Volume 11, Issue 6
  • ISSN 1879-9264
  • E-ISSN: 1879-9272
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This study deals with the syntactic (non-)derivational relationship of English dative alternation (DA) –double object constructions (DOCs) and -datives–, as seen in the spontaneous production of English-Spanish bilinguals when compared to English monolinguals. While a chronological progression and a difference in use between the two English DA constructions could suggest a syntactic-derivational relationship between DOCs and -datives, a fairly similar emergence and a possibly similar rate of use could point to the two constructions not displaying a syntactic-derivational status. We also explore whether English-Spanish bilinguals show divergent developmental paths when compared to English monolinguals. To address these issues, we analyze data from nine English-Spanish bilingual children and twelve English monolingual children, along with the adults interacting with them. The analysis shows that both DA structures emerge at a similar age, which suggests they are not syntactically derived from one another. Despite these differences, the later onset and the lower incidence of -datives could be associated with the case and theta role mediated properties of prepositions as well as with the frequency of exposure to DA in the adults’ speech. As no differences appear between bilinguals and monolinguals, transfer from Spanish does not seem to be an issue.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Aoun, J. , & Li, A. Y.
    (1989) Scope and constituency. Linguistic Inquiry, 20(2), 141–172.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Arnold, J. E. , Wasow, T. , Losongco, A. , & Ginstrom, R.
    (2000) Heaviness versus newness: The effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering. Language, 76, 28–55. 10.1353/lan.2000.0045
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2000.0045 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bel, A. , & Rosado, E.
    (2009) Person and number asymmetries in child Catalan and Spanish. In J. Grinstead (Ed.), Hispanic Child Languages (pp.195–214). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. 10.1075/lald.50.09bel
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lald.50.09bel [Google Scholar]
  4. Borer, H. , & Wexler, K.
    (1987) The maturation of syntax. In T. Roeper & K. Wexler (Eds.), Parameter Setting (pp.123–172). Dordrecht: Reidel. 10.1007/978‑94‑009‑3727‑7_6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-3727-7_6 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bruhn de Garavito, J. L. S.
    (2000) The syntax of Spanish multifunctional clitics and near-native competence (Doctoral dissertation). McGill University, Québec, Canada.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Campbell, A. L. , & Tomasello, M.
    (2001) The acquisition of English dative constructions. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22(2), 253–267. 10.1017/S0142716401002065
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716401002065 [Google Scholar]
  7. Chomsky, N.
    (1981) On the representation of form and function. The Linguistic Review, 1, 3–40. 10.1515/tlir.1981.1.1.3
    https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.1981.1.1.3 [Google Scholar]
  8. Clark, E. V.
    (2009) First language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511806698
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511806698 [Google Scholar]
  9. Cuervo, C.
    (2003a) Datives at large (Doctoral dissertation). The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Massachusetts, USA.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. (2003b) Structural asymmetries but same word order: The dative alternation in Spanish. In A. M. Di Sciullo (Ed.), Asymmetry in Grammar. Volume I: Syntax and Semantics (pp.117–144). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. 10.1075/la.57.07cue
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.57.07cue [Google Scholar]
  11. Czepluch, H.
    (1982) Case theory and the dative construction. The Linguistic Review, 2(1), 1–38. 10.1515/tlir.1982.2.1.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.1982.2.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  12. De Houwer, A.
    (1990) The acquisition of two languages from birth: A case study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511519789
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511519789 [Google Scholar]
  13. (2005) Early bilingual acquisition: Focus on morphosyntax and the separate development hypothesis. In J. Kroll & A. De Groot (Eds.), The Handbook of Bilingualism (pp.30–48). Oxford: Oxford University Press
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Demonte, V.
    (1994) Datives in Spanish. Working Papers in Linguistics, 4(1), 71–96.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. (1995) Dative alternation in Spanish. Probus, 7(1), 5–30. 10.1515/prbs.1995.7.1.5
    https://doi.org/10.1515/prbs.1995.7.1.5 [Google Scholar]
  16. Dryer, M. S.
    (1986) Primary objects, secondary objects and antidative. Language, 62(4), 808–845. 10.2307/415173
    https://doi.org/10.2307/415173 [Google Scholar]
  17. Genesee, F. , Nicoladis, E. , & Paradis, J.
    (1995) Language differentiation in early bilingual development. Journal of Child Language, 22(3), 611–631. 10.1017/S0305000900009971
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900009971 [Google Scholar]
  18. Gropen, J. , Pinker, S. , Hollander, M. , Goldberg, R. , & Wilson, R.
    (1989) The learnability and acquisition of the dative alternation in English. Language, 65, 203–257. 10.2307/415332
    https://doi.org/10.2307/415332 [Google Scholar]
  19. Gu, C. C.
    (2010) Cross-linguistic influence in two directions: The acquisition of dative constructions in Cantonese-English bilingual children. International Journal of Bilingualism, 17(1), 87–103.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Haspelmath, M.
