘Primary objects, secondary objects, and antidative’, Language, 62: 808-845. Du Bois, J.W. (1985), ‘Competing motivations’, in: J. Haiman (ed.) Iconicity in syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 343-365. Du Bois, John W. (1987), ‘The discourse basis of ergativity’, Language, 63, 805855. Eikmeyer, H.-J., U. Schade, M. Kupietz and U. Laubenstein (1999), in: R. Klabunde and C. von Stutterheim (eds.) ‘A connectionist view of language production’, Representations and processes in language production. Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag. 205-235. Ellegård, A. (1978), The syntactic structure of English texts. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoborgensis. Emons, R. (1978), Valenzgrammatik für das Englische. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Enkvist, N.E. (1973), Linguistic stylistics. The Hague: Mouton. Erdmann, P. (1997), The for...to construction in English. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Ermann, B. and B. Warren (2000), ‘The idiom principle and the open choice principle’, Text, 20(1): 29-62. Esser, J. (1993), English linguistic stylistics. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

References

273

Esser, J. (1999), ‘Collocation, colligation, semantic preference and semantic prosody: new developments in the study of syntagmatic word relations’, in: W. Falkner and H.-J. Schmid (eds.) Words, lexemes, concepts – approaches to the lexicon: studies in honour of Leonhard Lipka. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. 155-165. Esser, J. (2000a), ‘Corpus linguistics and the linguistic sign’, in: C. Mair and M. Hundt (eds.) Corpus linguistics and linguistic theory: papers from the twentieth international conference on English language research on computerized corpora (ICAME 20) Freiburg im Breisgau 1999. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 91-101. Esser, J. (2000b), ‘Medium-transferability and presentation structure in speech and writing’, Journal of pragmatics, 32: 1523-1538. Esser, J. (2002), ‘Rev. H.-J. Schmid, English abstract nouns as conceptual shells: from corpus to cognition (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2000)’, Anglistik, 13(2): 204-208. Fagan, S.M.B. (1988), ‘The English middle’, Linguistic inquiry, 19: 181-203. Fang, A.C. (1996), ‘The survey parser: design and development’, in: S. Greenbaum (ed.) Comparing English worldwide: the International Corpus of English. Oxford: Clarendon. 142-160. Fenk-Oczlon, G. (2001), ‘Familiarity, information flow, and linguistic form’, in: J. Bybee and P. Hopper (eds.) Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 431-448. Fillmore, C. (1968), ‘The case for case’, in: E. Bach and R.T. Harms (eds.) Universals in linguistic theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 188. Fillmore, C. (1985), ‘Syntactic intrusions and the notion of grammatical construction’, Berkeley linguistic society, 11: 73-86. Fillmore, C. (1986), ‘Pragmatically controlled zero anaphora’, Berkeley linguistic society, 12: 95-107. Fillmore, C. (1988), ‘The mechanisms of “construction grammar”’, Berkeley linguistic society, 14: 35-55. Fillmore, C. (1992), ‘“Corpus linguistics” or “computer-aided armchair linguistics”?’, in: J. Svartvik (ed.) Directions in corpus linguistics: proceedings of Nobel symposium 82. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 35-60. Fillmore, C., P. Kay and C. O’Connor (1988), ‘Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: the case of “let alone”’, Language, 64: 501538. Firbas, J. (1992), Functional sentence perspective in written and spoken communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Francis, G. (1993), ‘A corpus-driven approach to grammar: principles, methods and examples’, Text and technology: in honour of John Sinclair. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 137-156. Francis, G. (1995), ‘Corpus-driven grammar and its relevance to the learning of English in a cross-cultural situation’, in: A. Pakir (ed.) English in education: multicultural perspectives. Singapore: Unipress.

