Ditransitive Verbs

Resumo: O objetivo principal do presente texto é propor uma análise para as construções ditransitivas do português brasileiro (PB), com verbos de transferência/movimento e verbos de criação, cujo objeto preposicionado é introduzido pelas preposições " a " ou " para ". Ao longo do artigo, demonstrarei que as preposições introdutoras de objetos indiretos (OIs) em PB possuem obrigatoriamente um conteúdo semântico. Portanto, diferentemente do português europeu (PE), a variante brasileira não faz parte das línguas que possuem alternância dativa (cf. Larson 1988, Marantz 1993, Pylkkänen 2002), pois a mesma não apresenta núcleo aplicativo em seu inventário de projeções funcionais. Logo, minha hipótese é que as construções ditransitivas do PB apresentam um núcleo funcional PP como parte da estrutura interna do seu sintagma preposicional.
Abstract: The main focus of this paper is to propose an approach to ditransitive constructions in Brazilian Portuguese (BP) with dynamic verbs of transfer and movement as well as creation verbs. In BP, the indirect objects (IOs) that accompany these verbs can be introduced by two distinct prepositions: " a " and " para ". Throughout this text, I will demonstrate that these prepositions have a lexical interpretation in BP. Therefore, differently from European Portuguese (EP), the Brazilian variety does not participate in the dative alternation (cf. Larson 1988, Marantz 1993, Pylkkänen 2002), as it does not have applicative heads in its argument structure. Thus, I assume that the ditransitive sentences in BP have a pP head as part of the internal structure of its prepositional phrase.

The principal aim of this essay is to analyse ditransitive auxiliary verbs in indicative and non-indicative periphrasis in High-Navarrese dialect, in texts written before 1750. Therefore, *eradun, *nin and *erazan auxiliary verbs are observed systematically in order to make a new proposal about their chronology and extension.

Key words: High-Navarrese, ditransitive verbs, *eradun, *nin, *erazan, dialectalization

Saio honek goi-nafarrerazko NOR-NORI-NORK saileko perifrasietako aditz laguntzaileez dihardu, eta horretarako 1750. urtea baino lehenagoko goi-nafarrerazko lekukotasunetan sistematikoki begiratu dira sail horretako aditz laguntzaileak. Hori dela eta, *eradun, *nin eta *erazan laguntzaileen agerraldiak aztertu eta beren kronologiaz eta hedaduraz proposamen berria egiten da.

Hitz gakoak: goi-nafarrera, Nor-Nori-Nork saileko aditz laguntzaileak, *eradun, *nin, *erazan, dialektalizazioa.

Although there is some literature on compound and complex verbs (Boyé 1999, Pokharel 1999, Lohani 2003), as well as on finite verbs (Genetti 1999), no work has been done on three-argument verbs and the ways they code arguments in Nepali. This paper is the first work which describes three-argument verb constructions in Nepali. The linguistic data for this paper was mostly collected following the Questionnaire on Ditransitive Constructions (Comrie et al. 2009) and the ditransitive paper (Malchukov et al. 2009). It describes and analyses the coding properties and different types of syntactic alignments. It also addresses the effect of animacy and definiteness in differential object marking in Nepali.1 Moreover, it also deals with the behavioural properties of three-argument constructions with regard to a number of syntactic constructions such as passivization, incorporation, constituent questions, reciprocalization, reflexivization, relativization and Quantifier float.

The western spoken vernaculars are all constrained to treat the two pronominal objects of a ditransitive verb with a prepositional dative construction, while the eastern vernaculars usually treat them with a pronominal double object accusative, marking the direct object with the so-called "accusative pronoun" iyyā-. The hypothesis is presented here that the Arabic dialects exhibiting a categorical use of the dative shift are descended from western Peninsular dialects. This helps to explain a dispute that the early grammarian of Arabic Sībawayhi had with unnamed colleagues who were apparently presenting to him a dative construction, one that he, misreading, marked as ungrammatical.

