Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Question about transitivity/intransitivity

From:Thomas R. Wier <trwier@...>
Date:Monday, June 16, 2003, 11:07
Quoting Nik Taylor <yonjuuni@...>:

> Rob Haden wrote: > > In the sentence "I give John the dog," I think that the "primary object" > > (i.e., the direct object)
[snip correct observation]
> But, to raise "dog" to the status of subject, you must first convert the > ditransitive sentence to a monotransitive sentence with an oblique, "I > gave the dog to John", only then can you passivize it as "The dog was > given to John"
I guess the problem is something as follows. Here we have these two constructions that are more or less synonymous, and we're trying to decide which one is more *basic* in the system. Now, a good classical structuralist would say: what's their distribution? The problem with that is, AFAICT, they have more or less equal distribution, and crucially that is not governed by any principle -- they are in free variation, not complimentary distribution. So, what kind of evidence could you then bring to bear against this problem? Statistically, I cannot tell which is even used more often. Note that Baker (as I was explaining in another post) comes to precisely the opposite conclusion that you do about which is more basic. For him, I think he does so for largely theory internal reasons. Assuming that arguments may only raise, not lower, in the structure, it's easier to derive a ditransitive dative-shift construction from the incorporation of a null preposition than it is to do it the other way around, since that would require lowering. ========================================================================= Thomas Wier "I find it useful to meet my subjects personally, Dept. of Linguistics because our secret police don't get it right University of Chicago half the time." -- octogenarian Sheikh Zayed of 1010 E. 59th Street Abu Dhabi, to a French reporter. Chicago, IL 60637

Reply

Nik Taylor <yonjuuni@...>