274

References

Francis, G., S. Hunston and E. Manning (1996), Collins COBUILD grammar patterns 1: verbs. London: HarperCollins. Francis, G., S. Hunston and E. Manning (1998), Collins COBUILD grammar patterns 2: nouns and adjectives. London: HarperCollins. Frazier, L. and J.D. Fodor (1978), ‘Sausage machine: new 2-stage parsing model’, Cognition, 6: 291-325. Gibson, W.W. (1966), Tough, sweet and stuffy: an essay on modern American prose styles. Bloomington/IN: Indiana University Press. Giddens, A. (1984), The constitution of society: outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press. Gilquin, G. (2002), ‘Automatic retrieval of syntactic structures: the quest for the Holy Grail’, International journal of corpus linguistics, 7(2): 183-214. Givón, T. (1979), On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press. Givón, T. (ed.) (1983), Topic continuity in discourse: a quantitative crosslanguage study. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Givón, T. (1984), ‘Direct object and dative shifting: semantic and pragmatic case’, in: F. Plank (ed.) Objects: towards a theory of grammatical relations. London: Academic Press. 151-170. Givón, T. (1995), Functionalism and grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Görlach, M. (2000), ‘Rev. D. Biber et al., Longman grammar of spoken and written English (Harlow: Pearson Education, 1999)’, Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 25: 257-260. Goldberg, A.E. (1992), ‘The inherent semantics of argument structure: the case of the English ditransitive construction’, Cognitive linguistics, 3: 37-74. Goldberg, A.E. (1995), Constructions: a construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago/IL: The University of Chicago Press. Green, G. (1974), Semantics and syntactic regularity. Bloomington/IN: Indiana University Press. Greenbaum, S. (ed.) (1996), Comparing English worldwide: the International Corpus of English. Oxford: Clarendon. Grice, H.P. (1975), ‘Logic and conversation’, in: P. Cole and J.L. Morgan (eds.) Syntax and semantics, vol. 3: speech acts. New York: Academic Press. 4158. Gries, S.T. (2001), ‘A multifactorial analysis of syntactic variation: particle movement revisited’, Journal of quantitative linguistics, 8: 33-50. Gries, S.T. (2003), ‘Towards a corpus-based identification of prototypical instances of constructions’, Annual review of cognitive linguistics, 1: 1-27. Grisham, J. (2002), The summons. New York: Doubleday (Random House). Gropen, J., S. Pinker, M. Hollander, R. Goldberg and R. Wilson (1989), ‘The learnability and acquisition of the dative alternation in English’, Language, 65: 203-257. Gross, M. (1979), ‘On the failure of generative grammar’, Language, 55: 859885. Habel, C. and H. Tappe (1999), ‘Processes of segmentation and linearization in describing events’, in: R. Klabunde and C. von Stutterheim (eds.)

References

275

Representations and processes in language production. Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag. 117-152. Haiman, J. (1980), ‘The iconicity of grammar: isomorphism and motivation’, Language, 56: 515-540. Halliday, M.A.K. (1987), ‘Spoken and written modes of meaning’, in: R. Horowitz and S.J. Samuels (eds.) Comprehending oral and written language. San Diego: Academic Press. 55-82. Halliday, M.A.K. (1991), ‘Corpus studies and probabilistic grammar’, in: K. Aijmer and B. Altenberg (eds.) English corpus linguistics: studies in honour of Jan Svartvik. London: Longman. 30-43. Halliday, M.A.K. (1992), ‘Language as system and language as instance: the corpus as a theoretical construct’, in: J. Svartvik (ed.) Directions in corpus linguistics: proceedings of Nobel symposium 82. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 61-78. Halliday, M.A.K. (1993), ‘Quantitative studies and probabilities in grammar’, in: M. Hoey (ed.) Data, description, discourse: papers on the English language in honour of John Sinclair. London: HarperCollins. 1-25. Halliday, M.A.K. (1994), An introduction to functional grammar. Second edition. London: Edward Arnold. Halliday, M.A.K. and R. Hasan (1976), Cohesion in English. London: Longman. Halliday, M.A.K., A. McIntosh and P. Strevens (1964), The linguistic sciences and language teaching. London: Longman. Hawkins, J.A. (1994), A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heine, B., U. Claudi and F. Hünnemeyer (1991), Grammaticalization: a conceptual framework. Chicago/IL: The University of Chicago Press. Herskovits, A. (1986), Language and spatial cognition: an interdisciplinary study of the prepositions in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hoard, J.E. (1998), ‘Language understanding and the emergent alignment of linguistics and natural language processing’, in: J. Lawler and H.A. Dry (eds.) Using computers in linguistics: a practical guide. 197-230. Hoffmann, S. (2004), ‘Are low-frequency complex prepositions grammaticalized? On the limits of corpus data – and the importance of intuition’, in: H. Lindquist and C. Mair (eds.) Corpus approaches to grammaticalization in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 171-210. Hopper, P. (1987), ‘Emergent grammar’, Berkeley linguistic society, 13: 139-157. Hopper, P. (1998), ‘Emergent grammar’, in: M. Tomasello (ed.) The new psychology of language: cognitive and functional approaches to language structure. Mahwah/NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 155-175. Hopper, P.J. and S.A. Thompson (1980), ‘Transitivity in grammar and discourse’, Language, 56: 251-299. Hopper, P.J. and E.C. Traugott (1993), Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hopper, P.J. and E.C. Traugott (2003), Grammaticalization. Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