This article presents empirical and theoretical arguments that challenge several received ideas regarding double-object constructions in Romance languages. First, I argue that the syntactic and semantic differences that, according to much prior literature, hold between Spanish ditransitives with and without dative clitic doubling do not hold, at least for many speakers. Specifically, there are nondoubled Spanish ditransitives that are to be analyzed as double-object constructions, not as prepositional constructions; the optional presence of dative clitic doubling in double-object constructions reduces to a mere surface difference of spellout of the Low Applicative head that relates the indirect object and the direct object and is responsible for the transfer-of-possession interpretation. Next, I explore some theoretical consequences of these novel empirical observations regarding dative clitic doubling, showing that arguments for a base structure for Spanish/Romance double-object constructions in which the direct object is higher than the indirect object are not viable, since in the absence of dative clitic doubling it is not possible to account for the c-command facts. Lastly, I show that my analysis of double-object constructions extends to other languages in the Romance family where dative clitic doubling in ditransitives is optional, such as Catalan, as well as to Romance languages that do not have dative clitic doubling but arguably do have double-object constructions, such as French and Italian.

Resumo

O objetivo desta tese é discutir uma mudança diacrônica na introdução dos argumentos indiretos das sentenças ditrasitivas do português brasileiro (PB). Desde o século XIX, o PB iniciou uma reanálise das estratégias possíveis para a introdução de seus objetos inidretos (OI), generalizando o uso da preposição lexical para em detrimento da preposição anos contextos de verbos ditransitivos de movimento, transferência e criação – dar, enviar, preparar, respectivamente. Ao mesmo tempo em que ocorreu essa mudança na preposição introdutora dos OIs, a expressão morfológica do argumento dativo – representada pelo clítico dativo de terceira pessoa lhe(s) – também foi substituída por outras estratégias, tais como objetos pronominais – para / a ele(s)/ ela(s)(cf. Gomes, 2003; Freire, 2005; Torres Morais & Berlinck, 2006, 2007; Torres Morais & Salles 2010). Dessa forma, o PB não possui mais a expressão de caso dativo, nem através da preposição funcional a, nem do clítico dativo lhe(s), portanto assumirei que, diferentemente do PE, a introdução dos argumentos indiretos em PB não pode ser feita através de núcleos aplicativos. Assim sendo, o PB passou de um tipo de língua que apresentava evidência de Caso dativo para uma variante na qual apenas Caso oblíquo é atribuído ao OI por meio de preposições transitivas lexicais. Desse modo, proponho que os argumentos indiretos em PB são introduzidos por um núcleo pP em camadas (cf. Svenonius 2003, 2004, 2007; Wood 2012). De acordo com a literatura, o sintagma preposicionado envolve uma ‘preposição leve’ p e um P, assim como as categorias v e V do domínio verbal. Seguindo os conceitos de Figura e Fundo primeiramente propostos por Talmy (1985), o objeto direto tema seria a Figura e deve ser introduzido no especificar de p,seu complemento é um argumento Fundo – nesse caso, o objeto indireto - é acompanhado de uma preposição transitiva e introduzido na estrutura argumental por PP. Considerando que o núcleo p não é a projeção mais alta capaz de introduz argumentos no domínio local relevante, pois vP legitima uma relação agentiva acima de pP, esse núcleo pP torna-se perfeitamente capaz de introduzir a relação temática estabelecida pelo OD e pelo OI das sentenças ditransitivas relevantes. Esse fato confirma a proposta de Cuervo, segundo a qual verbos ditransitivos não selecionam dois argumentos separadamente e, sim, uma relação estabelecida entre os mesmos. Nesses moldes, a ditransitividade é apenas uma noção descritiva e os verbos ditos ditransitivos seriam, na realidade, parte do conjunto de verbos monotransitivos non-core (cf. Levin 1999). Assumo, portanto, que a existência da preposição lexical para em PE e PB histórico possibilitou uma reanálise na introdução dos argumentos indiretos do PB atual. Partindo de Chomsky (2005), consequentemente a variação paramétrica encontrada no PB emerge da interação entre uma Gramática Universal (GU) subespecificada, PLD (dados linguísticos primários) e do Fator 3, cujas principais manifestações são aEconomia de Traços e Generalização do Input(cf. Biberauer & Roberts 2015). Considerando essa abordagem, discuto que a presença da preposição para no conjunto de possibilidades para introduzir argumentos indiretos em PE e PB histórico, associada à perda do clítico dativo lhe(s), foram o gatilho para que as crianças brasileiras generalizassem o uso de preposições transitivas na introdução de OIs no lugar de elementos funcionais, tais como a preposição a em PE. Por fim, com o intuito de apresentar uma análise abrangente desse processo de mudança histórica no PB, analisei um corpus jornalístico composto pelas primeiras capas da Folha de São Paulo entre as décadas de 1920 e os anos 2000, recolhidas do livro “90 anos de história nas capas mais importantes da Folha”.

