How is English not Accusative-Dechticaetiative?

[spats]

We know English is an accusative (rather than ergative) language, by the way pronouns decline and passives are formed. Historically, English was clearly accusative-dative, as were nearly all European languages. And pretty much everybody says it still is. But I don't think you can make that argument anymore. Consider:

English promotes the Recipient (R), not the Theme (T) in the passive. "John gave Mary the ball" becomes "Mary was given the ball", not *"The ball was given Mary". We need to move R out into a prepositional phrase - effectively making the verb intransitive - in order to promote T: "The ball was given [to Mary] [by John]".

English "oblique" pronouns can only be used in the accusative or in prepositional phrases - except in ditransitive sentences, where they cannot be used in the accusative. Consider *"John gave me it" - this is borderline ungrammatical; it sounds like something a kid would say. "John gave it to me" is the more grammatical construction. Again, in order to have T in the accusative position in the sentence, we need to move R out into a prepositional phrase and make the sentence a simple transitive one. There are only ever a few cases where it's even marginally acceptable to use a bare oblique pronoun for R.

So to sum up:
* When passivizing monotransitive verbs, P is promoted, but when passivizing ditransitive verbs, R is promoted.
* The naked oblique case is used for P in transitive constructions, but R in ditransitive constructions.

Ergo, P=R, not T, and English is dechticaetiative.

[Viktor77]

"John gave me it" is ungrammatical how? It's perfect English to me. They are both perfect English and I can't find one form which is superior over the other; they are both equal and grammatical.

[spats]

"John gave me it" is ungrammatical how? It's perfect English to me. They are both perfect English and I can't find one form which is superior over the other; they are both equal and grammatical.

Maybe it's a dialectical difference. I would never say that. It's even weirder if "me" isn't the recipient:
*John gave him it yesterday.
*John gave us it yesterday.
*John gave you it yesterday.

All three of these are very, very ugly and might not even parse as far as I'm concerned.

Compare to these, which should be correct:
John gave it to him yesterday.
John gave it to us yesterday.
John gave it to you yesterday.

Also, is English your first language? The "incorrect" construction would seem completely natural to almost anyone who speaks a VSO, continental European language. That it doesn't to a native speaker, to me, is more evidence that English differs in its alignment.

[Herra Ratatoskr]

I'm a native English speaker (grew up in the Bay Area of California, living in the Midwest since about 1995, for dialectical ID purposes), and the "ungrammatical" sentences are all perfectly fine for me. They may be somewhat more "marked" for me, but they are all things I would have no trouble parsing, and would say from time to time.

[Salmoneus]

"John gave me it" is perfectly grammatical, and probably the preferred phrasing, in SSBE. Well, not preferred, because of the 'it' - it's not unusual to say 'gave it to me' to make it clear when there are two pronouns. But with a noun rather than a pronoun, it's definitely preferred - "I gave John the documents", not "I gave the documents to John".

Regarding the other: I don't understand your point. It can be passivised in two ways: and if you make the theme the agent, the recipient REMAINS oblique, as it would be in your ordinary active! " to Mary" vs "[The ball was given by me] to Mary" - the oblique remains outside the core arrangement. And in my ordinary active, the passivisation actually pushes Mary from an indirect object to an oblique.

Also, not all ditransitives can be passivised in two ways. The passive of "we elected him Senator" makes the alignment, and that of "I wished him luck" also strongly suggests it.

[Travis B.]

"John gave me it" is ungrammatical how? It's perfect English to me. They are both perfect English and I can't find one form which is superior over the other; they are both equal and grammatical.

Maybe it's a dialectical difference. I would never say that. It's even weirder if "me" isn't the recipient:
*John gave him it yesterday.
*John gave us it yesterday.
*John gave you it yesterday.

All three of these are very, very ugly and might not even parse as far as I'm concerned. Compare:
John gave it to him yesterday.
John gave it to us yesterday.
John gave it to you yesterday.

Also, is English your first language? The "incorrect" construction would seem completely natural to almost anyone who speaks a VSO, continental European language. That it doesn't to a native speaker, to me, is more evidence that English differs in its alignment.

Those forms that you marked as being "incorrect" are most certainly very natural to me, in the English I am familiar with. Actually, they are far more natural to me (both personally and with respect to what I am used to hearing) than the latter three forms, which seem somewhat awkward. If anything, I am wondering if English is your native language here...

(For the record, I grew up in southeastern Wisconsin and speak a dialect from there, despite currently living out in Maryland.)

[spats]

Before I continue, I will concede that I cannot speak to how non-American English forms these constructions. It's possible that my arguments only apply to AmE.

"John gave me it" is perfectly grammatical, and probably the preferred phrasing, in SSBE. Well, not preferred, because of the 'it' - it's not unusual to say 'gave it to me' to make it clear when there are two pronouns. But with a noun rather than a pronoun, it's definitely preferred - "I gave John the documents", not "I gave the documents to John".

