Possessor-raising and transitivity

[Cathbad]

In English you can say (say, AFAIK, might not be acceptable for all in formal variants):

I stared him in the forehead
(for I stared at his forehead)

I looked him in the eye is perhaps more common, but structurally equal, since both look and stare are both intransitive verbs.

In Slovene, you can say:

Strmel sem mu v čelo
stare.PART.MASC be.1 he.DAT in forehead

(for
Strmel sem v njegovo čelo
stare.PART.MASC be.1 in his forehead

In Slovene, the construction seems somewhat more natural and widespread than in English, but that's not really all that important.

As you can notice, the Slovene example makes the possessor an oblique argument in the dative. If the NP were the direct object of a transitive verb, by contrast, the raised possessor would be in the accusative:

Pogledal sem ga v oči
look:PERF.PART.MASC be.1 he.ACC in eyes

(Pogledati is essentially a transitive verb. Although Pogledal sem mu v oči is also possible as a variant, it doesn't impact my query considerably.)

??Strmel sem ga v čelo

is ungrammatical, by contrast.

My question is, why does English 'force' transitivity when possessor-raising? Why don't we say I looked at him in the eye? And is this or the Slovene option more frequent in possessor-raising natlangs?

EDIT: also possessor-raising is, it seems to me, almost obligatory in modern Slovene with transitive verbs. ?Pogledal sem v njegove oči sounds at best stilted. Cf. English I looked into his eyes.

[linguoboy]

In English you can say (say, AFAIK, might not be acceptable for all in formal variants):

I stared him in the forehead
(for I stared at his forehead)

I looked him in the eye is perhaps more common, but structurally equal, since both look and stare are both intransitive verbs.

Formal or informal, your first sentence is unidiomatic for me. This construction is only really acceptable to me with in the eye(s).

My question is, why does English 'force' transitivity when possessor-raising? Why don't we say I looked at him in the eye? And is this or the Slovene option more frequent in possessor-raising natlangs?

Is the English construction really transitive? Him can be an indirect object as well as a direct one. If it's an oblique object, then it's the equivalent of the Slovene dative.

Cf. German Ich habe ihm ins Auge gestarrt.
1S.NOM have.1S.PRS 3S.M.DAT in.ART.N.ACC.S eye stare.PART

[Cathbad]

Is the English construction really transitive? Him can be an indirect object as well as a direct one. If it's an oblique object, then it's the equivalent of the Slovene dative.

As in "I gave him the book"? That would make sense actually.

[MadBrain]

"I looked at him in the eye" sounds like valid English to me. Afaik, raised possessors aren't very common in English.

I'm trying to find equivalent examples in French, but it's hard because most equivalent verbs (regarder, fixer) are transitive. In fact, I think possessor-raising is forbidden with intransitive verbs. French has a "benefactive" construction though (using dative), which can be extended to a lot of verbs:

Je fais attention à son front
I make attention to his forehead
I watch for his forehead

*Je fais attention à lui dans le front

Je lui fais attention au front
I him.DAT make attention to the forehead
I watch for his forehead

Transitive verbs sometimes allow possessor-raising, but "benefactive" is more common.

Je vise sa jambe
I aim his leg
I aim at his leg

Je le vise dans la jambe
I him.ACC aim in the leg
I aim at him in the leg

Je lui vise la jambe
I him.DAT aim the leg
I aim at his leg

"I stare him in the eyes" might be a calque of French (where the verb is transitive).

Je le regarde droit dans les yeux
I him.ACC look straight in the eyes
I stare him straight in the eyes

[Salmoneus]

Is there really any difference between "I stared him in the eye" and "I shot him in the leg"? It seems to me as though the former is an idiomatic analogy to the latter.

[linguoboy]

Is there really any difference between "I stared him in the eye" and "I shot him in the leg"? It seems to me as though the former is an idiomatic analogy to the latter.

I was wondering about this myself since the problem I have with "I stared him in the forehead" might be due to the thematic relation between subject and object. For me, this use of stare seems to demand at least an Experiencer if not a Patient, and a plain Location just doesn't cut it. Note that it also doesn't work with an Experiencer subject, e.g. *"I saw him in the eyes."

[zompist]

Usually dative "him" can be replaced with a prepositional phrase:

I gave him cookies / I gave cookies to him.
I baked him cookies / I baked cookies for him.

But not here:

I looked him in the eyes / *I looked in the eyes (to, at) him.

Which might suggest that it's not dative. But I resist this since it feels like a dative.

There is a difference between "I stared him in the eye" and "I shot him in the leg": the PP is optional only in the latter:

*I stared him.
I shot him.

As for French, it has expressions like Regarde-moi ce fou!, where the "moi" is clearly benefactive (i.e. "do this for me"), not a direct object.

[Radius Solis]

There is a difference between "I stared him in the eye" and "I shot him in the leg": the PP is optional only in the latter:

*I stared him.
I shot him.

There is a difference in the untransformed versions too:

I shot his leg.
*I stared his eye.

To shoot is normally transitive and to stare is normally not, so I suspect that of being the source of the difference. English possessor raising normally happens with verbs that are transitive transitive to start with, and raise the possessor of what would otherwise be the direct object, as far as I can tell:

I smacked his head -> I smacked him on the head
You kicked its knee -> You kicked it on the knee
etc

Whereas intransitive ones don't seem to work very well for either version, so much so that I'm not sure what sort of example would count as sufficiently similar to the above to be testable. ("I smiled [at his face]/[*him in the face]"?)

