16.2055, Review: Syntax: Mukherjee (2005)

[LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-16-2055. Sat Jul 02 2005. ISSN: 1068 - 4875.

Subject: 16.2055, Review: Syntax: Mukherjee (2005)

Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Wayne State U <aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Aristar-Dry, Eastern Michigan U <hdry at linguistlist.org>
 
Reviews (reviews at linguistlist.org) 
        Sheila Dooley, U of Arizona  
        Terry Langendoen, U of Arizona  

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org/

The LINGUIST List is funded by Eastern Michigan University, Wayne
State University, and donations from subscribers and publishers.

Editor for this issue: Naomi Ogasawara <naomi at linguistlist.org>
================================================================  

What follows is a review or discussion note contributed to our 
Book Discussion Forum. We expect discussions to be informal and 
interactive; and the author of the book discussed is cordially 
invited to join in. If you are interested in leading a book 
discussion, look for books announced on LINGUIST as "available 
for review." Then contact Sheila Dooley at collberg at linguistlist.org. 

===========================Directory==============================  

1)
Date: 01-Jul-2005
From: Nicole Dehé < nicole at ling.ucl.ac.uk >
Subject: English Ditransitive Verbs 

	
-------------------------Message 1 ---------------------------------- 
Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2005 16:39:41
From: Nicole Dehé < nicole at ling.ucl.ac.uk >
Subject: English Ditransitive Verbs 
 

AUTHOR: Mukherjee, Joybrato
TITLE: English Ditransitive Verbs
SUBTITLE: Aspects of Theory, Description and a Usage-based Model
SERIES: Language and Computers Vol. 53
PUBLISHER: Rodopi
YEAR: 2005
Announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/15/15-3421.html


Nicole Dehé, Department of Phonetics and Linguistics, 
University College London

SYNOPSIS

Joybrato Mukherjee's book provides an addition to the literature on 
ditransitive verbs in English. Based on real language corpus data, the 
study offers a meticulous description of the usage of six ditransitive 
verbs in particular (give, tell, send, show, ask, offer). The descriptive 
analysis is embedded in a pluralist theory developed on the basis of 
previous accounts to ditransitive verbs put forward in various 
frameworks and it leads to the development of a usage-based model 
of ditransitive verbs combining a general cognitive-linguistic framework 
with specific corpus-linguistic considerations.

The book is divided into five well-organised chapters plus a short 
appendix providing details on the design of the corpus used in the 
study.

EVALUATION BY CHAPTER

Chapter 1 is intended to give an overview and critical review of 
different existing frameworks in various traditions used for the 
description and analysis of ditransitivity and their different 
perspectives, among them descriptive grammar, generative grammar, 
valency theory, functional grammar and semantico-syntactical 
approaches, corpus-based grammar including some previous corpus-
based research into ditransitive verbs, corpus-driven lexicogrammar, 
construction grammar and cognitive sciences. Based on this overview, 
a pluralist theory of ditransitivity is developed from those aspects of 
the frameworks discussed that "can be conceptually integrated with 
each other" (p. 63). 

Moreover, a working definition of ditransitive verbs is provided. 
According to this definition, ditransitive verbs are trivalent verbs which 
require a subject, a direct object and an indirect object. The pattern 
where both objects appear as noun phrases (as in 'Peter gave Mary a 
book') is referred to as the "basic" or "explicit" ditransitive syntax. In 
what follows, all (and only) verbs that meet this definition, i.e. which 
are attested in the basic pattern at least once in the data set, are 
considered ditransitives in the basic as well as all other forms of 
complementation.