276

References

Horie, K. and B. Comrie (2000), ‘Introduction’, in: K. Horie (ed.) Complementation: cognitive and functional perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 1-10. Huddleston, R. and G.K. Pullum (2002), The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hudson, R. (1984), Word grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. Hudson, R. (1992), ‘So-called “double objects” and grammatical relations’, Language, 68: 251-276. Hundt, M. (2001), ‘Information structure in discourse: passive and mediopassive constructions’, in: P. Lucko and J. Schläger (eds.) Anglistentag 2000 Berlin: proceedings. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier. 445-454. Hunston, S. (2002), Corpora in applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hunston, S. and G. Francis (2000), Pattern grammar: a corpus-driven approach to the lexical grammar of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hymes, D.H. (1972), ‘On communicative competence’, in: J.B. Pride and J. Holmes (eds.) Sociolinguistics: selected readings. Harmondsworth: Penguin. 269-293. Hymes, D.H. (1992), ‘The concept of communicative competence revisited’, in: M. Pütz (ed.) Thirty years of linguistic evolution: studies in honour of René Dirven on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 31-57. Iwata, S. (2002), ‘Does MANNER count or not? Manner-of-motion verbs revisited’, Linguistics, 40(1): 61-110. Jackson, H. (1990), Grammar and meaning: a semantic approach to English grammar. London: Longman. Jakobson, R. (1960), ‘Closing statement: linguistics and poetics’, in: T.A. Sebeok (ed.) Style in language. Cambridge/MA: MIT Press. 350-377. Jescheniak, J.D. (1999), ‘Accessing words in speaking: models, simulations, and data’, in: R. Klabunde and C. von Stutterheim (eds.) Representations and processes in language production. Wiesbaden: Deutscher UniversitätsVerlag. 237-257. Jespersen, O. (1909-1949), A modern English grammar on historical principles (Part III: Syntax, second volume, 1927). Heidelberg: Carl Winters. Katamba, F. (1994), English Words. London: Routledge. Kemmer, S. and M. Barlow (2000), ‘Introduction: a usage-based conception of language’, in: M. Barlow and S. Kemmer (eds.) Usage-based models of language. Stanford/CA: CSLI Publications. vii-xxviii. Kennedy, G. (1992), ‘Preferred ways of putting things with implications for language teaching’, in: J. Svartvik (ed.) Directions in corpus linguistics: proceedings of Nobel symposium 82. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 335-373. Kennedy, G. (1998), An introduction to corpus linguistics. London: Longman. Kjellmer, G. (2003), ‘Lexical gaps’, in: S. Granger and S. Petch-Tyson (eds.) Extending the scope of corpus-based research: new applications, new challenges. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 149-158.

