Title: The use of ditransitive constructions among L1 Lugbarati speakers of English in Uganda: A preliminary study


Vol. 11(1), 2023, pp. 33-48.



Author: Peace Yikiru

About the author: Peace Yikiru is an Assistant Lecturer at the Department of Languages and Literature at Gulu University (Uganda). She is a trained teacher of English and Literature in English. Her research interests are in the fields of sociolinguistics, syntax and corpus linguistics.


ORCID iD:   


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 at Gulu University (Uganda).                  



ORCID iD:         



Citation (APA style): Yikiru, P., & Isingoma, B.  (2023). The use of ditransitive constructions among L1 Lugbarati speakers of English in Uganda: A preliminary study. Studies in Linguistics, Culture, and FLT, 11(1), 33-48.

Abstract: One of the important features of structural nativization of L2 varieties of English is how their grammar converges with and/or diverges from their parent variety, usually, British English. Building on Isingoma (2016, 2021a), this study is set out to augment discourse on verb complementational profile in Ugandan English, focusing on ditransitive constructions. Using naturalistic data from semi-structured interviews involving 50 participants from L1 Lugbarati (a Central Sudanic language) speakers of English, the study shows that the Prepositional Phrase Construction (PPC) involving goal verbs is preferred over the Double Object Construction (DOC) configuration. Moreover, our data did not have a single incidence of benefactive DOCs. Substrate influence from Lugbarati, among others, appears to be a contributing factor, given that DOCs are rare in this language, as they are constrained by the semantic criterion of ‘prior possession’ of the theme/patient by the recipient/beneficiary referent. The findings thus show that Isingoma’s (2016) monolithic generalizations about this phenomenon are debatable, as he indicates that the DOC is overwhelmingly acceptable with goal verbs in Ugandan English and that the particularities observed in ditransitive constructions in the variety are influenced by Bantu languages (where the DOC is the norm). Likewise, the assertion that Ugandans ubiquitously use the non-canonical PPC configuration for benefactive verbs (Isingoma, 2016) does not hold for L1 Lugbarati speakers of English, as the configuration was manifestly sporadic in our data, as opposed to the canonical PPC. The current study thus underscores the fact that there is substantial interspeaker variability in Ugandan English along ethnolinguistic lines (cf. Isingoma & Meierkord, 2022).

