xv ABSTRACT
Prasetya, Eko. 2013. The Linguistic Features Affecting the Choice of Ditransitive Constructions in English. Yogyakarta: The Graduate Program in English Language Studies, Sanata Dharma University.
The alternation of benefactive construction either as NP NP or NP PP appears to be troublesome and hard to undertake by many language users. As theoretical linguistics traditionally relies on linguistic intuition such as grammatical judgement for such data, the low proficient or non-native speakers will find it hard to solve this benefactive construction problem. While the problem of how language users decide which structure to use has been analyzed using approaches like syntactic, semantic, and discourse, this very research proposes the analysis of benefactive construction using probabilistic grammar. This research combines corpus linguistic study and logit formula of probabilistic earned from binary logistic regression. The data set of benefactive construction taken from Corpus of Historical American English (COHA) provides the tendency of occurrences of the construction. The model of benefactive probabilistic is built from the analysis of corpus data and then is computed into the logit formula to predict the occurrences of benefactive construction.
Two research questions were explored in this research. The first research question was What linguistic features affect the choice of benefactive construction? The second research question was How do the significant features differ in the effect size of the effect toward ditransitive construction?
In attempt of answering the research questions, twelve theories were employed. The theories were theories of ditransitivity, semantic class of verbs, syntactic complexity, animacy of theme and beneficiary, discourse givenness of theme and beneficiary, pronominality of theme and beneficiary, concreteness of theme, person of beneficiary, number of theme and beneficiary, definiteness of theme and beneficiary, corpus linguistic, and probabilistic model of logistic regression. The theories were used during annotation process and used to analyze the significant of the features toward benefactive construction.
xvi
although the directions of the feature relevance are similar, the size of the feature effects differ much between the two constructions.
xvii ABSTRAK
Prasetya, Eko. 2013. The Linguistic Features Affecting the Choice of Ditransitive Constructions in English. Yogyakarta: Program Pasca-Sarjana Kajian Bahasa Inggris, Universitas Sanata Dharma.
Permasalahan pemilihan pemakaian konstruksi benefaktif tampaknya membingungkan dan sulit untuk dipecahkan oleh banyak pengguna bahasa. Karena Linguistik teoritis tradisional bergantung pada intuisi linguistik seperti penghakiman gramatikal untuk data tersebut, pengguna bahasa dengan tingkat pemahaman bahasa rendah dan yang bukan penutur alami akan kesulitan untuk memecahkan masalah konstruksi benefaktif ini. Sementara masalah bagaimana pengguna bahasa menentukan struktur kebahasaan yang akan dipakai telah dianalisa dengan menggunakan pendekatan seperti sintaksis, semantik, dan wacana, penelitian ini menyajikan analisis konstruksi benefaktif menggunakan pendekatan probabilistik linguistik. Penelitian ini menggabungkan studi linguistik corpus dan logit rumus probabilistik yang diperoleh dari regresi logistik biner. Kumpulan data konstruksi benefaktif diambil dari Corpus of Historical American English ( COHA ) memberikan peluang kecenderungan kemunculan konstruksi benefactif. Model probabilistik benefaktif dibuat berdasar analisis data corpus dan kemudian dihitung ke dalam rumus logit untuk memprediksi kejadian konstruksi benefaktif.
Penelitian ini dilakukan guna menjawab dua pertanyaan. Pertanyaan yang pertama adalah Elemen linguistik apakah yang berpengaruh terhadap pemilihan konstruksi benefaktif? Pertanyaan yang kedua adalah Seberapa besar dan bagaimana pengaruh elemen yang signifikan terhadap pemilihan konstruksi ditransitif?
Dalam upaya menjawab pertanyaan penelitian, dua belas teori digunakan. Teori-teori tersebut antara lain teori ditransitivity, kelas semantik dari kata kerja, kompleksitas sintaksis, kebernyawaan tema dan penerima, wacana sudah belumnya tema dan penerima dibahas, kata ganti tema dan penerima, konkrit tidaknya tema, lokal dan ketidaklokalan penerima, jumlah penerima manfaat dan tema, kepastian dari tema dan penerima, corpus linguistik, dan model probabilistik regresi logistik. Teori-teori ini digunakan selama proses penjelasan dan digunakan untuk menganalisa elemen-elemen yang signifikan terhadap pemilihan konstruksi benefaktif.
xviii
dapat memprediksi kejadian konstruksi benefaktif dengan akurasi 90%. Selain itu, penggunaan model probabilistik benefaktif pada data datif dan sebaliknya menghasilkan fakta bahwa akurasi menurun drastis. Hasil ini mendukung temuan bahwa meskipun arah relevansi elemen serupa, kekuatan efek fitur berbeda jauh antara kedua konstruksi .
i
THE LINGUISTIC FEATURES AFFECTING THE CHOICE
OF DITRANSITIVE CONSTRUCTIONS IN ENGLISH
A THESIS
Presented as Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements to Obtain the Degree of Magister Humaniora (M. Hum.)
in English Language Studies
by
Eko Windu Prasetya Student Number: 116332022
THE GRADUATE PROGRAM IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE STUDIES SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY
iv
STATEMENT OF WORK ORIGINALITY
This is to certify that all the ideas, phrases, and sentences, unless otherwise
stated, are the ideas, phrases, sentences of the thesis writer. The writer
understands the full consequences including degree cancellation if he took
somebody else’s ideas, phrases, or sentences without proper references.
v
LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI KARYA ILMIAH UNTUK KEPENTINGAN AKADEMIS
Yang bertanda tangan di bawah ini, sebagai mahasiswa Universitas Sanata
Dharma:
Nama : Eko Windu Prasetya
Nomor Mahasiswa : 116332022
Demi perkembangan ilmu pengetahuan, memberikan kepada Perpustakaan
Universitas Sanata Dharma karya ilmiah saya yang berjudul:
THE LINGUISTIC FEATURES AFFECTING THE CHOICE
OF DITRANSITIVE CONSTRUCTIONS IN ENGLISH
beserta perangkat yang diperlukan. Dengan demikian penulis memberikan hak
kepada Perpustakaan Universitas Sanata Dharma untuk menyimpan, mengalihkan
dalam media lain, mengelolanya dalam bentuk pangkalan data,
mendistribusikannya secara terbatas, dan mempublikasikannya di internet atau
media lain untuk kepentingan akademis tanpa perlu meminta ijin dari penulis
maupun memberikan royalti kepada penulis selama tetap mencantumkan nama
penulis.
Demikian pernyataan ini dibuat dengan sebenarnya.
Di : Yogyakarta
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research would have been barely possible to finish without the
support of many people around me. I would like to express my gratitude to the
people who have contributed to the completion of this research.
