On the inherent semantic meaning of double object Latinate verbs in English in modern and historical perspective *

Katarzyna Sówka-Pietraszewska 1
  • 1 Institute of English Studies: Center for General and Comparative Linguistics University of Wrocław Wrocław, Poland


This paper shows the realization of arguments of Latinate double object verbs and an analysis of their inherent semantic meaning in the Late Middle English and early Modern English periods, hence in the time-span when they were borrowed into English. The main aim of this paper is to show that although Latinate verbs occur in a construction with what seems to be an allative preposition, not all of them lexicalize movement in the inherent meanings. In contrast, some Latinate verbs lexicalize only a caused possession. What is more, this paper shows that the caused possession Latinate verbs select a different variant of prepositional object construction than the one selected by Latinate verbs lexicalizing movement.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Allen, C. L. (1995). Case marking and reanalysis: Grammatical relations from Old to Early Modern English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Baker, M. C. (1988). Incorporation. A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

  • Bresnan, J. (1982). The passive in lexical theory. In J. Bresnan (Ed.), The mental representation of grammatical relations (pp. 3-86). Cambridge: MA: MIT Press.

  • Edmonds, J. (1972). Evidence that indirect-object movement is a structure preserving rule. Foundations of Language 8, 546-61.

  • Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • Grimshaw, J. (2005). Datives, feet and lexicons. In J. Grimshaw (Ed.), Words and Structure (pp. 107-128). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

  • Grimshaw, J. and Prince, A. (1986). A prosodic account of the to-dative alternation. (Unpublished manuscript). Brandeis University.

  • Hale, K. and Keyser, S. J. (2002). Prolegomenon to a theory of argument structure. Cambridge: MIT Press.

  • Harley, H. (2003). Possession and the double object construction. In P. Pica and J. Rooryck (Eds.), Yearbook of linguistic variation 2 (pp. 31-70). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • Helsinki Corpus TEI XML Edition. (2011). First edition. Designed by Alpo Honkapohja, Samuli Kaislaniemi, Henri Kauhanen, Matti Kilpiö, Ville Marttila, Terttu Nevalainen, Arja Nurmi, Matti Rissanen and Jukka Tyrkkö. Implemented by Henri Kauhanen and Ville Marttila. Based on The Helsinki Corpus of English Texts (1991). Helsinki: The Research Unit for Variation, Contacts and Change in English (VARIENG), University of Helsinki.

  • Kemenade van, A. (1987). Syntactic case and morphological case in the history of English. Dodrecht: Fortis.

  • Koopman, W. (1990). Word order in Old English, with special reference to the verb phrase. (Amsterdam Studies in Generative Grammar,1). Amsterdam: The Faculty of Arts, University of Amsterdam.

  • Krifka, M. (1999). Manner in dative alternation. Paper presented at West Coast Conference in Formal Linguistics, 18, Tucson.

  • Krifka, M. (2004). Semantic and pragmatic conditions for the dative alternation. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics, 4, 1-32.

  • Larson, R. K. (1988). On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry, 19, 335-91.

  • Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • McFadden, T. (2002). The rise of the to-dative in Middle English. In D. Lightfoot (Ed.), Syntactic effects of morphological change (pp. 107-234). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Pesetsky, D. (1995). Zero syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.

  • Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge: MIT Press.

  • Pintzuk, S. (1991). Phrase structures in competition: Variation and change in Old English word order. Dissertations available from ProQuest. Retrived from http://www.repository.upenn.edu/disertations/AAI9211987

  • Pintzuk. S. (2005). Arguments against a universal base: Evidence from Old English. English Language and Linguistics, 9(1), 115-38.

  • Pintzuk, S. and Kroch, A. (1989). The rightward movement of complements and adjuncts in the Old English of Beowulf. Language Variation and Change, 1, 115-43.

  • Rappaport Hovav, M. and Levin, B. (2005). All dative verbs are not created equal. (Unpublished manuscript). Retrieved from http://www.stanford.edu/~bclevin/pubs.html

  • Rappaport Hovav, M. and Levin, B. (2008). The English dative alternation: The case for verb sensitivity. Journal of Linguistics, 44, 129-167.

  • Sówka-Pietraszewska, K. (2011). Dative alternation in diachronic and synchronic perspective. (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Wrocław.

  • Sówka-Pietraszewska, K. (2012). On the development of a prepositional object construction with give-verbs, motion verbs and Latinate verbs in English. In J. Tyrkkö, M. Kilpiö, T. Nevalainen, and M. Rissanen (Eds.), Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English, 10: Outposts of Historical Corpus Linguistics: From the Helsinki Corpus to a Proliferation of Resources. Retrieved from http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/journal/volumes/2501/01/

  • Visser, F. Th. (1963-73). A historical syntax of the English language, Vols. IV. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

  • Wasow, T. (1997). Remarks on grammatical weight. Language Variation and Change, 9, 81-105.


Journal + Issues