英语论文网

动词give用于双及物结构的语料样本
本文以英国国家语料库中的口语、小说、报纸、学术期刊四大语体分库作为数据基础，以最典型的双及物动词give为例，从各分库中随机抽取200例该动词用于双及物结构的语料样本作为研究对象。对各样本中双宾语例句和与格例句中与事和受事的可及性、定指性、代词性及成长分度进行分析，既从平均值角度又从相对值角度，结果以数据形式呈现，以作为定性研究的基础。
Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1 Background of the Study
    The status of ditransitive construction (DC) as a widespread and significant grammatical phenomenon in language has never been in question. The present study is dedicated to exploration of DC in the English language.
    DC in English is widely acknowledged to show two realizations, namely, double object construction (DOC) and prepositional dative construction (PDC), which are represented as V+NPI+NPZ and V+NP+PP respectively, as shown in example (1).
    (1) a. I gave Tom a book.
        b. I gave a book to Tom.
    These two realization variants generally convey roughly similar semantic content, i.e. transfer of possession, and that is why in most cases they can be used alternatively, which is termed "dative alternation" (DA) in linguistic studies.
    Nevertheless, there are some notoriously perplexing cases where one variant is possible but the other is not; otherwise, incorrect or unacceptable expressions will be incurred, either grammatically or pragmatically. To illustrate, such verbs as donate and contribute are compatible with PDC but not with DOC though they inherently signify acts of giving or sending like give and hand, and such verbs as permit and cask occur in DOC but not in PDC. Furthermore, it is observed that for those verbs which are generally assumed to permit DA, such alternation could be hampered if certain constraints are flouted, for instance:
    (2) a. John gave it to Mary.
        b.*John gave Mary it. (Erteschik-Shir 1979: 452)
Finally, even if both construction variants are possible and correct, the issue on which is more appropriate and is actually chosen still needs to be taken into consideration. Hence questions arise as to what drives DA, i.e. what determines that both variants are possible or one is but the other not, and for those cases where both are possible, what determines which is favored.

References
[1] Aoun, J.&Y H. A. Li. (1989). Scope and constituency. Lingzristic Inquiry 20, 2: 141-72.
[2] Arnold, J., T. Wasow, A. Losongco, et al. (2000). Heaviness vs. newness: The effects of complexity and information structure on constituent ordering.  https://www.51lunwen.org/languagethesis/

Language 76: 28-55.
[3] Baker, Mark C. (1988). Incorporation: A theory ofgrammatical function changing. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
[4] Barss, A.&H. Lasnik. (1986). A note an anaphora and double objects. Linguistic Inguiry 17, 2: 347-54.
[5J Beavers, J. (2006). Argument/Oblidue Alternations and the Structure of Lexical Meaning. Ph. D. disseaation. Stanford University.
[6] Beck, Sigrid&Kyle Johnson. (2004). Double objects again. Linguistic Inguary 35: 97-124.
[7] Behaghel, Otto. (1909/10). Beziehungen zwischen Umfang and Reihenfolge von Satzgliedern. Indogermanische Forschungen 25: 110-42.
[8]   Behaghel,  Otto.  (1932).  Deutsche  Syntax eine  geschichtliche  Dar0stellzrng.  Band  IV. Wor-tstellung. Periodenbazv. Heidelberg: Carl Winters Universitatsbuchhandlung.
[9] Bever, Thomas G. (1970本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。