I would like to express my very great appreciation to Dr. B.B.
Dwijatmoko, M.A., my thesis supervisor, for his valuable and constructive
suggestions during the planning and development of this research. His patient
guidance, enthusiastic encouragement, useful critiques, and tireless effort in
keeping my progress on schedule have been very much appreciated. I thank you
for not giving up on me and for helping me grasping the completion of this thesis.
Deepest gratitude are also due to the members of the supervisory
committee, Dr. Fr. B. Alip, M.Pd., F.X. Mukarto, Ph.D., and Drs. Barli Bram,
M.Ed., Ph.D. without whose knowledge and assistance this research would not
have been successful. Their feedbacks and suggestions have greatly improved my
thesis.
I am particularly grateful for the assistance given by the lecturers in the
Graduate Program. The knowledge, insights, and encouragement from Prof. Dr.
Soepomo Poedjosoedarmo, Dr. J. Bismoko, Dr. Novita Dewi, M.S., M.A. (Hons),
Dr. F.X. Siswadi, M.A., Prof. Dr. C. Bakdi Soemanto, S.U., Dr. Alb. Susanto, S.J.
during my study in Sanata Dharma has made me a better person.
I would also like to extend my thanks to the Graduate Program staff, Ms.
Lely, for keeping me in the loop for every information update. I am also grateful
for the kindness shown by Pak Antonius Mulyadi, whom with many conversations
I made have inspired and conveyed me the spirit of learning from nothing.
To my friends in KBI who didn’t accidentally come by but by God’s plan
drew closer into my life, I thank you. I thank you for the thoughts, well-wishes
and prayers, phone calls, short messages, e-mails, visits, editing advice, and for
being there whenever I need a friend.
An honorable mention goes to my beloved families who inspired, and fully
supported me. I also thank them for giving me not only financial, but moral and
vii
Yunita Hening Herdiyati F., S.Pd, M.Hum., to accompany and support me all of
the time.
Above all, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the lovely Jesus
Christ, who had blessed me in my years of study and in finishing this thesis. I
thank Him for guiding me into all the truth and for making straight my paths,
including during my working on the thesis. I thank Him for giving generously and
without reproach all the knowledge I lack of when I ask. He is the sculptor of me,
viii
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE ... i
APPROVAL PAGE ... ii
DEFENSE APPROVAL PAGE ... iii
STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY ... iv
LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI... v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS ... ix
LIST OF TABLE ... xi
LIST OF FIGURES ... xii
LIST OF APPENDICES ... xiii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ... xiv
ABSTRACT ... xv
ABSTRAK ... xvii
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background of the Study ...1
1.2 Problem Limitations ...6
1.3 Research Questions ...7
1.4 Research Objectives ...8
1.5 Research Benefits ...9
CHAPTER 2 THEORETICAL REVIEW 2.1 Ditransitivity ...11
2.1.1 Dative ...12
2.1.2 Benefactive ...13
2.2 The Linguistic Features Relevant to Benefactive and Dative ...15
2.2.1 Semantic Verb Class ...16
2.2.2 Syntactic Complexity of Theme and Beneficiary ...18
2.2.3 Animacy of Theme and Beneficiary ...19
2.2.4 Discourse Accessibility of Theme and Beneficiary...21
2.2.5 Pronominality of Theme and Beneficiary...22
x
2.2.7 Person of Beneficiary ...24
2.2.8 Number of Theme and Beneficiary ...26
2.2.9 Definiteness of Theme and Beneficiary ...26
2.3 Corpus Linguistics ...27
2.4 Probabilistic Model of Logistic Regressions ...29
2.5 Related Studies ...30
2.6 Theoretical Framework ...33
CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.1 Research Type ...36
3.2 Research Data ...38
3.3 Data Analysis ...44
3.4 Triangulation ...47
CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4.1 The Syntactic and Semantic Features Affecting Benefactive Construction ...50
4.1.1 Givenness of Beneficiary ...58
4.1.2 Animacy of Beneficiary ...62
4.1.3 Pronominality of Theme ...66
4.1.4 Definiteness of Theme ...70
4.1.5 Person of Beneficiary ...75
4.1.6 Syntactic Complexity ...79
4.2 Features Relevant on Dative and Benefactive ...96
4.2.1 Effect Direction and Size of the Linguistic Features to Ditransitive ...97
4.2.2 The Interchangeability of the Significant Features to Ditransitive ...103
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 Conclusions ...108
5.2 Recommendations ...111
BIBLIOGRAPHY ...114
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1 Classification model table showing the probabilistic binary logistic
regression model accuracy with fourteen variables ... 53
Table 4.2 Multivariable binary logistic model summary table ... 54
Table 4.3 Table of fourteen variables in the equation of the probabilistic binary logistic regression model ... 56
Table 4.4 Crosstabulation of givenness of beneficiary toward ditransitivity ... 59
Table 4.5 Variable givenness of beneficiary removed from full model ... 62
Table 4.6 Crosstabulation of animacy of beneficiary toward ditransitivity ... 63
Table 4.7 Variable animacy of beneficiary removed from full model ... 66
Table 4.8 Crosstabulation of pronominality of theme toward ditransitivity .... 67
Table 4.9 Variable pronominality of theme removed from full model ... 70
Table 4.10 Crosstabulation of definiteness of theme toward ditransitivity ... 71
Table 4.11 Variable definiteness of theme removed from full model ... 74
Table 4.12 Crosstabulation of person of beneficiary toward ditransitivity ... 76
Table 4.13 Variable person of beneficiary removed from full model... 78
Table 4.14 Variable syntactic complexity removed from full model ... 84
Table 4.15 Table of six variables in the equation ... 87
xii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Terminology in benefactive construction ... 13
Figure 2.2 Terminology in benefactive construction ... 15
Figure 3.1 The process of ten-fold cross-validation ... 49
Figure 4.1 Benefactive frequencies in COHA data setbased on the PP and DO realizations ... 52
Figure 4.2 Tabular data showing distribution of syntactic complexity in benefactive alternation ... 80
Figure 4.3 Effect sizes of the significant features to the choice of benefactive construction ... 85
Figure 4.4 Model plots of observed against estimated responses. ... 86
Figure 4.5 Excel processing of PP realization prediction ... 91
xiii
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1 : List of Benefactive Instances Chosen for Data Set ... 118
Appendix 2 : Annotating and Coding Process of the Data Set ... 145
Appendix 3 : The Relevance of Features Analysis ... 160
Appendix 4 : Benefactive Construction Realization Analysis ... 177
Appendix 5 : Ten-Fold Cross-Validation Analysis ... 186
Appendix 6 : External Validation Analysis ... 198
Appendix 7 : Mix-Effect Binary Regression Analysis of Benefactive Construction ... 204
xiv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
S : Subject
V : Verb
O : Object
PP : Prepositional Phrase
COHA : Corpus of Historical American English
Io : Indirect Object
DO : Direct Object
prepto : Preposition to
Op : Object of Preposition
CS : Conceptual Construction
MAva : Make Available
VoCr : Verb of Creation
VPrf : Verb of Performance
Vpre : Verb of Preparation
VIdi : Verb with Idiomatic Meaning
NP : Noun Phrase
DOC : Double Object Construction
β/B : Coefficient x : Linguistic Feature
p : Probability
S.E. : Standard Error
df : Degree of Freedom
Sig : Significance
exp (B) : Odds Ratio
xv ABSTRACT
Prasetya, Eko. 2013. The Linguistic Features Affecting the Choice of Ditransitive Constructions in English. Yogyakarta: The Graduate Program in English Language Studies, Sanata Dharma University.