At this point, a remark concerning the sections on previous literature 
seems in order. Despite providing a useful overview in general, it is 
striking that while all other approaches are dealt with in a neutral and 
objective way, the section on generative grammar reads more like a 
misplaced attack on the generative framework in general than a 
critical and fair discussion of approaches to ditransitives suggested 
within that framework. Traces of this attack can be found throughout 
the book. While it might be true that it is quite a challenge to reconcile 
the generative framework (used here synonymously with "Minimalist 
Program") with a usage-based model as suggested in the present 
study, a more objective discussion would have been more fruitful. 
Some inaccuracies in the outline of the theory contribute to this 
impression (e.g. on p. 17 it is claimed that "the object [...] is a 
projection of the verb", and on pp. 20/21 the same construction, V NP 
NP, is represented by two different syntactic structures for no 
apparent reason).

Chapter 2 is intended to outline the methodology used in the present 
study which is described as a "corpus-to-cognition approach". Section 
2.1 sketches the corpus-based approach to ditransitivity as one where 
previous research results and experience- and intuition-based 
hypothetical models are applied to actual performance data, leading to 
models (of ditransitivity) in language use and language cognition, and 
in turn to the verification or falsification of the initial hypotheses (cf. 
Fig. 2-1, p. 71). The author distances himself and his work from the 
tradition of "corpus-driven" linguistics in which the starting point for 
any linguistic theory is the corpus itself and he rejects the 
corresponding framework as "unrealistic" and "implausible" (p. 72). 
In Section 2.2, the relevant corpora and corresponding software tools 
are being presented. The main corpus used, introduced in some detail 
together with a review of general advantages and downsides for the 
present study, is the International Corpus of English - The British 
Component (ICE-GB) along with the ICE Corpus Utility Program 
(ICECUP; cf. also the corpus webpage at 
< www.ucl.ac.uk/english-usage/ice-gb/index.htm > and Nelson et al. 2002). 
>From this corpus, a list of all verbs that meet the working definition of
ditransitivity as suggested in Chapter 1 was automatically derived. This list
includes 70 verbs of varying frequency, adding up to 1741 occurrences of 
verbs parsed as ditransitive in ICE-GB. Particularly frequent are the 
verbs ASK (91 occurrences), GIVE (562), OFFER (54), SEND (79), 
SHOW (84) and TELL (491). The corpus was then manually searched 
for these ditransitive verbs in other complementation patterns.

Based on the overall frequency of each ditransitive verb in the corpus 
and on the frequency with which each ditransitive verb occurs in the 
basic ditransitive pattern (both obtainable from ICECUP, Table 2-5 on 
p. 84), the author distinguishes three groups of ditransitive verbs. 
Firstly, "typical ditransitive verbs" are frequent in general and in 
explicit ditransitive syntax. These criteria are met by GIVE and TELL. 
The second group is that of "habitual ditransitive verbs" which are 
fairly frequent in general but not in explicit ditransitive syntax, 
specifically ASK, SEND, SHOW and OFFER. The third group is made 
up of "peripheral ditransitive verbs" which are rare in general and/or in 
explicit ditransitive syntax. Along with ICE-GB, the British National 
Corpus (BNC, 2nd version), was used as "ancillary corpus" for the 
description of ditransitive verbs that were peripheral in ICE-GB. 

Section 2.3 deals with the corpus-based description of language use. 
According to the present study, a model of language use is 
a "supraindividual abstraction" of what is frequent and/or normal in a 
given speech community. The author underlines that this does not 
equal performance, since performance data (of which a corpus is 
representative) includes all kinds of errors, unacceptable language 
use, etc. The remainder of the chapter emphasizes the main chores of 
the usage-based model to be developed on the basis of the corpus 
data: (i) to account for the fundamental importance of the actual 
frequencies of linguistic forms; (ii) to explain linguistic routines and 
patterns; (iii) to take into account the role of functional and context-
dependent principles and factors; (iv) to keep in mind the 
interdependence of lexical and grammatical choices.