Keywords: English, Uganda, ditransitive, Lugbarati, substrate influence



  1. Andersen, T. (1986). Tone splitting and vowel quality: Evidence from Lugbara. Studies in African Linguistics, 17(1), 55-68.
  2. Andersen, T. (1994). Consonantal tones in Lugbara. Acta Linguistica Hafniensa, 27, 25-50.
  3. Barr, L. I. (1965). A Course in Lugbara. Nairobi, Kampala, Dar es Salaam: East African Literature Bureau.
  4. Beavers, J. (2011). An aspectual analysis of ditransitive verbs of caused possession in English. Journal of Semantics, 28, 1-54.
  5. Beavers, J., & Koontz-Garboden, A. (2017). The semantic contribution of idiosyncratic roots in ditransitive verbs. In A. Kaplan, C. Brendel, A. Kaplan, A. Kaplan, M. McCarvel, J. Pynes & E. Rubin (Eds.), Proceedings of the 34th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 70-80). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, 70-80.
  6. Bernaisch, T., Gries, T.S., & Mukherjee, J. (2014). The dative alternation in South Asian English(es): Modelling predictors and predicting prototypes. English World-Wide, 35(1), 7-31.
  7. Bresnan, J., & Nikitina, T. (2009). 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.
  8. Chang, L. H. (2004). Discourse effects on EFL learners’ production of dative constructions. Journal of National Kaohsiung University of Applied Sciences, 33,145–170.
  9. Corpora: Coca. English. (n.d.). Retrieved April 21, 2023, from .
  10. Crazzo1ara, J. P. (1960). A Study of the Logbara (Ma'di) Language. London: Oxford University Press.
  11. Esimaje, U. A., Gut, U., & Antia, E. B. (Eds.). (2019). Corpus Linguistics and African Englishes: [Studies in corpus linguistics]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  12. Fellbaum, D. C. (2005). Examining the constraints on the benefactive alternation by using the World-Wide Web as a corpus. In M. Reis & S. Kesper (Eds.), Linguistic Evidence: Empirical, Theoretical, and Computational Perspectives (pp. 209-240). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  13. Fisher, A. E. C. (2000). Assessing the state of Ugandan English. English Today, 16, 57-61.
  14. Green, M. G. (1974). Semantics and syntactic regularity. London: Indiana University Press.
  15. Greenbaum, S., & Nelson, G. (1996). The International Corpus of English (ICE) Project. World Englishes, 15, 3-15.
  16. Gropen, J., Pinker, S., Hollander, M., Goldberg, R., & Wilson, R. (1989). The learnability and acquisition of the dative alternation in English. Language, 65(2), 203-257.
  17. Harley, H. (2002). Possession and the double object construction. In P. Pica (Ed.), Linguistic Variation Yearbook, 2, 26-68.
  18. Hawkins, R. (1987). Markedness and the acquisition of the English dative alternation by L2 speakers. Second Language Research, 3(1), 21-55.
  19. Hlaváčková, V., & Brůhová, G. (2022). The development of and factors influencing double object construction preference of the ditransitive verbs envy and forgive. Linguistica Pragensia, 32(2), 198-213.
  20. Hoffmann, S., & Mukherjee, J. (2007). Ditransitive verbs in Indian English and British English: A corpus linguistic study. Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 32, 5-24.
  21. Hughes, A., & Trudgill, P. (1979). English accents and dialects: An introduction to social and regional varieties of British English. London: Edward Arnold.
  22. Isingoma, B. (2013). Innovative pragmatic codes in Ugandan English: A relevance-theoretic account. Argumentum, 9, 19-31.
  23. Isingoma, B. (2016). The use of ditransitive constructions in Ugandan English. In C. Meierkord, B. Isingoma & S. Namyalo (Eds.), Ugandan English. Its sociolinguistics, structure and uses in a globalising post-protectorate (pp. 201-226). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  24. Isingoma, B. (2018). Accounting for variability in the linearization of ditransitive constructions in English among native speakers. Argumentum, 14, 383-399.
  25. Isingoma, B. (2021a). Implicit arguments in Ugandan English. English Studies at NBU, 7(2), 147-166.
  26. Isingoma, B. (2021b). Structural properties of Rutooro ditransitive constructions: A lexical functional grammar analysis. Linguistica Atlantica, 39(1), 1-21.
  27. Isingoma, B. (2022). Revisiting constraints on postverbal argument coding and linearization in English goal ditransitive constructions. Studies in Linguistics, Culture, and FLT, 10(2), 7-16.
  28. Isingoma, B., & Meierkord, C. (2019). Capturing the lexicon of Ugandan English: ICE-Uganda, its limitations and effective complements. In A. U. Esimaje, U. Gut & B. E. Antia (eds.), Corpus Linguistics and African Englishes (pp. 294-328). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  29. Isingoma, B., & Meierkord, C. (2022). Between exonormative traditions and local acceptance: A corpus-linguistic study of modals of obligation and spatial prepositions in spoken Ugandan English. Open Linguistics, 8, 87-107.
  30. Jäschke, K. (2016). The dative alternation in English as a second language. Düsseldorf Heinrich-Heine-Universität doctoral dissertation. Retrieved October 18, 2022 from .
  31. Jaspers, J., & Madsen, L. M. (2019). Fixity and fluidity in sociolinguistic theory and practice. In J. Jaspers & L.M. Madsen (eds.), Critical Perspectives on Linguistic Fixity and Fluidity (pp. 1-26). Abingdon: Routledge.
  32. Jibril, M. (1991). The sociolinguistics of prepositional usage in Nigerian English. In J. Cheshire (Ed.), English around the world: Sociolinguistic perspectives, (pp. 519-537). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  33. Kachru, B. (1985). Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the outer circle'. In R. Quirk & H. G. Widdowson (Eds.), English in the world. Teaching and learning the language and literatures (pp. 11-30), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  34. Koch, C., & Bernaisch, T. (2013). Verb complementation in South Asian English(es): The range and frequency of “new” ditransitives. Language and Computers, 77(1): 69-89.
  35. Krifka, M. (2004). Semantic and pragmatic conditions for the dative alternation. Korean Journal of English Language & Linguistics, 4, 1-32.
  36. Kroeger, R. P. (2004). Analyzing Syntax: A Lexical-Functional Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  37. Kuha, M. (1997). Competing motivations for NP order in Kenyan English. World Englishes, 17(1), 61-70.
  38. Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
  39. Meierkord, C. (2012). Interactions across Englishes: Linguistic choices in local and international contact situations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  40. Meierkord, C., & Isingoma, B. (2022). Between first language influence, exonormative orientation and migration – future time expressions in post-protectorate Ugandan English. English World-Wide, 43(2), 220-248.
  41. Mesthrie, R., & Bhatt, R. M. (2008). World Englishes: The Study of New Linguistic Varieties. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  42. Mukherjee, J. (2009). The lexicogrammar of present-day Indian English: A corpus-based perspective on structural nativisation. In U. Römer & S. Rainer (Eds), Exploring the Lexis-Grammar Interface (pp.117-137). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  43. Mukherjee, J., & Hoffmann, S. (2006). Describing verb-complementational profiles of New Englishes: A pilot study of Indian English. English World-Wide, 27(2), 147-173.
  44. Nyaggah, L. B. (1990). Cross-linguistic influence in Kenyan English: The impact of Swahili and Kikuyu on syntax. PhD dissertation, UCLA. 
  45. Oehrle, R. T. (1976). The Grammatical status of the English dative alternation. PhD Dissertation. MIT.
  46. Ongua, I. P. (1999). A Simplified Lugbara-English Dictionary. Kampala: Fountain Publishers.
  47. Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  48. Proroković, J., & Malenica, F. (2023). Language corpora and first language acquisition – A case study of the ditransitive construction. Applied Corpus Linguistics, 100041.
  49. Röthlisberger, M., Grafmiller, J., & Szmrecsanyi, B. (2017). Cognitive indigenization effects in the English dative alternation. Cognitive Linguistics, 28(4), 673-710.
  50. Schmied, J. (2004). East African English (Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania): Morphology and syntax. In B. Kortmann & E. W. Schneider (Eds.), A Handbook of Varieties of English, Volume II: Morphology and Syntax (pp. 929-947). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  51. Schneider, W. E. (2007). Postcolonial English: Varieties around the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  52. Syvertsen, I. (2022). Syllable structures in English speech produced by multilingual speakers with histories of mobility. In M. Monsen & G. B. Steien (Eds.), Language Learning and Forced Migration (pp. 101-121). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
  53. Van Valin, D. R., & LaPolla, J. R. (1997). Syntax: Structure, meaning, and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  54. Yikiru, P., & Isingoma, B. (2023). Ditransitive constructions in Lugbarati: A preliminary study: ms. Gulu University.