The alternation of benefactive construction either as NP NP or NP PP appears to be troublesome and hard to undertake by many language users. As theoretical linguistics traditionally relies on linguistic intuition such as grammatical judgement for such data, the low proficient or non-native speakers will find it hard to solve this benefactive construction problem. While the problem of how language users decide which structure to use has been analyzed using approaches like syntactic, semantic, and discourse, this very research proposes the analysis of benefactive construction using probabilistic grammar. This research combines corpus linguistic study and logit formula of probabilistic earned from binary logistic regression. The data set of benefactive construction taken from Corpus of Historical American English (COHA) provides the tendency of occurrences of the construction. The model of benefactive probabilistic is built from the analysis of corpus data and then is computed into the logit formula to predict the occurrences of benefactive construction.
Two research questions were explored in this research. The first research question was What linguistic features affect the choice of benefactive construction? The second research question was How do the significant features differ in the effect size of the effect toward ditransitive construction?
In attempt of answering the research questions, twelve theories were employed. The theories were theories of ditransitivity, semantic class of verbs, syntactic complexity, animacy of theme and beneficiary, discourse givenness of theme and beneficiary, pronominality of theme and beneficiary, concreteness of theme, person of beneficiary, number of theme and beneficiary, definiteness of theme and beneficiary, corpus linguistic, and probabilistic model of logistic regression. The theories were used during annotation process and used to analyze the significant of the features toward benefactive construction.
xvi
xvii ABSTRAK
Prasetya, Eko. 2013. The Linguistic Features Affecting the Choice of Ditransitive Constructions in English. Yogyakarta: Program Pasca-Sarjana Kajian Bahasa Inggris, Universitas Sanata Dharma.
Permasalahan pemilihan pemakaian konstruksi benefaktif tampaknya membingungkan dan sulit untuk dipecahkan oleh banyak pengguna bahasa. Karena Linguistik teoritis tradisional bergantung pada intuisi linguistik seperti penghakiman gramatikal untuk data tersebut, pengguna bahasa dengan tingkat pemahaman bahasa rendah dan yang bukan penutur alami akan kesulitan untuk memecahkan masalah konstruksi benefaktif ini. Sementara masalah bagaimana pengguna bahasa menentukan struktur kebahasaan yang akan dipakai telah dianalisa dengan menggunakan pendekatan seperti sintaksis, semantik, dan wacana, penelitian ini menyajikan analisis konstruksi benefaktif menggunakan pendekatan probabilistik linguistik. Penelitian ini menggabungkan studi linguistik corpus dan logit rumus probabilistik yang diperoleh dari regresi logistik biner. Kumpulan data konstruksi benefaktif diambil dari Corpus of Historical American English ( COHA ) memberikan peluang kecenderungan kemunculan konstruksi benefactif. Model probabilistik benefaktif dibuat berdasar analisis data corpus dan kemudian dihitung ke dalam rumus logit untuk memprediksi kejadian konstruksi benefaktif.
Penelitian ini dilakukan guna menjawab dua pertanyaan. Pertanyaan yang pertama adalah Elemen linguistik apakah yang berpengaruh terhadap pemilihan konstruksi benefaktif? Pertanyaan yang kedua adalah Seberapa besar dan bagaimana pengaruh elemen yang signifikan terhadap pemilihan konstruksi ditransitif?
Dalam upaya menjawab pertanyaan penelitian, dua belas teori digunakan. Teori-teori tersebut antara lain teori ditransitivity, kelas semantik dari kata kerja, kompleksitas sintaksis, kebernyawaan tema dan penerima, wacana sudah belumnya tema dan penerima dibahas, kata ganti tema dan penerima, konkrit tidaknya tema, lokal dan ketidaklokalan penerima, jumlah penerima manfaat dan tema, kepastian dari tema dan penerima, corpus linguistik, dan model probabilistik regresi logistik. Teori-teori ini digunakan selama proses penjelasan dan digunakan untuk menganalisa elemen-elemen yang signifikan terhadap pemilihan konstruksi benefaktif.
xviii
mendukung temuan bahwa meskipun arah relevansi elemen serupa, kekuatan efek fitur berbeda jauh antara kedua konstruksi .
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The background is presented in this chapter to get a preview of the concept
of ditransitivity including dative and benefactive constructions before the
researcher goes into the discussion of the linguistic features that affect the choice
of the structures. The background covers some overviews of traditional linguistic
towards benefactive constructions. In addition, it presents the problem faced by
language users to the choice of benefactive alternations. In the final sections,
problem limitations, research questions, research objectives, and research benefits
are presented. Generally, the chapter presents the difficulty of the choice of
benefactive constructions.
1.1 Background of the Study
Ditransitive verbs are defined as verbs with double-object construction
(Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech, and Svartvik (1985)). Yet, the definition has
interesting consequences. A non-native English speaker may often find difficulties
in using verbs with double-object construction. A construction with SVOO
structure or Subject + Verb + Object 1 + Object 2 as in the example below shows
one of the difficulties:
2
Although semantically acceptable, the verb said in dative sentence (1) is
grammatically unacceptable unless it is paraphrased into
b. My friend said Hi to me. S V O2 to O1/PP
In other dative example below, the verb brought requires two obligatory objects to
be grammatical. When omitting the theme some apples or the recipient me, the
construction will be judged as ungrammatical.
(2) He brought me some apples.
Similarly, the construction of benefactive has been quite troublesome for
some of language users. Often the language users get confused of what
construction to use, whether it is benefactive PP or double object construction.
(3) a. They don‟t tend to make you as much money. b. They don‟t tend to make as much money for you.