Perhaps I wasn't clear in what I was trying to say.
"I gave John the documents." is perfectly good English, because English ditransitives have a default order A-V-R-T.

We can also use an unmarked oblique pronoun in the R role:
"I gave him the book."

What doesn't work is when you try to use an unmarked, oblique pronoun in the T role:
"I gave John it."
"I gave him it."

In these cases, you need to use a monotransitive construction and put the R in a prepositional phrase:
"I gave it to John."
"I gave it to him."

The fact that the unmarked oblique pronoun patterns with P and R but not T suggests dechticaetiative alignment.

Regarding the other: I don't understand your point. It can be passivised in two ways: and if you make the theme the agent, the recipient REMAINS oblique, as it would be in your ordinary active! " to Mary" vs "[The ball was given by me] to Mary" - the oblique remains outside the core arrangement. And in my ordinary active, the passivisation actually pushes Mary from an indirect object to an oblique.

We can arrange the words of the sentence in almost any order by using enough prepositions. But the unmarked constituents only pattern a certain way, at least IMD:
1. John gave Mary the book.
2. Mary was given the book [by John].
3. The book was given [to Mary] [by John].

You'll notice that the third example could be analyzed as a further passivization of the second.

Also, not all ditransitives can be passivised in two ways. The passive of "we elected him Senator" makes the alignment, and that of "I wished him luck" also strongly suggests it.

And assuming both of these can be analyzed A-V-R-T, both passivize to R-V-T (if at all), which further supports R patterning with P (i.e. non-dative alignment).

[spats]

"John gave me it" is ungrammatical how? It's perfect English to me. They are both perfect English and I can't find one form which is superior over the other; they are both equal and grammatical.

Maybe it's a dialectical difference. I would never say that. It's even weirder if "me" isn't the recipient:
*John gave him it yesterday.
*John gave us it yesterday.
*John gave you it yesterday.

All three of these are very, very ugly and might not even parse as far as I'm concerned.

Compare to these, which should be more correct:
John gave it to him yesterday.
John gave it to us yesterday.
John gave it to you yesterday.

Also, is English your first language? The "incorrect" construction would seem completely natural to almost anyone who speaks a VSO, continental European language. That it doesn't to a native speaker, to me, is more evidence that English differs in its alignment.

Those forms that you marked as being "incorrect" are most certainly very natural to me, in the English I am familiar with. Actually, they are far more natural to me (both personally and with respect to what I am used to hearing) than the latter three forms, which seem somewhat awkward. If anything, I am wondering if English is your native language here...

I've edited my original post to be more clear. So you think the first three are more grammatical than the second three?

[Travis B.]

Before I continue, I will concede that I cannot speak to how non-American English forms these constructions. It's possible that my arguments only apply to AmE.

Umm... note that the only person in this thread who isn't an American is Salmoneus...

"John gave me it" is perfectly grammatical, and probably the preferred phrasing, in SSBE. Well, not preferred, because of the 'it' - it's not unusual to say 'gave it to me' to make it clear when there are two pronouns. But with a noun rather than a pronoun, it's definitely preferred - "I gave John the documents", not "I gave the documents to John".

Perhaps I wasn't clear in what I was trying to say.
"I gave John the documents." is perfectly good English, because English ditransitives have a default order A-V-R-T.

We can also use an unmarked oblique pronoun in the R role:
"I gave him the book."

What doesn't work is when you try to use an unmarked, oblique pronoun in the T role:
"I gave John it."
"I gave him it."

These are perfectly grammatical as far as I know of in English, with the meaning intended...

In these cases, you need to use a monotransitive construction and put the R in a prepositional phrase:
"I gave it to John."
"I gave it to him."

Those forms are grammatical, but are not necessary in any way, shape, or form. Actually, these to me are less natural than the forms you say are "ungrammatical" above.

The fact that the unmarked oblique pronoun patterns with P and R but not T suggests dechticaetiative alignment.

Considering that seems quite doubtful from just here, even in the most trivial cases, I would highly doubt that the argument would work well when taken even further...

[Travis B.]

"John gave me it" is ungrammatical how? It's perfect English to me. They are both perfect English and I can't find one form which is superior over the other; they are both equal and grammatical.

Maybe it's a dialectical difference. I would never say that. It's even weirder if "me" isn't the recipient:
*John gave him it yesterday.
*John gave us it yesterday.
*John gave you it yesterday.

All three of these are very, very ugly and might not even parse as far as I'm concerned.

Compare to these, which should be more correct:
John gave it to him yesterday.
John gave it to us yesterday.
John gave it to you yesterday.