Palavras chave: estrutura argumental, ditransitivas, preposições, português brasileiro
Abstract


The aim of this paper is to discuss a diachronic change in the introduction of indirect arguments in Brazilian Portuguese (BP). Since the 19th century, BP has initiated a reanalysis of the possible strategies to head indirect objects (IO) bygeneralizing the use of the full preposition  para‘to’ instead of the preposition a in  ditransitive sentences with verbs of movement, transfer and creation – as dar ‘give’, enviar ‘send’ and preparar ‘prepare’, respectively. Alongside with the substitution of the prepositions stated above, the morphological notation of the dative argument - represented by the third person clitic lhe(s) – has also been replaced by other strategies, such as 3rd person pronouns preceded by para-  para ele(s)/ ela(s) ‘to him/ her/ them’; dele (a)(s) ‘his/her/hers/their(s) - (1) and (2) (cf. Gomes, 2003; Freire,2005; Torres Morais & Berlinck, 2006, 2007; Torres Morais & Salles 2010). Hence, as BP cannot express the dative case anymore, nor via a functional preposition, nor by its morphologic counterpart (the dative clitic lhe), it has also lost the possibility of introducing dative elements in its argument structure by an applicative head. Thus, BP has shifted from a type of language which has evidence for Case, as EP, to one where Case is assigned via lexical prepositions. Consequently, the indirect arguments in BP are always headed by a lexical preposition and are introduced in the argument structure via a p head. According to Svenonius (2003, 2004, 2007) and Wood (2012), the hypothesis of a pP head comes from the possibility of drawing a parallel between the pP domain and the vP domain, in the sense that the prepositional structure involves a ‘light preposition’ p and a P in the same way as categories v and V. Following from Talmy (1985), the direct objet is a Figure argument which can be introduced in the Spec position of the pP projection, its complement is a Ground argument - namely, the IO - which is introduced by a transitive preposition in the PP head. Moreover, oncethe head p is not the higher head capable of introducing arguments in the relevant local domain – asvP legitimates an agentive relation above pP. This means that p can be responsible for holding a thematic relation. Therefore, this crucially confirms Cuervo’s proposal (2010) that ditransitive verbs do not require two separate arguments, but, in fact, select a relationbetween the DO and the IO. Thus, ditransitivityis, in fact, only a descriptive notion perceived on the surface and the so-called ditransitive verbs are part of the non-core transitive verb inventory (cf.  Levin 1999).  I assume that the existence of the lexical preposition para in EP and histotical BP enabled the reanalysis discussed above for BP. Following on from Chomsky (2005), the kind of parametric variation, illustrated here with the BP facts, emerges from the interaction of an underspecifiedUG, PLD (primary linguistic data)and Factor 3, whose main manifestations are Feature Economy and Input Generalization (cf. Biberauer & Roberts 2015). Thus, I argue that the presence of the preposition para ‘to’ in the inventory of possibilities to introduce indirect arguments in EP and historical BP, coupled with the loss of the dative lhe(s), were the trigger for Brazilian children to generalize the use of these full prepositions to introduce all IOs instead of the functional preposition a, as in  EP. Finally, in order to make a more thorough analysis of this historical change in BP, I analyzed a corpus of first pages from a Brazilian newspaper, “Folha de São Paulo” collected in the monograph “90 anos de história nas capas mais importantes da Folha” (“90 years of History through the most importante cover pages of Folha”), which spans the 20th century with 223 covers from 1920 to 2010.