The two constructions in example (3) show that benefactive construction seems to
be alterable. The problem arises whether the choice of construction is purely free
for the language users to choose, or certain formula for the pattern should be
obeyed.
Theoretical linguistics traditionally relies on linguistic intuition such as
grammatical judgment for such data (Bresnan (2010)). The certain grammatical
pattern like benefactive construction for instance, possesses certain pattern to be
remembered. The language users have no chance to freely alter their own
3
producing ungrammatical construction. Even then, when they are attempted with
much language exposure, the language users still do not understand how to
construct such alternation in relatively grammatical forms.
In traditional linguistics such problem of benefactive construction is
considered to be complex and difficult to deal with. Some would even consider
this benefactive alternation problem uninteresting for linguistic theory. Yet, due to
the immense growth of computer-readable texts and recordings, namely „corpus‟
which provide source for the analysis, such problem seems to be solvable. The
very method with the more comprehensible analysis and explanation of such
grammatical patterns is needed. The researchers can explore the natural language
use written in corpus machine, thus it gives chance of the naturally proper usage
of certain patterns.
The problem of how language users decide which structure to use has
become the subject matter of many researchers in various fields. The approaches
include syntactic (Quirk et al. 1972), semantic (Gries and Stefanowitsch 2004),
and discourse (Collins 1995). In addition, certain kind of research method, which
is probabilistic models for language, has been rapidly developed. In this
probabilistic model approach, the research is done based on the real use of
grammatical construction mostly in natural settings to predict the probability of
the occurrences of certain constructions. Bresnan et al. (2007) have applied such
probabilistic approach to explain dative alternation in the language produced by
adult speakers in American English. Theijssen et al. (2009) applied similar
approach to the data set of benefactive construction of adult and child data. Both
4
Benefactive. Yet, they did not happen to compare the relevant features of dative
and benefactive. The shared and un-shared linguistic features of the two
constructions remain a mystery.
In computing the probability of occurrences like dative and benefactive
alternations, many models can be employed. To predict the probability of
occurrences of certain occurrence in this case construction, simple linear
regression model, mix-effect linear regression model, multinomial regression
model, simple binary logistic model, and mix-effects binary logistic model can be
applied (Sunyoto 2007 ; Suharjo 2008). Some formula of probabilistic model can
be employed in predicting the occurrences of the alternations including Friedman
Tukey, Normit, and Logit Methods. Yet, these plenty of choice sometimes baffle
the researcher to which models and methods should be done to the certain
probabilistic grammar research.
In Bresnan‟s (2007) dative construction, thirteen features appear to be
significant to the choice of dative. They include animacy of recipient,
pronominality of recipient, discourse givenness of recipient, semantic class
„transfer‟, definiteness of recipient, plurality of theme, person of recipient,
givenness of theme, structural parallelism in dialogue, pronominality of theme,
syntactic complexity, semantic class „communication‟, and definiteness of theme.
Despite the fact that both dative and benefactive are ditransitive constructions, a
question appears whether or not both construction share similar relevant linguistic
features that affect the choice of their constructions.
To respond to the challenge of how to deal with the benefactive
5
question of what linguistic features affecting dative and benefactive construction,
this present research on probabilistic benefactive construction using binary
logistic models is conducted. Using the similar models used by Bresnan et
al.(2007) and Theijssen et al.(2009), the present research focuses on different data
set which are benefactive and dative from COHA. The different data set which is
used by the present research is due to the amount of instances taken. While
Bresnan used 1260 instances of dative and Theijssen employed 143 instances of
benefactive, this research uses 400 instances of benefactive in COHA along with
80 instances of benefactive and dative in TIME for cross-validation and external
validation tests. This fair amount of instances is taken with the time reason.
Bresnan works on dative only, and Theijssen does research on benefactive in adult
and child data, this very research compute the data of benefactive construction and
compare the results with the dative alternation. This research focuses on written
text produced by native speakers of American English.
The problem with the choice of ditransitive constructions both benefactive
and dative has tempted the researcher to do the research on the alternations. The
inability and or the obscurity of the low-proficient and non-native English
language users to deal with the constructions have encouraged the researcher
more. The research is considered important because on the top of that the
construction has been proven troublesome for the native language users of English
6
1.2 Problem Limitations
This research limited its discussion into two focused problems. First, this
research was limited to the findings of features which are significant to the choice
of benefactive construction along with their effect direction and size. Second, this
research was limited to the corpus probabilistic grammar model of benefactive
construction built from the mixed-effect binary logistic regression model. Third,
this research was limited to the shared features which are relevant to the choice of
dative and benefactive constructions.
The research used simple and mixed-effect binary logistic regressions
model to find out the features significant to the choice of benefactive. The data
from COHA corpus which were then coded in SPSS were used as the basis of the
analysis. Making use of the binary variables and continuous scaled variable, the
binary logistic models were able to present the relevant features toward
benefactive construction. In this research, the analysis of the syntactic and
semantic features was limited to fourteen features employed by Bresnan et al.
(2007) in their study of dative construction. The effect bias of the verb senses was
excluded because the fixed and random effect will be too complicated to analyze.
Additionally, the research was limited only to the logit corpus probabilistic
formula to predict the occurrence of benefactive construction. The analysis of the
logit formula was intended to support the significant features revealed. The
coefficients of the significant features found early on, showed the direction and
size of the features toward benefactive construction. From those statistical data of
the coefficients, logit probabilistic model of benefactive construction was made.
7
able to predict the occurrence of the benefactive construction with high accuracy.
Taking Bresnan‟s (2007) argument into account, that having no access to the
intuition of the language speakers, the regression models allow us to notice the
dynamics of syntactic alternation and to predict the alternation in a cognitively
realistic way.
Finally, the research was limited to the analysis of the shared significant
features toward dative and benefactive constructions. When the shared features
were obtained, the cross-model application was done to check the
interchangeability of the two probabilistic models. This method provided the
information of the different effect sizes of the features when applied to dative and
to benefactive. By providing the different size of the effect and testing the models
into the cross-data sets of dative and benefactive, the research was able to explain
whether dative and benefactive alternations were very much similar or not.
1.3 Research Questions
The research intends to answer the following formulated problems:
1. What linguistic features affect the choice of benefactive construction?
2. How do the significant features differ in the effect size on ditransitive
8
1.4 Research Objectives
As stated previously, the research has been conducted to answer the
research questions above. There are two objectives that the research tries to
overcome. The first objective of this research is to reveal the features which are
significant to the choice of benefactice construction. Analyzing the features
relevant to the choice of benefactive construction will help in understanding the
natural use of this construction. As acquiring such a complicated pattern is
troublesome for the language users, for non-native speakers moreover, the
research will help the language users to realize the construction in a cognitively
realistic way. Some features which are found significant to the choice of
benefactive construction will be accommodating to predict the choice of
benefactive construction.