Also, is English your first language? The "incorrect" construction would seem completely natural to almost anyone who speaks a VSO, continental European language. That it doesn't to a native speaker, to me, is more evidence that English differs in its alignment.

Those forms that you marked as being "incorrect" are most certainly very natural to me, in the English I am familiar with. Actually, they are far more natural to me (both personally and with respect to what I am used to hearing) than the latter three forms, which seem somewhat awkward. If anything, I am wondering if English is your native language here...

I've edited my original post to be more clear. So you think the first three are more grammatical than the second three?

Yes. In particular, I am used to dative constructions being used with give, and do not have any restrictions with regard to how prepositions can be used in dative constructions. While the use of to here is grammatical to me, it still seems awkward and unnatural to me as well.

[spats]

What doesn't work is when you try to use an unmarked, oblique pronoun in the T role:
"I gave John it."
"I gave him it."

These are perfectly grammatical as far as I know of in English, with the meaning intended...

In these cases, you need to use a monotransitive construction and put the R in a prepositional phrase:
"I gave it to John."
"I gave it to him."

Those forms are grammatical, but are not necessary in any way, shape, or form. Actually, these to me are less natural than the forms you say are "ungrammatical" above.

Hrm. Then we have a bit of a conundrum, since we're both native AmE speakers and seem to disagree here.

("I gave John it" sounds correct? Really?)

Is "Give him it" more grammatical to you than "Give it to him"?

Also, can anyone provide a good non-diachronic argument that English is dative? (Yeah, I'm moving the goalposts a bit, but I still think P patterns with R more than it does with T, regardless of what sounds "correct" to y'all.)

[Viktor77]

As a Great Lakes speaker they are both equally grammatical in construction and sound.

I'm also with Travis in that "John gave it to him yesterday" is a little more awkward than "John gave him it yesterday." But then I hate to use the word "awkward" because it's more just uncommon in speech. They both sound perfectly fine to me and I've used them both interchangeably.

[Travis B.]

Hrm. Then we have a bit of a conundrum, since we're both native AmE speakers and seem to disagree here.

("I gave John it" sounds correct? Really?)

Yes.

Is "Give him it" more grammatical to you than "Give it to him"?

Yes.

[spats]

Hrm. Then we have a bit of a conundrum, since we're both native AmE speakers and seem to disagree here.

("I gave John it" sounds correct? Really?)

Yes.

Is "Give him it" more grammatical to you than "Give it to him"?

Yes.

I suppose I've learned something today.

Midwesterners are weird.

[Viktor77]

Midwesterners are weird.

Please tell us your state.

[spats]

Midwesterners are weird.

Please tell us your state.

From MA, parents from MA and NY, living in VA.
Lived in downstate IL for a bit, but it evidently didn't affect my opinion on this particular topic.

Also, Viktor, does "I gave John it" sound awkward or natural to you?

[Viktor77]

Midwesterners are weird.

Please tell us your state.

From MA, parents from MA and NY, living in VA.
Lived in downstate IL for a bit, but it evidently didn't affect my opinion on this particular topic.

Also, Viktor, does "I gave John it" sound awkward or natural to you?

That's a toughie. I'll admit that I probably wouldn't say 'I gave John it" in speech. I've heard it but it does seem a bit lower class. I would more likely say 'I gave it to John."

[LinguistCat]

I'm from (southern) California, most of the people I grew up with have lived in California most if not all their lives, Mom and Dad both grew up in So Cal, the grandmother I grew up with was originally from Ohio, and the grandfather I grew up with was from New Jersey. Unless you count Ohio as Midwestern, there is no Midwestern influence on my speech that I can account for. I'd still say, 9 times out of ten, I would prefer "I gave John it" to "I gave it to John."

[Mecislau]

I'm going to have to agree with Travis 100% here.

[finlay]

Before I continue, I will concede that I cannot speak to how non-American English forms these constructions. It's possible that my arguments only apply to AmE.

Haha, this'll blow your mind then, and probably just make the thread even more confusing: In vast swathes of mostly northern areas of England, as well as "he gave me it" (which by the way is perfectly grammatical in most "standard" varieties of English and it's the way I would teach in EFL – incidentally, if you think as you wrote there that it's kind of grammatical but sounds like something a child might say, you're kind of supposed to put a question mark rather than an asterisk, to mark that it's questionable rather than ungrammatical. They often tend to become better when you put longer NPs in the place of one of the pronouns – less people would mark "he gave me the book" as questionable, and less still would mark "he gave me the book about Marxist ideology that was written by Trotsky" as questionable) you also get another order, "he gave it me", with the order subject-verb-direct object-indirect object. (It means "he gave it to me" rather than "he gave me to it") Suck on that for a while, why don't you?