Keywords: argument structure, ditransitives, prepositions, Brazilian Portuguese

This paper aims to examine the behaviour of the equivalents of 'give' in Lhasa Tibetan in order to confirm, qualify or invalidate the universal tendencies that previous cross-linguistic research has unveiled (Newman 1996, Ed., 1997). We will first explore the semantic relations between the various forms that can express 'give' in Tibetan: SPRAD, BTANG, GNANG and PHUL, on the basis of previous lexicographic and descriptive research on Lhasa Tibetan, as well as a corpus of spoken Lhasa Tibetan (TSC). We will see that the most basic term (SPRAD) has not developed much beyond its literal meaning, whereas the hypernymic BTANG is used as a light verb whose constructions can be divided into several categories of meaning. GNANG is the honorific form of SPRAD, and PHUL is its humilific form. While SPRAD is not used as a light verb, its honorific and humilific counterparts are very productive light verbs. To explain this phenomenon, we will explore the honorific domain, and its systematisation in. We will see that the humilific plane is not the symmetrical opposite of the honorific plane. We will also explore the productivity of GNANG and PHUL, which can be explained by the fact that giving is one of the most basic interpersonal actions of the human behavioural repertoire. It therefore establishes a link between two humans, which is essential in order for the honorific and humilific notions to emerge.

This paper shows that there are two ditransitive alignment types in Ainu, viz. a frequently-used double-object construction (doc) and infrequently-used indirective object construction (ioc). Ainu ditransitives encoded by the doc are unusual cross-linguistically because all of them, including the verb kor-e [have-caus] ‘give’, are derived by causative, applicative or applicative-causative derivations. I argue that the ioc is possible in Ainu only either with those verbs which have no applicative (three-argument) counterparts or with ditransitive verbs of a slightly extended ditransitive case frame including Source/inanimate Goal instead of Recipient proper. Comparing the formal properties of the doc encoded ditransitives and those of other three-argument constructions, I claim that Ainu presents a
counterexample to Kittilä’s (2006) Universal 1, since the so-called most typical ditransitive verb ‘give’, viz. the derived verb kor-e lit. ‘make/let sb have sth’ in Ainu, is outranked in formal transitivity by the underived three-argument verb o ‘put/place sth (pl) on sth’ of a non-ditransitive case frame.

In this study, we revisit the history of the English dative and benefactive alternations in the light of De Smet et al.'s (2018) model of language change. Countering traditional competition models, this model admits that the degree of functional overlap between two distinct linguistic units may increase over time, a process the authors label attraction, which ultimately rests on analogy. Adopting this perspective , we propose that the restructuring of these alternations took place over at least the following four stages: 1) in Old English, the double object construction (DOC) is found with verbs of transfer such as give and send as well as verbs of creation and (possibly) pure benefaction, coding both dative and benefactive scenarios ; 2) starting from the Middle English period, attraction takes place between DOC and a periphrastic construction featuring the preposition to (to-POC) with transfer verbs such as give as well as verbs of creation such as make; 3) later on, possibly from the end of the Middle English period, to-POC with verbs of creation such as make disappears in favour of DOC and a new periphrastic construction featuring the preposition for (for-POC), used also with verbs of pure benefaction; 4) the last stage involves the shedding of pure benefaction from DOC, which instead is still found with for-POC.

East Caucasian languages feature a cross-linguistically rare presence of two alternative ways to express Recipients with the verb ‘give’. This feature is consistently present throughout the family and displays amazingly subtle semantic parallels in all its languages. At first glance, the distinction between two Recipients seems to be a very elaborate semantic opposition that is more expected of a legal cobweb than of a linguistic
system. I suggest that in fact the difference lies in two different conceptualizations of the Recipient - as Goal vs. Beneficiary (prospective Possessor), well know from various approaches to the Dative but realized in East Caucasian in a very peculiar morphosyntactic pattern.