The second research objective of this study is to identify the shared
relevant features of dative and benefactive construction and how they differ to
each other. The corpus probabilistic models obtained from logistic regression
models are employed to find the direction and size of the feature effects. Hence,
the cross-model application is done to check the possibility of model
interchangeability.
To support the significant features toward benefactive construction, logit
formula of probabilistic benefactive construction is used in the predicting
probabilities process. The logit model is used to predict the outcomes of instances
possessing some significant features toward benefactive construction. This logit
formula provides the highly accurate prediction of the benefactive PP and double
9
studies (Bybee & Hooper 2001; Bod et al. 2003; Gahl & Garnsey 2006; Gahl&
Yu 2006).
The mixed-effect of binary logistic model is combined with simple binary
logistic model to bring about strong analysis of the feature relevance. The
mix-effect binary logistic model basically analyzes a single dependent variable based
on many independent variables as predictors which are bounded in the equation.
The mix-effect binary logistic model occupies a dependent variable which is the
ditransitivity of occurrence and 14 independent variables as predictors which are
the linguistic features affecting the ditransitivity. The mixed-effect binary logistic
model will provide the effect of variables in the equation, and the simple binary
logistic model will give the effect of variables when are not in the equation. The
effect of variables in the equation are needed to formulate the logit probabilistic
model, while the effect sizes from variables not in the equation are needed to
show how each feature contribute to increase the model fit accuracy.
Complementing mixed-effect binary logistic model with simple binary logistic
model, thus will offer the more precise and complete analysis of the significant
features toward dative and benefactive construction.
1.5 Research Benefits
The research offers both theoretical and practical benefits. Theoretically,
this research contributes to better knowledge of Corpus Linguistic Study and
probabilistic study. Analyzing the corpus data set of the benefactive constructions
10
benefactive alternation is influenced by some linguistic features. Thus, it suggests
that corpus probabilistic model is powerful tool to analyze the grammar
alternation.
In addition, this research also contributes to the understanding of
ditransitive construction, both dative and benefactive. While prior research done
by Collins (1995) use both dative and benefactive constructions, there is no
evidence that he makes comparison between the features affecting dative and
benefactive. This research, will contribute to the insight of the similarity and
difference between features relevant to dative and benefactice construction.
Practically, for readers in general this research gives perception on the
process of learning and production language. While language is traditionally
driven by certain exact patterns and is hardly analyzed, this research renews the
view of language users that language is probabilistic. This probabilistic model will
help the language users to find the construction without merely relying on pattern
memorization.
In addition, the simple model built from this research can be helpful,
especially for non-native language users of English who are generally less
proficient than native language users. When the non-native language users at least
know the significant features of the benefactive construction, and then occupy the
feature coefficients into the corpus probabilistic model, they will be able to find
the more possible grammatical form of the construction. Doing this, the
probabilistic model will provide prediction of the benefactive construction which
11
CHAPTER 2
THEORETICAL REVIEW
This chapter presents a theoretical review which is used in the analysis of
the research. The chapter is divided into 6 parts. The theoretical review presents
theories of ditransitivity, linguistic features (semantic class of verbs, syntactic
complexity, animacy of theme and beneficiary, discourse givenness of theme and
beneficiary, pronominality of theme and beneficiary, concreteness of theme,
person of beneficiary, number of theme and beneficiary, definiteness of theme and
beneficiary), corpus linguistic, probabilistic model of logistic regression, review
of related studies, and theoretical framework.
2.1 Ditransitivity
Ditransitivity is needed to be reviewed as its alternations become the focus
of the discussion. Ditransitive constructions have been prototypically defined as
the combinations of ditransitve verb with an indirect object and a direct object
(Quirk et al.(1985). In its occurrence, ditransitive verb requires both direct and
indirect objects. In other terms, the verb requires both theme and
recipient/beneficiary. Ditransitive verbs involve dative and benefactive
12
2.1.1 Dative
Dative verbs include the ditransitive verbs assign the role of recipient and
goal. Dative verbs assigning the role of recipient and goal must syntactically
facilitate the to-dative alternation (Subject+ Predicate + Indirect Object + Direct
Object/SPIoDo Subject + Predicate + Direct Object + preposition to + Object of preposition/SPDopreptoOp) and semantically, as well as belonging to the
dynamic types expressing action-process, also have the meaning as verbs of
motion or movement; caused movement, caused possession, communication
implying either transfer of message (Gropen et al (1989).
Many English dative verbs appear in alternative dative PP and dative NP
constructions:
(1) a. I give them some money.
b. I give some money to them.
Example 1 involves what (Bresnan (1978), cited by Gropen et al. (1989) as denial
and repetition, which presupposes that the verb give has the same meaning in both
constructions. Here the alternative syntactic constructions are apparently used
primarily for a shift of emphasis. Elsewhere, however, different constructions are
associated with different semantics.
(2) a. I sent a package to the librarian. ~ I sent the librarian a package.
13
In a more specific case, the alternation is not allowed at all, though. It is because
the alternation will not be syntactically accepted and or semantically change the
meaning.
(3) a. Diana whispered the news to me.
b. *Diana whispered me the news.
To establish the terminology in dative construction, table 2.1 is given below:
Terms used with the dative alternation
Prepositional dative structure …gave [bread] [to her family] V NP PP
Double object construction …gave [her family] [bread] V NP NP
Dative PP …gave [bread] [to her family] V NP PP
Dative NP …gave [her family] [bread] V NP NP Theme …gave [bread] [to her family] V NP PP
…gave [her family] [bread] V NP PP
Recipient …gave [bread] [to her family] V NP PP …gave [her family] [bread] V NP NP
Figure 2.1 Terminology in dative construction
2.1.2 Benefactive
Benefactive verbs are verbs that bear benefactive role, a thematic or
semantic role that shows an argument benefitting from what another argument
does (Quirk et al.(1985). Semantically, Quirk et al.(1985) as cited by Nia (2009)
classifies verbs into two main groups; dynamic and static. Benefactive verbs
belongs the dynamic ones, to be more specific, action verbs and action-process
verbs. These verbs, according to Dowty in Jackendoff (1990), when posing as a
ditransitive predicator, have the following criteria; first, benefactive verbs
14
(SPIoDo SPprepforOp) and semantically, as well as belonging to the dynamic
verbs indicating action-process, express the meanings; make available, creation,
performance, or preparation.
As mentioned before, benefactive verbs are verbs that assign benefactive
roles on the argument or noun phrase functioning as an Indirect Object (Io) or an
Object of preposition (Op) in the construction with prepositions like me in
sentence 4.