References

277

Klotz, M. (2000), Grammatik und Lexik: Studien zur Syntagmatik englischer Verben. Tübingen: Stauffenburg. König, E. (1977), Form und Funktion: Eine funktionale Betrachtung ausgewählter Bereiche des Englischen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Krug, M. (2002), ‘Rev. D. Biber et al., Longman grammar of spoken and written English (Harlow: Pearson Education, 1999)’, English language and linguistics, 6: 379-384. Kruisinga, E. (1909-1932), A handbook of present-day English (Part II: English accidence and syntax 3, 1925). Fourth edition. Utrecht: Kemink en Zoon. Labov, W. (1973), ‘The boundaries of words and their meanings’, in: J. Fishman (ed.) New ways of analyzing variation in English. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. 340-373. Lamb, S. (2002), ‘Types of evidence for a realistic approach to language’, in: R.M. Brend, W.J. Sullivan and A.R. Lommel (eds.) LACUS forum XXVIII: What constitutes evidence in linguistics? Houston/TX: LACUS. 89-101. Lambrecht, K. (1994), Information structure and sentence form: a theory of topic, focus, and the mental representation of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Langacker, R.W. (1987), Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. I: theoretical prerequisites. Stanford/CA: Stanford University Press. Langacker, R.W. (1995), ‘Raising and transparency’, Language, 71: 1-62. Langacker, R.W. (1999), Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Langacker, R. W. (2000), ‘A dynamic usage-based model’, in: M. Barlow and S. Kemmer (eds.) Usage-based models of language. Stanford/CA: CSLI Publications. 1-63. Lapointe, S.G. (1985), ‘A theory of verb form use in the speech of agrammatic aphasics’, Brain and Language, 24: 100-155. Lapointe, S.G. and G.S. Dell (1989), ‘A synthesis of some recent work in sentence production’, in: G.N. Carlson and M.K. Tanenhaus (eds.) Linguistic Structure in Language Processing. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 107156. Larson, R.K. (1988), ‘On the double object construction’, Linguistic inquiry, 19: 335-391. Lee, D. (2001), Cognitive linguistics: an introduction. Melbourne: Oxford University Press. Leech, G. (1992), ‘Corpora and theories of linguistic performance’, in: J. Svartvik (ed.) Directions in corpus linguistics: proceedings of Nobel symposium 82. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 105-122. Leech, G. (2004), ‘A new Gray’s anatomy of English grammar’, English language and linguistics, 8: 121-147. Leech, G. and J. Svartvik (1975), A communicative grammar of English. London: Longman. Lenz, S. (2000), Korpuslinguistik. Tübingen: Groos Brigitte Narr.

278

References

Levelt, W.J.M. (1989), Speaking: from intention to articulation. Cambridge/MA: MIT Press. Levin, B. (1993), English verb classes and alternations: a preliminary investigation. Chicago/IL: The University of Chicago Press. Lewin, R. (1992), Complexity: life at the edge of chaos. New York: Collier Books. Lonsdale, D., M. Hutchison, T. Richards and W. Taysom (2001), ‘LG-Soar: parsing for information’. Talk given at the 21st North American Soar workshop, Ann Arbor/MI 2001. Louw, B. (1993), ‘Irony in the text or insincerity in the writer? The diagnostic potential of semantic prosodies’, in: M. Baker, G. Francis and E. Tognini Bonelli (eds.) Text and technology: in honour of John Sinclair. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 157-176. Lyons, J. (1981), Language and linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. MacWhinney, B. (2000), ‘Connectionism and language learning’, in: M. Barlow and S. Kemmer (eds.) Usage-based models of language. Stanford/CA: CSLI Publications. 121-149. Madigan, M.T., J.M. Martinko and J. Parker (1997), Brock – biology of microorganisms. Eighth edition. Upper Saddle River/NJ: Prentice-Hall. Maier, S. and M. Spitzer (1999), ‘Network models and formal thought disorder: associative processes in schizophrenic patients’, in: R. Klabunde and C. von Stutterheim (eds.) Representations and processes in language production. Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag. 259-279. Mair, C. (1987), ‘For/to infinitival clauses in contemporary British English: a study based on the material collected in the Survey of English Usage, University College London’, English studies, 68: 545-559. Mair, C. (1990), Infinitival complement clauses in English: a study of syntax in discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mair, C. (forthcoming), ‘Tracking ongoing grammatical change and recent diversification in present-day standard English: the complementary role of small and large corpora’, in: A. Renouf (ed.) The changing face of corpus linguistics. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Mathesius, V. (1975), A functional analysis of present-day English on a general linguistic basis. Edited by Josef Vachek. The Hague: Mouton. Matthews, P.H. (1981), Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McElree, B. (1993), ‘The locus of lexical preference effects in sentence comprehension: a time-course analysis’, Journal of memory and language, 32: 536-571. McEnery, A. and A. Wilson (1996), Corpus linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Mervis, C.B. (1980), ‘Category structure and the development of categorization’, in: R.J. Spiro, B.C. Bruce and W.F. Brewer (eds.) Theoretical issues in reading comprehension. Hillsdale/NJ: Erlbaum. 279-307.

