Primary object languages & pronouns

Sun Apr 27 05:02:19 UTC 2003

David,

Dative-Shift has been defined in a certain way for certain verbs. Now, I
do not necessarily think that (in fact I disagree with) 'Recipes for
Constructions' such that a sentence X must have properties 1-15 in order
to count as an exemplar of Construction A (though this is fairly
standard practice in some circles, e.g. 'Oh, that is not a Passive,
because it lacks a form of the verb 'to be' or a 'by-phrase', etc.). On
the other hand, when trying to counter-exemplify a construction that has
been mainly exemplified with full NPs, the *best* counter-example is one
with full-NPs. Those are better counter-examples because they cannot be
rejected by those wanting to defend the 'Recipe view of A/Dative-Shift'
as related to some other phenomenon, e.g. ethical dative
clitics/pronouns/agreement (and the so-called ethical dative does indeed
encompass all three).

It is in the context of such a debate that a value-judgment to the
effect that one type of data is more pertinent for the discussion than
another is exactly what is called for.

But of course this does not mean that one says that in absolute terms,
i.e. outside of context, that one datum is more valuable or better than
another.

In fact, data mean nothing outside of contexts of discussion in any
case, but that is a different matter.

-- Dan

.........................
Dan Everett
Professor of Phonetics and Phonology
Department of Linguistics
Arts Building
University of Manchester
Oxford Road
M13 9PL
Manchester, UK
dan.everett at man.ac.uk
Phone: 44-161-275-3158
Dept. Fax and Phone: 44-161-275-3187
http://lings.ln.man.ac.uk/info/staff/de

-----Original Message-----
From: FUNKNET -- Discussion of issues in Functional Linguistics
[mailto:FUNKNET at LISTSERV.RICE.EDU] On Behalf Of David Tuggy
Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2003 12:18 AM
To: FUNKNET at LISTSERV.RICE.EDU
Subject: FW: Primary object languages & pronouns

I would rather you had said "dative-shift types of examples with
pronouns, especially ... me in English, may not be typical of all such
structures", and "different patterns will show up if you examine
examples using names or NPs". The examples with "me" or other pronouns
are perfectly good data too, and I see no call for a value judgment such
that some kinds are deemed "better" than others.

But I agree they do not behave in every way exactly alike. (It
underscores once more the subtlety of these constructions and thus of
the interrelations between them.) It would indeed be much harder to use
a proper name or
(other) NP in "Eat me some hallacas". An explanation that helps me
understand why (though not one that would let me predict that no
language could do it differently) is that in "Eat me some hallacas" the
benefit that will accrue to the dative from the accomplishment of the
process is so subjective as to be difficult to perceive in the case of
anyone other than oneself. (Benefit of that or a similar sort is
probably to be taken as definitional for "ethical" datives.) If I say
"Eat Tom some hallacas" I am assuming that your eating hallacas will
give Tom such a subjective satisfaction, and usually I do not know that.
I can construct contexts, of course. If I were going to Venezuela and in
our family email group my mother were to tell me "eat me some hallacas
while you're down there", I could later list as one of my
accomplishments for the trip "I ate Mom some hallacas" (or better,
interestingly, "I ate Mom her hallacas".) It would be stretching the
norms, but I might well do it, and my family would understand it and
even enjoy it.

The patterns that will show up if you just look at proper name or NP
datives will probably come closer to a Highest Common Factor for the
construction as a whole than what you will find if you look at pronouns,
esp. "me". So if you're looking for an H.C.F. I suppose that is
"better". But their centrality to the category is questionable at best.
I haven't done any stats on it, but I'd bet a study of datives in
natural speech would find an overwhelming preponderance of pronouns,
especially 1st and 2nd person pronouns, over proper names or (other)
NP's. The patterns the pronoun cases display are important too.

--David

-----Original Message-----
From: FUNKNET -- Discussion of issues in Functional Linguistics
[mailto:FUNKNET at listserv.rice.edu]On Behalf Of Dan Everett
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 12:30 AM
To: FUNKNET at listserv.rice.edu
Subject: Re: Primary object languages & pronouns

One caveat: constructing dative-shift types of examples with pronouns,
especially the first person accusative/dative 'me' in English could be
misleading. I suspect that this pronoun has a little bit of 'ethical
dative' in it (as common in Romance languages). It is better to
construct examples using names or NPs.

-- Dan

.........................
Dan Everett
Professor of Phonetics and Phonology
Department of Linguistics
Arts Building
University of Manchester
Oxford Road
M13 9PL
Manchester, UK
dan.everett at man.ac.uk
Phone: 44-161-275-3158
Dept. Fax and Phone: 44-161-275-3187
http://lings.ln.man.ac.uk/info/staff/de

-----Original Message-----
From: FUNKNET -- Discussion of issues in Functional Linguistics
[mailto:FUNKNET at LISTSERV.RICE.EDU] On Behalf Of David Tuggy
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 1:16 AM
To: FUNKNET at LISTSERV.RICE.EDU
Subject: Re: Primary object languages & pronouns

True. The relationship (whether one tries to express it in a "rule" or
not) is complex, not exactly the same for all different subcases, not
fully bi-directional, not blindly or mechanically applicable, and so
forth. I guess it depends on one's definitions whether a relationship of
this kind can be "systematic". There are certainly reasonable
definitions by which it can. I was maintaining that I think there are
systematic relationships of that non-absolute sort which hold between
the two types of constructions, and that speakers know this.

I think you describe well the prototypical cases, and your "he blew me
the whistle" example is nice. But there are other cases where something
not clearly "construable as a recipient, even if it is also (and maybe
basically) a beneficiary" can still be coded by the dative construction,
e.g. I could say "eat me a couple of hallacas" to someone going to
Venezuela. (Maybe I use the construction more loosely than many: I could
say "mow me the lawn" with little if any discomfort. "Mow me the lawn
and I'll fix you a black cow"--why not?)

Ellen's "spare the wild claims for me" and "donate the LSA something"
examples are fun, too, though it's noteworthy that "spare" is not
causing a change of any sort, and "donate" has little sense of motion.

All of this underlines the fact that there are subtleties to the
relationships, but of course doesn't deny that the relationships are
there.

--David Tuggy

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.471 / Virus Database: 269 - Release Date: 4/10/2003

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.471 / Virus Database: 269 - Release Date: 4/10/2003