(Sure, it's "non-standard" and stigmatised, but it happens all the time. I say it sometimes due to the influence of introspection in syntax classes and having lived in the north of England for 5 years – and the fact that I trip over my words all the time anyway – I don't know whether you would normally hear it in Scotland, for instance.)

I don't like "I gave John it". I'd put a question mark next to that one personally. But "I gave John the book" is fine – see my point about longer NPs from above. Anyway, we studied this a lot in sociolinguistics classes. I think it's an area my supervisor was particularly interested in.

[finlay]

Hrm. Then we have a bit of a conundrum, since we're both native AmE speakers and seem to disagree here.

("I gave John it" sounds correct? Really?)

Yes.

Is "Give him it" more grammatical to you than "Give it to him"?

Yes.

in short, I would say No to the first question, Yes to the second*, and add "Give it him" as a third option that is stigmatised and I don't think native to my geolect, insofar as I have one, but makes its way out my mouth sometimes.

* actually, I'd just say they sound equally grammatical, but the first is easier to say, and more likely to actually be said.

[spats]

less people would mark "he gave me the book" as questionable

*sigh*

Nobody would mark that questionable, because it's the normal, unmarked word order for ditransitive sentences in English.

My point wasn't that there's anything unusual or wrong about "he gave me the book". In fact, it was that "he gave me the book" is relatively more grammatical/natural than "he gave John it" or "he gave us it". Specifically, to point out that English oblique pronouns can be used naturally in the R slot of ditransitives, but sound a little funny when used in the T slot.

Thus demonstrating that (at least my flavor of) English patterns P with R, not T, and is therefore underlyingly dechticaetiative.

Let's treat English as if it were an unknown, mostly isolating language. We'll call it "Language X".

Language X has no case marking on nouns and almost no verbal agreement, and word order is fairly rigid. Only pronouns are marked for case. One case is purely possessive/genitive, which will be ignored. One case of pronoun is used consistently as the Subject (S) in intransitive sentences, the Actor (A) in transitive sentences, and the Donor (D) in ditransitive sentences. One case of pronoun is used consistently as the Patient (P) in transitive sentences, the Recipient (R) in ditransitive sentences, and the object of prepositions. Depending on dialect, it can also be used as the Topic (T) of ditransitive sentences, but is potentially questionable in that use. Unmarked word order is SV in intransitive sentences, AVP in transitive sentences, and DVRT in ditransitive sentences.

Furthermore, language X allows valency reduction using an auxiliary verb (a) before the main verb; the eliminated argument (A) can be reintroduced using a prepositional (typically causative) phrase (pA) after the verb and its arguments. Transitive sentences are reduced to intransitive in the following manner:
AVP -> PaV[pA]

Ditransitive sentences can undergo similar valency reduction twice, removing D and R respectively:
DVRT -> RaVT[pD] -> TaV[pR][pD]

They can also undergo a shift which eliminates only R and does not require an auxiliary:
DVRT -> DVT[pR]

Note that in all of these, the case of pronoun used reflects the new role/position in the sentence.

Now, what is the morphosyntactic alignment of this language?

[Mecislau]

My point wasn't that there's anything unusual or wrong about "he gave me the book". In fact, it was that "he gave me the book" is relatively more grammatical/natural than "he gave John it" or "he gave us it". Specifically, to point out that English oblique pronouns can be used naturally in the R slot of ditransitives, but sound a little funny when used in the T slot.

Except that so far you're the only one that that's true for. I would completely disagree with the italicized "more" in that statement.

[EDIT: To clarify: I think "He gave us it" is 100% natural, and I find it incredibly weird that you question its being grammatical. "He gave John it" is a bit more marked, but is a far cry from being ungrammatical; in particular I would use this order if I'm trying to emphasize "John", as in "He gave John it, but not Joe."]



So maybe you can say that's true for your [idio/dia]lect, but certainly not for American English, much less English as a whole.

[spats]

My point wasn't that there's anything unusual or wrong about "he gave me the book". In fact, it was that "he gave me the book" is relatively more grammatical/natural than "he gave John it" or "he gave us it". Specifically, to point out that English oblique pronouns can be used naturally in the R slot of ditransitives, but sound a little funny when used in the T slot.

Except that so far you're the only one that that's true for. I would completely disagree with the italicized "more" in that statement.

So maybe you can say that's true for your [idio/dia]lect, but certainly not for American English, much less English as a whole.

Which is fine, I suppose. So what about the alignment of ditransitives? Does English pattern as a dative language, a dechticaetiative language, or neither? Why? I think the strategy for passivization is enough evidence to argue for dechticaetiative, regardless of oblique pronouns being used in the T slot, but maybe I'm just wrong.

[TaylorS]

I believe WALS describes "he gave me it" as a double object construction, neither dative or dechticaetiative.

As for passives, "I was given it by him" and "it was given to me by him" are grammatical for me, bit something like "it was given me by him" is not.