A close look at three Bantu object marking parameters reveals two gaps: 1. there are no asymmetric languages with non-doubling object marking; 2 there are almost no asymmetric languages with multiple object marking. However, the three parameters cannot be reduced to two. Instead, I propose that obligatory marking of prominence in the clausal and/or non-clausal domain explains the first gap. The spread or clustering of ϕ probes on heads might be involved in the second gap. The geographical distribution of the parameters settings suggests that doubling and multiple object markers are innovations.

This resource is a 240,000-word corpus of spoken Cameroon Pidgin English (CPE), a widely-used yet stigmatised and largely uncodified pidgin/creole variety. The corpus consists of transcriptions of private and public dialogues and monologues, with mark-up and POS-tagging, together with accompanying sound files. The recordings were conducted in five different locations in Cameroon (Bamenda, Buea, Douala, Kumba and Yaounde), allowing some insights into regional variation. Text categories and the proportions of monologue and dialogue are guided by those of the International Corpus of English (ICE) project, which makes the corpus immediately comparable with existing corpora of post-colonial varieties of English. Spelling: since there is no standardised orthography for CPE, the orthography adopted for this project is based on that developed by Ayafor (2014), which was kept under review during the course of the project. Annotation was added to the transcriptions based on ICE guidelines for...

Since Bossong (1985), referential hierarchies have proven useful in accounting for patterns of differential object marking (DOM) in monotransitive clauses. More recent studies (Siewierska 1998; Haspelmath 2005; Bickel 2008; papers in this volume) have also shown the relevance of such hierarchies in explaining the alignment patterns of ditransitive verbs – that is, how languages treat formally the Theme and the recipient or Goal. Araki, a highly endangered Oceanic language of Vanuatu, not only shows DOM with its transitive verbs, but is also sensitive to referential properties of arguments in its handling of ditransitive alignment. On a hierarchy defined by the features [local] (i.e. speech-act participant) and [human], the higher-ranking participant receives the status of object, while the other one is demoted to a peripheral role. The result is a pattern of regular alternation between indirective and secundative alignment, depending on the relative properties of the Theme and the Goal. The present article will describe these patterns, and discuss cases of variation. Ultimately, rules of ditransitive alignment in Araki can be explained functionally as a competition between non-agent participants on a scale of affectedness.

This paper is case study of three-argument verbs in the Southeastern subbranch of Kiranti, a Sino-Tibetan group of language spoken in Nepal. The data that we have available for exploring ditransitives comes from two languages of the group: Chintang and Belhare.

The goal of this paper is to propose an explanation for ditransitive constructions in Brazilian Portuguese (BP) taking into consideration a change in the realization of its prepositional phrase. Since the 19 th century, BP has initiated a reanalysis of the possible strategies to head indirect arguments by generalizing the use of the prepositions 'a'(to) and 'para' (to) in the context of ditransitive sentences. Alongside with this change, the morphological notation for the dative argument – the 3 rd person clitic 'lhe(s)' – was also replaced by other strategies, such as 3 rd person pronouns preceded by full prepositions – 'para/a ele(s),ela(s)' (to him, her, them). Therefore, I assume that these facts are evidence that BP has shifted from the type of language with morphological dative case to one with only structural oblique Case.

Saio honek goi-nafarrerazko NOR-NORI-NORK saileko perifrasietako aditz laguntzaileez dihardu, eta horretarako 1750. urtea baino lehenagoko goi-nafarrerazko lekukotasunetan sistematikoki begiratu dira sail horretako aditz laguntzaileak. Hori dela eta, *eradun, *nin eta *erazan laguntzaileen agerraldiak aztertu eta beren kronologiaz eta hedaduraz proposamen berria egiten da.

