Re: Question about transitivity/intransitivity

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