So with "stare" we have an anomaly in allowing "I stared him in the eyes" at all, as the verb is not usually transitive. Since I agree with Linguoboy that it is poorly extendable to other body parts - "??I stared him in the toes" - it may just be an idiom that happens to mimic possessor-raising but with the wrong sort of verb.

[Kai_DaiGoji]

"I looked at him in the eye" sounds like valid English to me.

Really? And "I stared him in the forehead" only works for me because it is clearly similar to "I looked him in the eye" - it sounds like something done for comic effect, and without that analogy, wouldn't work.

[zompist]

Hmm. I was wondering if this was a transformation at all, since generally the object can be either a person or a body part:

I kicked him in the nads / I kicked him / I kicked his nads

But I can't explain "I looked him in the eyes" as anything but a case of raising, since we don't have "*I looked him."

("Stared" doesn't work for me, fwiw.)

What are the limits on this transformation? It seems like it has to be a verb of touching or looking; it certaintly isn't any transitive verb:

*I stole him in the bank account.
*I seduced him in the girlfriend.
*I accepted him in the argument.

[Radius Solis]

I think our possessor raising is largely limited to possessors of body parts, and the verbs it's done with have to be semantically compatible with that.

[Salmoneus]

Not seeing it. I know that 'I stared him in the eye' can't be transformed in the same way as 'I shot him in the eye' - but I think that' because it's idiomatic. And I don't see any of it as to do with possession.

I think we've got a mechanism for giving great specifity regarding location. Where did you hit him? In the leg. When you attacked the army, which part did you hit? The flank - you hit them in the flank. There are similar mechanisms with time/manner, too: you can hit them on the run, or you can catch them on the hop.

This mechanism applies to transitive verbs, but at some point we analogised the same construction to some intransitive verbs, like 'look' and 'stare', but the analogous versions obviously can't be transformed in the same way transitive verbs can. It's just that instance that's been analogised.

Look at how little you can change. You aren't free to change the verb: you can look him in the eye, and maybe stare him in the eye (though maybe we can't all do that), but I doubt any of us can glance him in the eye or peek him in the eye or watch him in the eye. We can't always change the object, either: some of us can, and some of us can't, look him in the forehead. Frankly, I'm not sure I'm entirely happy with "staring him in the eyes", rather than "eye", though I can look him in either the eye or the eyes fairly freely.

This (not just the limitations, but the variance between speakers) to me strongly suggests that we're not dealing with a well-formed mechanism, but rather with a few anomolous, idiomatic constructions analogous with the normal leg-shooting mechanism.

I don't think the leg-shooting should be described as to do with possession, because:
a) the objects have to be locations on the (sometimes metaphorical) body; they can't just be possessions, with the exception of a few instances (like 'hitting them in the wallet') that look fairly like metaphorical extensions/analogies. You can't shoot them in the handbag.
b) the verbs are very limited; some verbs take other prepositions instead: you kick them in the balls, but you grab them BY the balls. That example looks exactly the same except for the preposition: but it also looks like a simple prepositional phrase to me
c) in particular, the verbs have to be, at least superficially, to do with physical contact (which implies physical location). You can stab him in the eye, but you can't want him in the eye, even though you can want his eye, and you can't paint him in the eye, even if you paint his eye (and if you could, it would be in the sense of putting paint on/in his eyes, not in the sense of representing it in paint).

So, I don't think this is 'possessor raising'. I think it's just using prepositions to specify the point of physical contact, in which possessive adjectives are replaced by definite articles when the possessor is already the object. And that's then been partially extended to a couple of other verbs as well.

[zompist]

So, I don't think this is 'possessor raising'. I think it's just using prepositions to specify the point of physical contact, in which possessive adjectives are replaced by definite articles when the possessor is already the object.

Well, you're just offering a description instead of calling it a transformation. Only a transformation can be seen as, precisely, a way of describing a construction.

It's like saying "I don't think there's a 'passive transformation'. I think there are just sentences where what's normally an object appears as the subject instead, with the expected subject expressed as a prespositional phrase."

Similarly, there's not much gained, or lost, by talking about "a set of idioms" instead. That's all any syntactic construction is. Still, we'd like to find the extent of the construction as narrowly as possible.

The "hit them on the run / catch them on the hop" constructions are really interesting, though, because if they're the same construction then you're right that it's not linked to possession. It'd be nice to have a good way to distinguish this from a case of V O PP, like "I hit him on Wednesday". At the least, your examples don't fit the triplets I mentioned earlier:

I hit him in the leg / I hit him / I hit his leg
I bound him by the wrists / I bound him / I bound his wrists
I hit him on the run / I hit him / *I hit (on) the run
I caught it on the hop / I caught it / *I caught (on) the hop

Though "I looked him in the eye" is anomalous too, in a different way, since the single-object versions required "looked at".

[zompist]

BTW, I searched a bit for more examples beyond touching or looking, and I didn't find any (not that this is conclusive).

Indeed, there's a subset of touching verbs that would seem to be good candidates, but aren't:

?I cut him on the face.
?I washed him on the feet.
?I rubbed him on the back.
*I broke him on the leg.

And verbs of looking seem limited to "look" and maybe "stare".

On the other hand, it's easy to extend with made-up words:

I fwumped him on the head.

[TomHChappell]

?I cut him on the face.
?I washed him on the feet.
?I rubbed him on the back.
*I broke him on the leg.

I wouldn't have put the question-mark before the "cut" example.