References

279

Meyer, C.F. (1995), ‘Grammatical relations in English’, in: B. Aarts and C.F. Meyer (eds.) The verb in contemporary English: theory and description. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 27-39. Meyer, C.F. (2002), English corpus linguistics: an introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Miller, J. and R. Weinert (1998), Spontaneous spoken language: syntax and discourse. Oxford: Clarendon. Mindt, Dieter (2002), ‘What is a grammatical rule?’, in: L.E. Breivik and A. Hasselgren (eds.) From the COLT’s mouth ... and others’: language corpora studies – in honour of Anna-Brita Stenström. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 197-212. de Mönnink, I. (2000), On the move: the mobility of constituents in the English noun phrase – a multi-method approach. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Mukherjee, J. (2001), ‘Principles of pattern selection: a corpus-based case study’, Journal of English linguistics, 29: 295-314. Mukherjee, J. (2002a), Korpuslinguistik und Englischunterricht: eine Einführung. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Mukherjee, J. (2002b), ‘The scope of corpus evidence’, in: R.M. Brend, W.J. Sullivan and A.R. Lommel (eds.) LACUS forum XXVIII: what constitutes evidence in linguistics? Houston/TX: LACUS. 103-114. Mukherjee, J. (forthcoming), ‘Corpus linguistics and English reference grammars’, in: A. Renouf (ed.) The changing face of corpus linguistics. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Mulder, J.W.F. (1968), Sets and relations in phonology: an axiomatic approach to the description of speech. Oxford: At the Clarendon Press. Nelson, G. (1998), The International Corpus of English – the British component (ICE-GB): getting started. London: Survey of English Usage, University College London. Nelson, G., S. Wallis and B. Aarts (2002), Exploring natural language: working with the British component of the International Corpus of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Nemoto, N. (1998), ‘On the polysemy of ditransitive “save”: the role of frame semantics in construction grammar’, English linguistics, 15: 219-242. Newman, J. (1996), Give: a cognitive linguistic study. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Newman, J. (ed.) (1998), The linguistics of giving. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Newmeyer, F.J. (1998), Language form and language function. Cambridge/MA: MIT Press. Newmeyer, F.J. (2001), ‘The Prague school and North American functionalist approaches to syntax’, Journal of Linguistics, 37: 101-126. Ninio, A. (1999), ‘Pathbreaking verbs in syntactic development and the question of prototypical transitivity’, Journal of child language, 26: 619-654. Olavarría de Ersson, E.O. and P. Shaw (2003), ‘Verb complementation patterns in Indian Standard English’, English world-wide, 24(2): 137-161.