Ditransitive verbs with pronominal arguments as direct and indirect objects are primarily realized by peculiar morpho-syntactic complexes in JB. Three strategies may be employed to build these complexes, each combines its constituents in a different manner. This paper aims, first and foremost, to describe the different strategies from a morpho-syntactic perspective. Some intriguing cases of marking asymmetry or uncanonical marking will be discussed along the description and will be explained in morpho-phonetic or historical terms. Lastly, the ditransitive complexes will be compared to each other and to alternative direct and indirect object marking vehicles in an effort to account for their specific function or interpretive effect. It will be shown that some marking vehicles represent a pragmatic nuance but others, especially those in which a syntactic role is marked twice, are used due to intrinsic syntactic constraints.

In this talk, I introduced the different types of ditransitive constructions in Surgut Khanty (Ugric, Finno-Ugric, Uralic). The presentation was given at the Össznyelvész conference at the Eötvös Loránd University (Budapest) on 10th November 2017.

This paper is concerned with syntactic and semantic properties of ditransitive constructions in standard and dialectal German. A higher or lower extent of ‘ditransitivity’ can be observed by means of these properties. Canonical ditransitives, for instance, vary by allowing (geben ‘to give’) or prohibiting (gönnen ‘to grant’) a contextual ellipsis of the dative object. In addition, whether the proto-patient is either a concrete or an abstract noun can change the ditransitivity of the same construction. Non-canonical ditransitives (which contain e. g. complex predicates, certain APs or PPs that expand the valency of transitive verbs, a so-called ‘free dative’, or a ditransitive adjective) often remain unattended by studies on ditransitives. But none of these patterns differ from canonical geben with respect to their syntactic and semantic properties. Finally, only light verb constructions whose objects are categorically restricted represent the divide between (non-)canonical and idiomatic ditransitives.

The paper investigates two classes of verbs in the Naikhin dialect of Nanai (Tungusic; spoken mostly in the Russian Far East) that demonstrate a certain instability with respect to their argument structure in a situation where there is contact with Russian, the dominating language of the region. The avalent verbs tend to acquire a subject, thus turning into intransitives, while ditransitive verbs reduce the original number of possible argument encoding strategies and preserve the dative-accusative pattern only. The general claim of this article is that although there might be some other reasons (structural, typological, etc.) for the argument structure change in an endangered language, language contact also contributes to the process.

Old Persian distinguishes two types of ditransitive constructions: the genitive ditransitive construction (see example 1) and the double accusative ditransitive construction (see example 2).
(1) The Genitive Ditransitive Construction
(a) ai̯ta=mai̯ yānam Auramazdā dadātu (DPd22-24)
‘this favour may Auramazdā grant me’ (Schmitt 2000)
(b) Auramazdā= mai̯ upastām abara (DB 1.55)
‘Auramazdā brought me aid’ (Schmitt 1991)
(2) The Double Accusative Ditransitive Construction
(a) ai̯ta adam yānam jadiyāmi Auramazdām (DPd 20-21)
‘This I pray as a favour of Auramazdā’ (Schmitt 2000)
(b) xšaçam=šim adam adinam (DB 1.59)
‘I despoiled him of the kingship’ (Schmitt 1991)
The differences between these constructions have been observed in previous studies (Meillet and Benveniste 1931; Kent 1953; Schmitt 2004), but they have not been explored in depth. This study considers the syntactic, semantic, pragmatic, morphological, and information structural restrictions on genitive ~ accusative alternation as the indirect object in order to understand the factors that condition the choice between the ditransitive constructions available. Due caution,
however, should be exercised as far as OP material is concerned, since our understanding of OP linguistic features is dependent on a limited corpus.
Old Persian ‘ditransitive’ phenomena will be examined within the framework of construction grammar (CG). In particular, the present study will adopt a constructional approach in line with the work of Adele Goldberg (1995, 2006), arguing that the selection and realization of the
argument of the verb are largely taken care of by the construction. A constructional analysis of OP data shows a alignment split (“different constructions under different conditions”, cf. Haspelmath 2014): the two ditransitive constructions of OP can be regarded as two independent
argument structure constructions characterized by distinct pragmatic profiles associated with somewhat different meanings. The ditransitive construction with genitive as Indirect Object represents the basic indirective alignment type of ditransitive (Malchukov et al. 2010)
expressing transfer, while the double accusative construction features neutral alignment (cf. Malchukov et al. 2010) with a basic sense of reversed transfer. Indeed the double accusative construction involves the proposition of Indirect Object not possessing Direct Object after the verb event, i.e., having a sort of Maleficiary role.
The present paper is diachronic-comparative in scope, and seeks to establish a fundamental range of argument realization constructions that can be reconstructed for the Old Iranian genitive.