(4) a. She gave me a piece of cake.
b. She gave a piece of cake to/for me.
Both constructions according to Jackendoff (1990), bears the following
conceptual structure [CS[GO([Y], FROM [X] [TO] [Z]])] which indicates that
argument Y experiences a change of possession or situation or location as a result
of the action argument X deliberately performs. CS in the above formulation
stands for Conceptual Structure, the underlying logic of the preposition (clause or
sentence). X is the argument that bears the agent role and occupies the syntactic
function of subject in ditransitive construction. Y is the argument that bears the
patient/theme role and occupies the syntactic function of direct object in the
construction. Z is the argument that bears the benefactive role and occupies the
syntactic function of indirect object or object of preposition.
Benefactive verbs employed in this research will be based on the
classification of Dowty in Jackendoff (1990). He categorizes the benefactive verbs
15
performance‟ (VPrf), „of preparation‟ (VPre), and verbs with idiomatic meanings
(VIdi).
(5) a. I bought him some snacks.
b. His father built him a huge house.
c. Diane played me a romantic song.
In the context above, the verbs bought, built, and played are benefactive verbs.
However, they are under different sub-categories. Bought belongs to the
benefactive verb carrying the meaning „make available‟ (MAva), built belongs to
the benefactive verb carrying the meaning „of creation‟ (VoCr), and played under
the category „of performance‟ (VPrf).
To establish the terminology in benefactive construction, table 2.2 is given below:
Terms used with the benefactive alternation
Prepositional benefactive structure …make[an offer] [for me] V NP PP
Double object construction …make [me] [an offer] V NP NP
Benefactive PP …make [an offer] [for me] V NP PP
Benefactive NP …make [me] [an offer] V NP NP Theme …make [an offer] [for me] V NP PP
…make [me] [an offer] V NP PP
Beneficiary …make [an offer] [for me] V NP PP …make [me] [an offer] V NP NP
Figure 2.2 Terminology in benefactive construction
2.2 The Linguistic Features Relevant to Benefactive and Dative
The research makes use of fourteen explanatory variables which were
16
the measures of syntactic complexity or „weight‟ are highly correlated (Arnold et
al., 2000; Wasow, 2002; Szmrecsanyi, 2004a; Bresnan et al., 2007), the difference
in number of graphemic words between the theme and beneficiary to measure
their relative weight. The factors of animacy, definiteness, and pronominality of
theme were taken into account. Animacy and definiteness were coded using the
coding practices of Garretson (2004), and discourse accessibility was coded based
on Prince (1981) and Gundel et al. (1993). Pronominality was defined to
distinguish phrases headed by pronouns (personal, demonstrative, and indefinite)
from those headed by nonpronouns such as nouns and gerunds. In addition to
these features, concreteness of theme, person of beneficiary, and number of
beneficiary and theme are taken into accounts. From the cross-linguistic
evidence, number (singular/plural) and person could also have an influence
(Aissen, 1999,2003; Bresnan, 2003; Haspelmath, 2004).
2.2.1 Semantic Verb Class
In Bresnan et al (2007), the dative verbs are classified into six semantic
classes. The classification includes „transfer‟ of possession as with give, „future
transfer‟ as with offer, „communication‟ of information as with tell, „prevention of
possession‟ as with deny, and „abstract‟ as with give that a thought. Theijssen et
al. (2009) formed semantic categorization with four classes. They are „creation of
possesion‟ as with produce, „obtaining of possesion‟ as with get, „keeping of
possession‟ as with keep, and „abstract‟ as with do someone a favor.
Nia (2009) based on Jackendof (1990) divides the verbs indicating
benefactive semantic role into 5 classes. The first class includes benefactive
17
save, catch, fetch, find, get, order, and take. The second class will be the one
includes benefactive verbs with the meaning of „creation‟. The verbs are build,
make, and write. The third category carries the meaning of „performance‟. The
verbs belong to this class include do, give, play, show, and sing. The fourth
category with the meaning „preparation‟ includes verbs fix and pour. The last
category of benefactive ditransitive verbs is the one brings the meaning
„idiomatic‟. The verbs are bet, bear, spare, do, deal, earn, and grant.
Referring to Dowty in Jackendoff (1990) this research classifies the
semantic feature into 4 clusters of semantic categories: the verbs carrying meaning
„make available‟, „creation‟, performance‟, and „preparation‟. The first semantic
class was represented by the verb get. The second semantic class was represented
by the verb make. The third class was represented by the verb play. The last class
is represented by the verb fix (See the examples below) (See also Appendices 1
and 2)
6. a. to rest while your Dutch girl - what s her name? Catrine? – gets us
something to eat. " Miss Hammond followed her brother to her room,
b. the beneficiary of his work savings account. Once married, she
pressured him into making her the beneficiary of a $100,000 insurance
policy he had, Mallard told the jurors
c. but he doesn't provide enough help on the defensive boards. Although
freshmen play the most important roles for this team, OSU has shown it can excel on
d., I don't care. I got ta have a martini. So the bartender fixes him a martini
18
2.2.2 Syntactic Complexity of Theme and Beneficiary
Syntactic complexity of theme and beneficiary is one of important
predictors of word order and construction. The previous study on word order and
construction type claim that relative syntactic complexity is one of considerable
factors (Hawkins, 1994). In his study of relative clause, Hawkins suggests that as
the cumulative size and complexity of nominal modifiers increase, the distance
between P and N increases in the pronominal order and the efficiency. It puts the
longer, relatively more complex expression at the end of the construction.
One of technique of measuring syntactic complexity can be done by
counting the number of graphemic words (Wasow(2002), Szmrecsanyi(2004)).
The results of Wasow‟s (2002) corpus study show a clear effect of constituent
weight on syntactic alignment in dative sentences. In the double object
construction variants theme NP tends to be longer, whereas in prepositional dative
variants, recipient NP tends to be longer. His calculation shows that in both
variants the final constituent is on average 3.5 times heavier than the constituent
occurring immediately post verbally.
Bresnan et al.(2007) use the metric to count the relative syntactic
complexity, in which the complexity predictor is the signed logarithm of the
absolute value of the difference between the theme and recipient lengths in words.
This kind of measure is intended to obtain the relative complexity of theme and
recipient in a continuous scale variable.
This present research, the researcher uses a simpler measure as proposed
by Bresnan (2010). The relative complexity log scale is obtained by substracting
19
length. This measure will result in an ordinal value, in the form of a continuous
variable. The examples below illustrate the feature syntactic complexity (See also
Appendix 1 and 2).