280

References

Oostdijk, N. (2000), ‘Beyond the great tradition of English grammars: a review article’, ICAME journal, 24: 119-127. Ouhalla, J. (1994), Transformational grammar: from rules to principles and parameters. London: Edward Arnold. Pagliuca, W. (ed.) (1994), Perspectives on grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pawley, A. and H. Syder (1983), ‘Two puzzles for linguistic theory: native-like selection and native-like fluency’, in: J. Richards and R. Schmidt (eds.) Language and communication. London: Longman. 191-226. Payne, T. (1997), Describing morphosyntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Perlmutter, D. (1980), ‘Relational grammar’, in: E.A. Moravcsik and J.R. Wirth (eds.) Syntax and semantics, vol. 13: current approaches to syntax. New York: Academic Press. 195-229. Popper, K.R. (1965), The logic of scientific discovery. Fourth edition. London: Hutchinson. Poutsma, H. (1904-1926), A grammar of late modern English. Groningen: Noordhoff. Prince, E.F. (1981), ‘Toward a taxonomy of given-new information’, in: P. Cole (ed.) Radical pragmatics. New York: Academic Press. 223-255. Procter, P. (ed.) (1978), Dictionary of contemporary English. London: Longman. Pustejovsky, J. (1992), ‘The syntax of event structure’, in: E. Levin and S. Pinker (eds.) Lexical and conceptual semantics. Cambridge/MA: Blackwell. 4781. Pustejovsky, J. (1998), The generative lexicon. Cambridge/MA: MIT Press. Quirk, R. (1968), Essays on the English language: medieval and modern. London: Longman. Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech and J. Svartvik (1972), A grammar of contemporary English. London: Longman. Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech and J. Svartvik (1985), A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman. Radford, A. (1997a), Syntactic theory and the structure of English: a minimalist approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Radford, A. (1997b), Syntax: a minimalist introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Radford, A., M. Atkinson, D. Britain, H. Clahsen and A. Spencer (1999), Linguistics: an introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rauh, G. (2002), ‘Word classes as prototypical categories’, in: S. Scholz, M. Klages, E. Hantson and U. Römer (eds.) Language: context and cognition – papers in honour of Wolf-Dietrich Bald’s 60th birthday. München: Langenscheidt-Longman. 259-270. Renouf, A. and J. Sinclair (1991), ‘Collocational frameworks in English’, in: K. Aijmer and B. Altenberg (eds.) English corpus linguistics: studies in honour of Jan Svartvik. London: Longman. 128-144.

References

281

Rips, L.J. (1975), ‘Inductive judgments about natural categories’, Journal of verbal learning and verbal behaviour, 14: 665-681. Rosch, E. (1973), ‘On the internal structure of perceptual and semantic categories’, in: T.E. Moore (ed.) Cognitive development and the acquisition of language. New York: Academic Press. 111-144. Rosch, E. (1978), ‘Principles of categorization’, in: E. Rosch and B. Lloyd (eds.) Cognition and categorization. Hillsdale/NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 27-48. Rosch, E. and C.B. Mervis (1975), ‘Family resemblances: studies in the internal structure of categories’, Cognitive psychology, 7: 573-605. Rundell, M. (ed.) (2002), Macmillan English dictionary: school edition for advanced learners. Hannover: Schroedel. Schade, U. and H.-J. Eikmeyer (1998), ‘Modeling the production of object specifications’, in: J. Grainger and A. Jacobs (eds.) Localist connectionist approaches to human cognition. Mahwah/NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 257282. Schmid, H.-J. (2000), English abstract nouns as conceptual shells: from corpus to cognition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Schmitt, N. (ed.) (2004), Formulaic sequences: acquisition, processing and use. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Schneider, E.W. (2001), ‘Rev. D. Biber et al., Longman grammar of spoken and written English (Harlow: Pearson Education, 1999)’, English world-wide, 22: 137-143. Sgall, P. (2002), ‘Freedom of language: its nature, its sources, and its conesquences’, in: E. Hajičovà, P. Sgall, J. Hana and T. Hoskovec (eds.) Travaux du cercle linguistique de Prague n.s. – Prague linguistic circle papers: vol. 4. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 309-329. Sgall, P., E. Hajičová and E. Benesová (1973), Topic, focus and generative semantics. Kronberg: Scriptor. Sinclair, J. (ed.) (1990), Collins COBUILD English grammar. London: HarperCollins. Sinclair, J. (1991), Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sinclair, J. (1993), ‘Written discourse structure’, in: J. Sinclair, M. Hoey and G. Fox (eds.) Techniques of description – spoken and written discourse: a festschrift for Malcolm Coulthard. London: Routledge. 6-31. Sinclair, J. (ed.) (1995), Collins COBUILD English dictionary. Second edition. London: HarperCollins. Sinclair, J. (1996), ‘The search for units of meaning’, Textus, 9: 75-106. Smitterberg, E. (2000), ‘Rev. G. Francis et al., Collins COBUILD grammar patterns 2: nouns and adjectives (London: HarperCollins, 1998)’, ICAME journal, 24: 128-135. Spitzer, M. (1993), ‘The psychopathology, neuropsychology, and neurobiology of associative and working memory in schizophrenia’, European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience, 243: 57-70. Standop, E. (2000), ‘Englische Verbkomplementation’, Anglia, 118: 217-257.

