Title: Revisiting constraints on postverbal argument coding and linearization in English goal ditransitive constructions


Vol. 10(2), 2022, pp. 7-16.



Author: Bebwa Isingoma

About the author: Bebwa Isingoma earned his PhD in English Linguistics in 2013 at the University of Agder (Norway) after completing his MPhil at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. He is an EU Marie S. Curie fellow (Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies, Germany, 2018/19) and a fellow of the African Humanities Program (Rhodes University, South Africa, 2015). His research interests include (variational) sociolinguistics, English syntax, cognitive pragmatics and Bantu linguistics. He is currently a Senior Lecturer in English Language & Linguistics and Dean of the Faculty of Education & Humanities at Gulu University (Uganda).                 







Citation (APA style): Bebwa, I. (2022). Revisiting constraints on postverbal argument coding and linearization in English goal ditransitive constructions. Studies in Linguistics, Culture, and FLT, 10(2), 7-16.


Abstract: The current study seeks to revisit the analysis that attributes the infelicity, in all varieties of English, of strings like (1) ‘*He gave the man it’ and (2) ‘*He gave to him it’ to “the clash between the topical character of the pronoun ‘it’ and the focality associated with end position in English”, in addition to the “breach of the short-before-long principle” (Siewierska & Hollmann, 2007: 86f.) The string in (1) is a double object construction (DOC), while that in (2) is a prepositional construction (PPC). In contradistinction to the above constraints, the present study shows that the pronoun ‘it’ can felicitously appear in the end position in DOCs, as in e.g. “He gave him it” (cf. Huddlestone, 2002: 248), besides the fact that the so-called ‘short-before-long principle’ is clearly violated in that sentence without rendering it ungrammatical. Hence, end position and the “breach of the short-before-long principle” are not tenable constraints.  Thus, the current study maintains that for a DOC to accommodate a personal pronoun theme, its goal argument must be realized as a lexically unstressed constituent (cf. Antilla, 2008), specifically as a pronoun (e.g. He gave him it). On the other hand, postponing a personal pronoun theme in the PPC is not possible (e.g. *He gave to him it) because a postponed theme involving non-heavy NP shift is only possible if it is a nominal constituent, since nominal constituents are both contrastively and lexically stressable (cf. Antilla et al., 2010), as in e.g. He gave to him the book – a construction that has been reported to occur in the northern dialect of British English (cf. Siewierska & Hollmann, 2007). Any attempt to postpone a personal pronoun theme will render the sentence ungrammatical (e.g. *He gave to him it), even where there is an unequivocally contrastively stressable pronoun like ‘them’ (e.g.*He gave to him them), since, while ‘them’ is no doubt contrastively stressable, it is not lexically stressable. Both lexical stressability and contrastive stressability are a requirement for this kind of postponement.

Key words: ditransitive, goal, ordering, pronominalization, postponement



  1. Anttila, A. (2008). Phonological Constraints on Constituent Ordering. In Chang, C. B. & Haynie, H. J. (eds.). Proceedings of the 26th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 51-59. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
  2. Antilla, A., Adams, M., & Speriosu, M. (2010). The role of prosody in the English dative alternation. Language and Cognitive Processes 25.7-9, 946-981.
  3. Arnold, J. E., Wasow, T., Losongco, A. & Ginstrom, R. (2000). Heaviness vs. Newness: The Effects of Structural Complexity and Discourse Status on Constituent Ordering. Language 76, 28-55.
  4. Beal, J. (2010). An Introduction to Regional Englishes. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
  5. Beavers, J. (2011). An Aspectual Analysis of Ditransitive Verbs of Caused Possession in English. Journal of Semantics 28, 1-54.
  6. Beavers, J., & Koontz-Garboden, A. (2017). The Semantic Contribution of Idiosyncratic Roots in Ditransitive Verbs. In A. Kaplan et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the 34th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 70-80). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
  7. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.
  8. Bible: New American Standard Version. Retrieved on June, 30, 2021 from
  9. Bresnan, J., & Nikitina, T. (2008). The Gradience of the Dative Alternation. In L. Uyechi & L. H. Wee (eds.), Reality Explanation and Discovery: Pattern Interaction in Language and Life (pp. 161-184). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
  10. British National Corpus (BNC). Retrieved on June, 30, 2021, from
  11. Cleghorn, T. L., & Rugg, N. M. (2011). Comprehensive Articulatory Phonetics. California: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
  12. Cowan, R. (2008). The teacher’s grammar of English: A course book and reference guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  14. Erteschik-Shir, N. (1979). Discourse Constraints on Dative Movement. In T. Givón (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 12: Discourse and Syntax (pp. 441-467). New York: Academic Press.
  15. Erteschik-Shir, N. (2007). Information structure: The Syntax-Discourse interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  16. Gast, V. (2007). I gave it him – On the Motivation of the ‘Alternative Double Object Construction’ in Varieties of British English. Functions of Language 14(1), 31-56.
  17. Gerwin, J. (2013). Give it me! Pronominal Ditransitives in English Dialects. English Language and Linguistics 17(3), 445-463.
  18. Haddican, W. (2010). Theme-Goal Ditransitives and Theme Passivization in British English Dialects. Lingua 120, 2424-2443.
  19. Huddleston, R. (2002). The clause: Complements. In R. Huddleston & G. K. Pullum (eds.). The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (pp. 213-321). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  20. Hughes, A., & Trudgill, P. (1979). English accents and dialects: An introduction to social and regional varieties of British English. London: Edward Arnold.
  21. Isingoma, B. (2018). Accounting for variability in the linearization of Ditransitive Constructions in English among Native Speakers. Argumentum 14, 383-399.
  22. Isingoma, B. (2021a). Order of postverbal arguments and object markers in Rutooro ditransitive constructions. African Study Monographs 41(1), 25-42.
  23. Isingoma, B. (2021b). Structural properties of Rutooro ditransitive constructions: A lexical- functional analysis. Linguistica Atlantica 39(1), 1-21.
  24. Krifka, M. (2004). Semantic and Pragmatic Conditions for the Dative Alternation. Proceedings of the KASELL International Conference on English Language and Linguistics, Seoul, June 25-26, 2003.
  25. Levin, B. (2015). Semantics and Pragmatics of Argument Alternations. Annual Review of Linguistics 2015(1), 63-83.
  26. Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  27. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. N., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
  28. Rappaport-Hovav, M., & Levin, B. (2008). The English Dative alternation: The case of verb sensitivity. Journal of Linguistics 44, 129-167.
  29. Shiobara, K. (2002). On the interaction between end-weight and end-focus. In S. Burelle & S. Somesfalean (eds.), Proceedings of the 2002 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association (pp. 273-284). Canadian Linguistic Association.
  30. Siewierska, A., & Hollmann, W. (2007). Ditransitive clauses in English with special reference to Lancashire dialect. In M. Hannay & G. J. Steen (eds.), Structural-functional studies in English grammar (pp. 83-102). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  31. Zwicky, M. A. (1986). Unaccented pronoun constraint in English. OSU WPL 32, 100-113.