    (2006) Ditransitive constructions in RRG and some other approaches. International Conference on Role and Reference Grammar, Leipzig, Germany.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Hulk, A. , & Müller, N.
    (2001) Bilingual first language acquisition at the interface between syntax and pragmatics. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 3(3), 227–244. 10.1017/S1366728900000353
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728900000353 [Google Scholar]
  22. Larson, R. K.
    (1988) On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry, 19, 335–391.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Legate, J. A. , & Yang, C.
    (2002) Empirical re-assessment of stimulus poverty arguments. The Linguistic Review, 19, 151–162. 10.1515/tlir.19.1‑2.151
    https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.19.1-2.151 [Google Scholar]
  24. MacWhinney, B.
    (2000) The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk (third edition). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Marantz, A.
    (1984) On the nature of grammatical relations. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. (1993) Implications of asymmetries in double object constructions. In S. A. Mchombo (Ed.), Theoretical Aspects of Bantu Grammar (pp.113–150). Stanford: Leland Stanford Junior University Press
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Meisel, J. M.
    (2004) The bilingual child. In T. K. Bathia & W. C. Ritchie (Eds.), The handbook of Bilingualism (pp.91–113). Oxford: Blackwell
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Mulder, R.
    (1992) The aspectual nature of syntactic complementation. Leiden: Holland Institute of Generative Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Oehrle, R. T.
    (1976) The grammatical status of the dative alternation (Doctoral Dissertation), Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Paradis, J. , Crago, E. , & Genesee, F.
    (2006) Domain-specific versus domain-general theories of the deficit in SLI: Object pronoun acquisition by French-English bilingual children. Language Acquisition, 13(1), 33–62. 10.1207/s15327817la1301_3
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327817la1301_3 [Google Scholar]
  31. Paradis, J. , & Genesee, F.
    (1996) Syntactic acquisition in bilingual children: Autonomous or interdependent?Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 1–25. 10.1017/S0272263100014662
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100014662 [Google Scholar]
  32. Peccei, J. S.
    (1999) Child language. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Perlmutter, D. M.
    (1990) Relational grammar. In E. A. Moravcsik & J. R. Wirth (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics: Current Approaches to Syntax13 (pp.195–229). Orlando Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Pylkkänen, L.
    (2002) Introducing arguments (Doctoral dissertation). The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Massachusetts, USA.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Rowland, C.
    (2014) Understanding child language acquisition. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Ronjat, J.
    (1913) Le développement du langage observé chez an enfant bilingue. Paris: Librairie Ancienne H. Champion.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Rothman, J. , González Alonso, J. , & Puig Mayenco, E.
    (2019) Third language acquisition and linguistic transfer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316014660
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316014660 [Google Scholar]
  38. Sánchez Calderón, S. , & Fernández Fuertes, R.
    (2016) Dativizable or non-dativizable: That is the question? A syntactic-semantic analysis of English (non)-dativizable constructions in the production of a set of 2L1 English/Spanish simultaneous bilingual twins. Xjenza Online-Journal of the Malta Chamber of Scientists, 4, 44–57.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. (2018) Which came first: The chicken or the egg? Ditransitive and passive constructions in the English production of simultaneous bilingual English children. ATLANTIS. A Journal of the Spanish Association for Anglo-American Studies, 40(1), 39–58. 10.28914/Atlantis‑2018‑40.1.02
    https://doi.org/10.28914/Atlantis-2018-40.1.02 [Google Scholar]
  40. Snyder, W.
    (1995) A neo-davidsonian approach to resultatives, particles, and datives. In J. Beckman (Ed.), Proceedings of 25 North East Linguistic Society25 (pp.457–472). Amherst: Graduate Linguistic Student Association of the University of Massachusetts.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. (2001) On the nature of syntactic variation: Evidence from complex predicates and complex word-formation. Language, 77, 324–342. 10.1353/lan.2001.0108
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2001.0108 [Google Scholar]
  42. Snyder, K.
    (2003) The relationship between form and function in ditransitive constructions (Doctoral dissertation), University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Snyder, W. , & Stromswold, K.
    (1997) The structure and acquisition of English dative constructions. Linguistic Inquiry, 28(2), 281–317.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Torrens, V. , & Wexler, K.
    (2000) The acquisition of clitic doubling in Spanish. In S. M. Powers & C. Hamann (Eds.), The Acquisition of Scrambling and Cliticization. Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics26 (pp.279–297). Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑017‑3232‑1_11
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-3232-1_11 [Google Scholar]
  45. Yang, C.
    (2016) The price of linguistic productivity: How children learn to break the rules of language. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262035323.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262035323.001.0001 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error