Les constructions ditransitives en français se caractérisent distinctement par les structures avec un objet direct suivi d’un syntagme prépositionnel et permettent un transfert de possession. Cependant, dans l’usage de ces constructions, il y a deux types de verbes qui se différencient selon les contextes et la réalisation obligatoire d’un objet indirect. Les verbes dit obligatoirement relationnels (OR) comme donner sont toujours utilisés dans une structure relationnelle (1) pour dénoter le transfert d’un objet direct à un objet indirect. Certains verbes non-relationnels comme envoyer sont facultativement relationnels (F) car ils peuvent alterner entre deux représentations. Bien qu’ils soient compatibles avec une relation de transfert (1), ils ne l’exigent pas et peuvent apparaître dans une structure non-relationnelle sans objet indirect (2).

(1) VP relationnelle [VP DONNER [PP une pomme [P’ P [DP à Jean ]]]]
(2) VP non-relationnelle [VP ENVOYER [DP une lettre ]]

Suivant l’approche syntaxique, la réalisation d’un objet indirect se fait par dérivation structurelle plutôt que par dépendance sur les propriétés lexicales du verbe (Arad 1995; Hale & Keyser 2002; Bello 2017). De plus, la possibilité d’alternance pour un verbe (c.-à-d. entre un emploi relationnel et non-relationnel) doit être spécifiée dans son entrée lexicale. Finalement, le sens du verbe (les verbes OR prennent deux objets comme argument interne, mais pas tous les verbes FR peuvent prendre un objet indirect) peut varier en fonction du contexte. 

Du point de vue de l’acquisition des constructions ditransitives, un enfant doit tout d’abord reconnaitre l’entrée lexicale du verbe avant de pouvoir assimiler la distinction entre les verbes obligatoirement et optionnellement relationnels dans la langue cible. Si le verbe est OR, il pourra en déduire qu’il correspond à la représentation en (1). En revanche, il est difficile de prédire comment l’enfant utilisera un verbe FR sans contexte donné. D’après l’étude menée, on remarque que la problématique n’est pas liée à l’accès aux représentations en (1) et (2), mais plutôt à la manière dont les enfants de trois à six ans s’en servent. On s’attend à ce que le degré d’optionalité et de la diversité dans l’input, selon l’alternance des verbes, permettra d’éclaircir la différence entre la grammaire adulte et la grammaire enfantine.

Cette recherche tente de comprendre les étapes du développement des constructions (di)transitives en français langue maternelle avant de proposer d’autres pistes de recherche concernant l’acquisition du français langue seconde.
__________________________________________________________
Arad, M. (1995). On the Projection of Ditransitive Verbs. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 7: 215-233.
Bello, S. (2017). Prolegomenon to the Study of Indirect Objects in French L1 Acquisition. Doctoral
dissertation, University of Toronto.
Hale, K. et Keyser, S. J. (2002). Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.

This paper examines the syntactic and semantic features of a verb class of Croatian ditransitive verbs termed verbs of negative transfer. With verbs of negative transfer, the transfer of an item is performed in the opposite direction of the transfer observable with typical ditransitive verbs such as give, get, obtain etc. Special concern is given to the interconnection of semantic and syntactic features within this verb class. As demonstrated in the paper, the syntactic expression of arguments is sensitive to one semantic feature of these verbs: the feature whether a given verb has malefactive meaning or not. The paper convincingly shows that a major strategy for expressing the semantic role of a maleficiary is the dative case. This use of the dative is usually called the malefactive dative and has not yet been thoroughly researched for Croatian. Accordingly, a great deal of attention has been devoted to the description of the malefactive dative. Furthermore, some similarities of this dative meaning have been related to some already known features of other dative meanings in Croatian.