282

References

Stefanowitsch, A. (2003), ‘Constructional semantics as a limit to grammatical alternation: the two genitives of English’, in: G. Rohdenburg and B. Mondorf (eds.) Determinants of grammatical variation in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 413-443. Stefanowitsch, A. and S.T. Gries (2003) ‘Collostructions: investigating the interaction of words and constructions’, International journal of corpus linguistics, 8(2): 209-243. Stemberger, J.P. (1985), ‘An interactive activation model of language production’, in: A. Ellis (ed.) Progress in the psychology of language. Hillsdale/ NJ: Erlbaum. 143-186. Stenström, A.-B. (1994), An introduction to spoken interaction. London: Longman. Stubbs, M. (1986), Educational linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell. Stubbs, M. (1993), ‘British traditions in text analysis: from Firth to Sinclair’, in: M. Baker, G. Francis and E. Tognini Bonelli (eds.) Text and technology: in honour of John Sinclair. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 1-33. Stubbs, M. (1996), Text and corpus analysis: computer-assisted studies of language and culture. Oxford: Blackwell. Stubbs, Michael (2001), Words and phrases: corpus studies of lexical semantics. Oxford: Blackwell. Stubbs, M. (2002), ‘On text and corpus analysis: a reply to Borsley and Ingham’, Lingua, 112: 7-11. Sweetser, E. (1996), ‘Mental spaces and the grammar of conditional constructions’, in: G. Fauconnier and E. Sweetser (eds.) Spaces, worlds and grammar. Chicago/IL: The University of Chicago Press. 318-333. Tanenhaus, M.K., M.J. Spivey-Knowlton, K.M. Eberhard and J.C. Sedivy (1995), ‘Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension’, Science, 268: 1632-1634. Taylor, D.S. (1988), ‘The meaning and use of the term “competence” in linguistics and applied linguistics’, Applied Linguistics, 9: 148-168. Taylor, J.R. (1995), Linguistic categorization: prototypes in linguistic theory. Second edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Taylor, J.R. (2002), Cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tesnière, L. (1953), Esquisee d’une syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck. Tesnière, L. (1959), Eléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck. Teubert, W. (2001), ‘Corpus linguistics and lexicography’, International journal of corpus linguistics, 6 (special issue): 125-153. Thompson, S.A. (1990), ‘Information flow and dative shift in English discourse’, in: J.A. Edmondson, C. Feagin and P. Mühlhäusler (eds.) Development and diversity: language variation across time and space. Dallas/TX: SIL and University of Arlington. Thompson, S.A. and P.J. Hopper (2001), ‘Transitivity, clause structure, and argument structure: evidence from conversation’, in: J. Bybee and P. Hopper (eds.) Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 27-60.