In Chapter 3, the author provides a detailed corpus-based description 
as well as quantitative and qualitative analysis of individual ditransitive 
verbs in actual language use. He addresses the three distinct groups 
of verbs identified in Chapter 2 in turn (Section 3.1: typical ditransitive 
verbs: GIVE and TELL; Section 3.2: habitual ditransitive verbs: SEND, 
SHOW, ASK, OFFER; Section 3.3: peripheral ditransitive verbs). 
These verbs occur in various syntactic pattern meticulously described 
in this chapter. Among these patterns are the basic ditransitive pattern 
("Peter gave Mary a book"; here: pattern I), the prepositional pattern 
("Peter gave the book to Mary"; here: pattern II), a mono-transitive 
pattern realizing the direct object ("Peter gave an example"; here: 
pattern III), an intransitive pattern ("Peter always gives"; here: pattern 
IV), a mono-transitive pattern realizing the indirect object ("Peter told 
him"; here: pattern V), and variations of these patterns derived by 
syntactic operations involving the direct and/or indirect object, such as 
passivisation, fronting in relative clauses and embedded questions, 
among others. For each verb considered here, a default pattern is 
identified mostly on quantitative grounds, but also on the basis of 
underlying semantics (in the case of ASK) and discourse patterns (in 
the case of TELL). The default patterns vary across items, except that 
the default for the habitual verbs SHOW, SEND and OFFER is pattern 
III. 

Special emphasis is placed on the identification of factors causing the 
speaker to choose a specific pattern over other possible patterns. 
Among these factors are the explicitation and linear arrangement of 
semantic roles, textual factors, lexical constraints, heaviness of 
constituents, and pragmatic factors such as end-focus.

In some cases it seems as if the author has to bend his own rules, 
which occasionally leads to contradictory assumptions. To give but 
one example: as argued in the present study (as well as much 
previous work) one of the factors contributing to the choice of 
construction is (final) focus. Now consider the examples below.
- (ex. 279, p. 159): In the other universities abroad the students are 
shown to have more life within them. (ICE-GB:W1A-018 #74)
- (ex. 407, p. 196): Since the Theatre is a Department of University 
College London we only offer this casual work to students.

For the example in (279), Mukherjee (p. 159) argues that the indirect 
object "the students" is passivised because "the students are evoked 
by universities" in the immediately preceding context. However, for the 
example in (407), he argues (p. 196f.) that "students" represents new 
information and is therefore structurally realised in end-position, 
triggering the prepositional pattern. In my view, it remains unclear from 
the two examples given here, why "universities" in (279), but 
not "University College" in (407) evokes "students". Moreover, in many 
cases the argumentations as to why one pattern has been chosen 
over another leaves the reader with the impression that a different 
pattern would have done the same job. This may sound petty but is 
crucial since the usage-based model developed in Chapter 4 is based 
partly on these selection principles.

Despite these drawbacks, and even though some of the factors do not 
seem completely convincing to me, these sections give a thorough 
and to my knowledge unique overview of the actual usage of selected 
ditransitive verbs. While both the idea that the choice of a specific 
pattern is principle-guided rather than optional and the identification of 
guiding factors are not unprecedented in the literature, the wealth of 
data and the kind of frequency-based analysis offered on the basis of 
these data are new.

The section on peripheral ditransitives starts off from the question why 
the relevant verbs can be used ditransitively in the first place. Here, 
the author argues along the lines of grammatical institutionalization (a 
process in the course of which verbs whose underlying semantic 
component includes a potentially ditransitive meaning are licensed to 
become possible ditransitive verbs structurally) and 
conventionalization (a process by which possible ditransitive verbs, 
i.e. the output of grammatical institutionalization, are turned into 
probable ditransitive forms). More precisely, a potential ditransitive 
verb is not attested in the basic ditransitive pattern, but the verbal 
meaning includes the ditransitive situation schema either explicitly or 
metaphorically. Peripheral verbs are grammatically institutionalized 
verbs, i.e. verbs with potential ditransitive meaning are infrequently 
attested in the basic ditransitive structure. Examples are SUPPLY (as 
in 'Supply us some more drinks') and PROFIT. A verb that is used 
increasingly in the ditransitive pattern then turns into a habitual or 
typical (= conventionalized) ditransitive verb. The earlier classification 
between peripheral, habitual and typical ditransitive verbs is thus 
translated into different stages in the process of grammaticalisation, 
without making a distinction between the latter two verb classes along 
these lines.