7. " he said. " Really, it's the old cliche -- I play them one game at a time. " # Elliott, the wide receiver, It's a lot of fun. "
verb : plays
theme : one game
1 2 (log scale – counted based on the number of words, for
example the theme one game is 2 log scale
as it consists of 2 words )
beneficiary : them
1 (log scale)
Length different = beneficiary length – theme length
= 1 – 2
= -1 (log scale)
2.2.3 Animacy of Theme and Beneficiary
Animacy is another important predictor affecting the English word order.
Recent studies claim that animacy is an important cognitive category in humans
with subtle effects on English word order, primarily showing up in variation
(Thompson (1990, 1995), Rosenbach (2002), Bresnan & Hay (2008)). These prior
studies suggest that animate constituents appear before inanimate ones. Animate
20
Similarly, inanimate beneficiary favors prepositional construction, putting the
inanimate beneficiary in the end of the sentence.
Garretson (2004) classifies the animacy into nine categories- „human‟,
„organization‟, „animal‟, „place‟, „time‟, „concrete‟, „nonconcrete‟, „machine‟, and
„vehicle‟. The choice between human, organization, and nonconcrete depended on
how the coders interpreted the referent of the expression. Although guidelines
were given about the difference between human and organization, the cut-off
point remains unclear. The categories time and place were defined in a way that
did not go beyond the coders‟ perceptive of them. The time was supposed to refer
to „periods of time‟. Yet, it left the ambiguity as the time sometime was also
claimed as nonconcrete.
For Bresnan‟s (2007) dative data set, animacy was coded in four
categories- „human‟, „organization‟, „animal‟, and „inanimate‟ derived from
Garretson et al. (2004). The categories „place‟, „time‟, „concrete inanimate‟,
„nonconcrete inanimate‟, „machine‟, and „vehicle‟ were collapsed into a single
„inanimate‟ category. The boundary between human and organization followed
the guidelines from Garretson.
For this research on benefactive, the researcher follow the animacy coding
system by Bresnan (2010). The animacy of the data was categorized into human
or animal, which is animate vs other. This categorization fits the model in use,
which is logistic regression model which require binary variables (See the
examples below to clarify the idea of animacy of theme and beneficiary) (See also
21
8. Amelia No. Baron. Baron Wildenhain Does not your face glow, when he
makes you a fine speech? referring, perhaps, to love or marriage. Amelia verb : makes
theme : a fine speech : inanimate
beneficiary : you : animate
2.2.4 Discourse Accessibility of Theme and Beneficiary
Discourse accessibility is reviewed as the feature which is proven to
influence the choice of alternative constructions (Halliday (1970), Thompson
(1995)). The role of the tonic is fully demonstrated, and the power of theme/rheme
in relation to given/new is very powerful. The feature givenness of theme and or
beneficiary is strongly related to the focus placement. The focus of placement of
given or non-given information is the main spotlight of the so called alternations.
Bresnan et al (2007) state that many of previous studies on dative
alternations, the data were coded into seven levels of discourse accessibility –
„evoked‟, „situationally evoked‟, „frame inferrable‟, „generic‟, „containing
inferrable‟, „anchored‟, and „new‟ (Prince (1981), Gundel et al. (1993), Michaelis
& Hartwell (2007)). Prince (1981:1) hypothesizes a “conspiracy of syntactic
construction” designed to prevent NPs that represent unfamiliar information from
occupying subject position. In this conspiracy of syntactic construction, given
information, which the speaker assumes the addressee is aware of the knowledge
precede new information, which the speaker assumes he is introducing into the
addressee‟s consciousness (Chafe (1976)).
To make a simple coding in modeling, this research takes the
22
givenness were simplified into two categories. The theme and beneficiary phrase
was defined as „given‟ if first, its referent was mentioned in the previous ten lines
of discourse („evoked‟), or second, it was a first or second person pronoun
(denoting a „situationally evoked‟ referent). All others were „non-given‟. The
examples of given and non-given theme and beneficiary are given below. (See
also Appendices 1 and 2).
9. was rather the result of principle than of personal predilection. When Mr.
West had made a sketch for the Regulus, and submitted it to His Majesty, after some
verb : made
theme : a sketch : non-given
beneficiary : the Regulus : given
2.2.5 Pronominality of Theme and Beneficiary
The feature pronominality of theme and beneficiary refers to whether the
theme or beneficiary was headed by pronouns or not. Different nominal
expression types, such as pronouns, proper names, and common nouns have been
found to affect the choice of syntactic alternations (Silverstein (1976), Aissen
(1999), O‟Conor et al. (2004) in Bresnan (2010)). The various categories of
nominal expressions were ranked to Local person > Pronoun 3rd> Proper noun
3rd> Human 3rd> Animate 3rd> Inanimate 3rd. The findings suggest that 1st or 2nd
person pronouns are marked when they are subjects of transitive clauses, but not
23
In some research of dative construction, the nominal expression of theme
and recipients were coded in several coding systems. Cueni (2004) in Bresnan
(2007) coded theme and recipients in dative data set into seven categories. The
nominal expression types were given values „personal pronoun‟ (her), „impersonal
pronoun‟ (someone), „demonstrative pronoun‟ (that), „proper noun‟ (Jeanne),
„common noun‟ (a native African), „gerund‟ (employing some foreigners), and
„partitive‟ (the rest of the team). Bresnan (2007) simplified this coding system
into two. In particular, pronominality was simplified to phrases headed by
personal, demonstrative, indefinite, or reflexive pronouns from those headed by
non-pronouns such as nouns and gerunds.
This research occupies the categorization by Bresnan (2010), with similar
categorization from the one he made in 2007, yet defining „pronouns‟ as personal
(including it, them and generic you), demonstrative, or reflexive. Indefinites is
excluded from the categorization. However, basically the feature is coded in
binary variable pronoun and non-pronoun (See the examples below to clarify the
feature pronominality of theme and beneficiary) (See also Appendices 1 and 2)
10.dear master, you'll be cleared. Mar. Marcel (aside.) Play him some trick to frighten him and he'll confess all. Ber. Bertrand
verb : play
theme : some trick : non-pronoun
24
2.2.6 Concreteness of Theme
Garretson (2004) coded the theme arguments for whether they referred to a
concrete object, defined as a prototypically concrete inanimate object or substance
perceivable by one of the five senses. The „prototypical‟ limitation was used to
bring the category into the ordinary categorization of what a concrete object is: for
example, it excludes water but includes plants. While the previous categorization
of animacy was simplified by omitting concrete and nonconcrete inanimates, this
feature concreteness of theme tries to compensate the simplification.