References

283

Tognini Bonelli, E. (1996), Corpus theory and practice. Birmingham: The Tuscan Word Centre. Tognini Bonelli, E. (2001), Corpus linguistics at work. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Tomasello, M. (1998), ‘The return of constructions’, Journal of child language, 25: 431-442. Tomasello, M. (2000), ‘Do young children have adult syntactic competence?’, Cognition, 74: 209-253. Traugott, E.C. and B. Heine (eds.) (1991), Approaches to grammaticalization, vol. I. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Trotta, J. (2000), Wh-clauses in English: aspects of theory and description. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Ullman, M.T., S. Corkin, M. Coppola, G. Hickok, J.H. Growdon, W.J. Koroshetz and S. Pinker (1997), ‘A neural dissociation within language: evidence that the mental dictionary is part of declarative memory, and that grammatical rules are processed by the procedural system’, Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 9(2): 266-276. Ullmann, S. (1957), The principles of semantics. Second edition. Oxford: Blackwell. Ullmann, S. (1962), Semantics: an introduction to the science of meaning. Oxford: Blackwell. Vachek, J. (ed.) (1966), Les problèmes du centre et de la périphérie du système de la langue. Prague: Academia. Vachek, Josef (1976), Selected writings in English and general linguistics. Prague: Academia. van Valin, R.D., Jr. (2001), An introduction to syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Verspoor, M. and K. Sauter (2000), English sentence analysis: an introductory course. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Wagner, S. (2000), ‘“Depends how long you want for it to take”: for/to clauses in present-day spoken British English’, Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 25: 191-211. Wallis, S. (1998), The ICE corpus utility program: version 3.0. London: Survey of English Usage, University College London. [ICECUP] Wasow, T. (2002), Postverbal behavior. Stanford/CA: CSLI Publications. Wasow, T. and J. Arnold (2003): ‘Post-verbal constituent ordering in English’, in: G. Rohdenburg and B. Mondorf (eds.) Determinants of grammatical variation in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 119-154. Weinert, R. (1995), ‘The role of formulaic language in second language acquisition’, Applied linguistics, 16: 180-205. Wierzbicka, A. (1988), The semantics of grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Wray, A. (1999), ‘Formulaic language in learners and native speakers’, Language teaching, 32: 213-231. Wray, A. (2002), Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Appendix The design of ICE-GB genres Spoken genres

spoken (S) 637,562

genres texts words private (S1A) 205,608 dialogue - direct conversations 001 – 090 185,193 (S1) - telephone calls 091 – 100 20,415 public (S1B) 171,059 376,667 - classroom lessons 001 – 020 42,208 - broadcast discussions 021 – 040 43,921 - broadcast interviews 041 – 050 22,147 - parliamentary debates 051 – 060 21,060 - legal cross-examinations 061 – 070 21,179 - business transactions 071 – 080 20,544 unscripted (S2A) 152,835 monologue - spontaneous commentaries 001 – 020 42,472 (S2) - unscripted speeches 021 – 050 66,065 - demonstrations 051 – 060 22,563 217,933 - legal presentations 061 – 070 21,735 scripted (S2B) 65,098 - broadcast talks 021 – 040 43,506 - non-broadcast speeches 041 – 050 21,592 mixed (S2B) 42,962 - broadcast news 001 – 020 42,962 637,562 spoken component (ICECUP 3.0, 1998: s.v. corpus map)

Appendix

285

Written genres

written (W)

nonprinted (W1)

423,702 104,164 printed (W2) 319,538

genres texts words non-professional (W1A) 42,587 - untimed student essays 001 – 010 21,325 - student examination scripts 011 – 020 21,262 correspondence (W1B) 61,577 - social letters 001 – 015 31,077 - business letters 016 – 030 30,500 academic writing (W2A) 85,628 - humanities 001 – 010 21,714 - social sciences 011 – 020 21,206 - natural sciences 021 – 030 21,391 - technology 031 – 040 21,317 non-academic writing (W2B) 86,643 - humanities 001 – 010 23,600 - social sciences 011 – 020 21,043 - natural sciences 021 – 030 20,844 - technology 031 – 040 21,156 reportage (W2C) 41,556 - press news reports 001 – 020 41,556 instructional writing (W2D) 42,341 - administrative/regulatory 001 – 010 21,140 - skills/hobbies 011 – 020 21,201 persuasive writing (W2E) 20,725 - press editorials 001 – 010 20,725 creative writing (W2F) 42,645 - novels/stories 001 – 020 42,645 423,702 written component 1,061,264 ICE-GB: total number of words (ICECUP 3.0, 1998: s.v. corpus map)