Chapter 4 proposes a network-like "model of speakers' linguistic 
knowledge about ditransitive verbs" based on the corpus data and 
analysis presented in Chapter 3, and combining "the general cognitive-
linguistic framework [...] with specific corpus-linguistic considerations" 
(p. 221). This chapter would have highly benefited from a more 
straight-to-the-point-like discussion. The first two sections develop 
some general aspects of the kind of model employed here, focusing 
on the importance of a large corpus of authentic data, as well as the 
integration of lexical and syntactic aspects. The reader is also 
introduced to one of the limitations of the methodology employed in 
this study, which is that due to corpus limitations it can only account 
for the core but not the periphery of a given phenomenon. In the 
course of the core/periphery discussion in Section 4.2, the three 
classes of ditransitives defined above are translated into "three zones 
of prototypicality within the category of ditransitivity", where peripheral 
ditransitives correspond to the least prototypical members, while 
typical ditransitives correspond to the most prototypical members of 
their class. In what follows, usage-based models are developed for the 
most prototypical members only. At the heart of the discussion are 
usage-based models of the "cognitive representation of the 
lexicogrammar" of the two typical ditransitive verbs GIVE and TELL. 
These models are highly specific, taking into account the frequency of 
every pattern attested for these verbs as well as the selection 
principles as identified for each of these patterns. Being truly usage-
based, they aim at bridging the gap between large amounts of 
authentic corpus data and their analysis on the one hand and a 
competence-related model of language cognition on the other hand.

Chapter 5 serves as a summary and conclusion.

In my view, the merit of this study, Chapters 3 and 4 in particular, lies 
clearly in the pattern description and quantitative analysis of a wealth 
of authentic data. One major point of criticism that Mukherjee puts 
forward with respect to other models, in particular regarding the 
generative framework, is that these models are often based 
exclusively on "invented and decontextualised" (p. 229) sentences. 
His answer is a model that is exclusively based on real data. Clearly 
and fully recognized in the present study, this model is core-centered 
and cannot account for any processes at the periphery. Moreover, 
since the model focuses on individual verbs "for practical reasons", a 
comprehensive approach accounting also for differences and 
similarities between members of the class of ditransitive verbs, 
concerning e.g. default patterns, predominant selection principles and 
the like, cannot be offered (although an attempt to illustrate the 
network-like character of the model is provided in Fig. 4-6, p. 248). 

On a more formal note: the book contains far too many footnotes and 
paragraph-long quotations interrupting the flow of the text, as well as 
some lengthy sections summarizing previous research which could 
often have been replaced by references to the work in question.

Leaving the advantages and drawbacks of different theoretical 
frameworks as well as some aspects of textual organisation aside, the 
data description and quantitative analysis that Mukherjee offers in this 
study will be of interest to any linguist who works on ditransitive verbs 
in English. The discussion centering on the importance of a 
methodology based on authentic data is of even more general interest.

REFERENCE

Nelson, Gerald, Sean Wallis & Bas Aarts (2002) Exploring Natural 
Language: Working with the British Component of the International 
Corpus of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 

ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Nicole Dehé is an Honorary Research Fellow at UCL, Dept of 
Phonetics and Linguistics. She received her PhD in 2001 from the 
University of Leipzig. She is the author of Particle Verbs in English: 
Syntax, Information Structure and Intonation, 2002, Amsterdam: 
Benjamins, and co-editor of a volume on particle verbs (Verb-Particle 
Explorations, 2002, Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter; with Ray 
Jackendoff, Andrew McIntyre and Silke Urban).





-----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-16-2055