This research makes use of the categorization of Garretson (2004) above,
yet it assumes that water is concrete object. The categorization of this research
relies more of the ability of the four senses to sense the object. When the object
can be touched, tasted, smelled, or seen, the object is claimed as concrete. When
the object can only be heard, it is included under the category of inconcrete. (See
the examples below which illustrate the feature concreteness of theme) (See also
Appendices 1 and 2).
11.And then, when' -- Well I hope you will then feel like getting me a new silk gown. You know, Mr. Prouty, that my white
verb : getting
theme : a new silk gown : concrete
2.2.7 Person of Beneficiary
Departing from the findings of Silverstein (1976), the feature person of
beneficiary is reviewed. Silverstein ranked the various nominal expressions to
25
Inanimate 3rd. The findings suggest that 1st/2nd person pronouns are marked when
they are subjects of transitive clauses, but not when they are objects. This
categorization, however, mix the locality of person (inclusive/exclusive) with
pronominality and animacy. Thus, this very feature of person of beneficiary is put
under a different category.
In the studies of dative and benefactive alternation, the feature person of
recipient/beneficiary is coded into two. Bresnan et al. (2001) claim that person
influences syntactic alternations in some languages and variations in English. He
then, confirms Cueni‟s (2004) categorization, distinguishing the feature person
into inclusive and specific uses of both first and second persons as „local‟ and
third person as „non-local‟. In the research of dative construction, Theijseen et al.
(2009) annotated person of recipient by giving it the value local or nonlocal.
Local recipients are in first or second person (e.g. I, me, yourself), non-local ones
in third person. In this research of benefactive construction, the categorization
system is similar with Theijssen‟s. However, this research includes we and us as
local, and puts inanimate beneficiary under the category of non-local. The
examples of the benefactive construction with the feature person of beneficiary
are given below (See also Appendices 1 and 2)
12.in breakfast or dinner isn't of much account. Now, there's Dinah gets you a
capital dinner, -- soup, ragout, roast fowl, dessert,
verb : gets
26
2.2.8 Number of Theme and Beneficiary
Number plays important roles in syntactic variation of grammar. Number
is a typologically important category in grammar (Greenberg (1966)). Bresnan
(2002), Bresnan et al. (2007) add that feature number is greatly matter in some
types of morphosyntactic variation in English. In the dative data set, words with
formal plural marking like –s/-es and such kind of instance like fish that the
context clearly indicated that it was plural, were coded as „plural; other words
were coded as „singular‟.
This research uses the categorization of Bresnan (2007), classifying the
feature number into singular and plural. In a special pronoun you, the antecedent
was checked to find out whether the pronoun you is plural or singular. The
sentences below exemplify the feature number of theme and beneficiary (See also
Appendix 3).
13.Availing herself of the decided preference shown her, she might have
aimed at making her husband a party in the dispute; and, by his means, have
verb : making
theme : a party : singular
beneficiary : her husband : singular
2.2.9 Definiteness of Theme and Beneficiary
In his research on predicting syntax, dative construction, Bresnan (2010)
use the coding system as utilized by Garretson (2004). When the theme or
27
existential interpretation, then the NP is coded as indefinite. Referring to Cueni
(2004), examples of indefinite NPs include one, a little bird, more jobs, something
I can eat; examples of definite NPs include her, that bag, the dog, my photo
album, Diane, all my classmate.
This research employs the categorization system by Theijssen (2009)
which divide the feature definiteness into two, definite and indefinite. All
(syntactic) object heads that were preceded by a definite article or a definite
pronoun (e.g. demonstrative and possessive pronouns), and all objects that were
proper nouns or definite pronouns themselves, were annotated definite. The
remaining objects were given the value indefinite. The examples below illustrate
the feature definiteness of theme and beneficiary (See also Appendix 3).
14.it might assist in the accomplishment of her hopes. You took your part –
made me a promise that you would exercise all your abilities as an actor, to
verb : made
theme : a promise : indefinite
beneficiary : me : definite
2.3 Corpus Linguistics
The debate on the importance of Corpus Linguistics has been present for
years. The two major sides conflicting are rationalists and empiricists. Rationalist
theories are based on the development of a theory of mind, in the case of
28
analyzes the external effects of human language processing, but also to make
claim that it represents how the processing is actually undertaken within human
mind. Empiricist theories, on the other hand, are dominated by the observation of
naturally occurring data, typically through the medium of the corpus. In this case,
sentences are said to be grammatical and are formed by natural collocation when
they are tested in corpus.
According to McEnery and Wilson (2001), language is finite and is an
enumerable set that can be gathered and counted. For this reason, the corpus was
seen as source of hard data in the formation of linguistics theory and was said to
be a perfect place to test linguistics theory. In addition, the four characteristics of
corpus linguistic study proposed by Biber (1998) provides the fact that corpus
linguistic study offers natural environment to check the phenomenon of grammar
construction, in this case benefactive construction. The four characteristics include
first, the fact that corpus-based analysis is empirical, analyzing the actual patterns
of use in natural texts. Second, corpus study utilizes large data collection of
natural texts, known as „corpus‟. Third, it makes extensive use of computers for
analysis, using both automatic and interactive technique. The last characteristic is
that the corpus study depends on both quantitative and qualitative analytical
techniques. These characteristics make corpus linguistic study exploitable in
predicting the tendency of grammatical pattern used by language users in real life
29
2.4 Probabilistic Model of Logistic Regressions
Probabilistic model of regression model makes use of corpus data as the
basis analysis and then combined the result of analysis with regression model in
SPSS. The result of the variables in the equation in SPSS then is computed with
the logit probabilistic formula of logistic regression. The method of dynamic
probabilistic grammar has been used in several prior studies (Bybee & Hooper
2001; Bod et al. 2003; Gahl & Garnsey 2006; Gahl& Yu 2006). But then, Bresnan
(2007) focuses the use of this dynamic probabilistic grammar to the domain of
syntactic variation. The focus of probabilistic model in syntactic variation is to
predict the occurrences of certain construction. When the probabilistic value gets
closer to one, the tendency for the event to happen is high. Conversely, when the
probabilistic value is closer to zero the tendency for the event to happen is low.
Below is the logit formula of probabilistic binary logistic regression model
(Sunyoto 2007; Suharjo 2008) :
constant+β1 x1+β2 x2+β3x3+… +βn xn e
In
p
constant+β1 x1+β2 x2+β3x3+… +βn xn 1+eexp(constant+β1 x1+β2 x2+β3x3+… +βn xn
1+ exp(constant+β1 x1+β2 x2+β3x3+… +βn xn
In
p
=
constant+β1 x1+β2 x2+β3x3+… +βn xn1 - p
Where p represents the probability of the event to happen, in this case benefactive
