58
conventional significance level 0.05.The six features vary in the level of coefficientB, odds ratio expB and 95 confidence interval CI.The most
significant feature affecting the choice of benefactive construction is
givenness of beneficiary.
The second strongest feature affecting the benefactive alternation is
animacy of beneficiary.
The third feature is
pronominality of theme.
The next feature which is relevant is
definiteness of theme.
Following this feature is
person of beneficiary.
The sixth feature affecting the choice of benefactive construction is
syntactic complexity.
4.1.1 Givenness of Beneficiary
In the model, the nominal value of
givenness of beneficiary
was coded to categorical variable beneficiary=given is 1, and beneficiary=non-given is 2
See the Appendices 1 and 2 for the detailed identification and annotating process. The default of the feature is non-given, whereas the default of the
benefactive construction is benefactive PP. The p value of the feature givenness of beneficiary reaches the number 0.015 See Table 4.3 and Appendix 3 which is
less than the conventional significance level 0.05. Thus, the feature givenness of beneficiary is proven to be relevant to the choice of benefactive construction.
The crosstabulation table of givenness of beneficiary toward ditransitivity shows that 98.4 of non-given beneficiary take benefactive PP construction, only
the rest 1.6 of non-given beneficiary take double object construction. Conversely, 71.3 of given beneficiary take double object construction, and the
rest 28.7 take benefactive PP construction. Both statistics say that given information comes before non-given information.
59
Givenness of Beneficiary toward Ditransitivity Crosstabulation
Ditransitivity Total
benefactive construction
prepositional construction
Giveness of Beneficiary
given beneficary
Count 154
62 216
within Giveness of Beneficiary 71.3
28.7 100.0 within Ditransitivity
98.1 25.5
54.0 of Total
38.5 15.5
54.0 non-given
beneficiary Count
3 181
184 within Giveness of Beneficiary
1.6 98.4 100.0
within Ditransitivity 1.9
74.5 46.0
of Total .8
45.3 46.0
Total Count
157 243
400 within Giveness of Beneficiary
39.3 60.8 100.0
within Ditransitivity 100.0
100.0 100.0 of Total
39.3 60.8 100.0
Table 4.4 Crosstabulation of givenness of beneficiary toward ditransitivity
In addition, the result shows that the feature givenness of beneficiary possesses positive coefficient B of 2.565. It means that the default non-given
beneficiary favors the default benefactive PP construction. The size of the effect of the feature is explainable through the odds ratio expB of 12.996. It suggests
that non-given beneficiary is more than 12 times likely to take benefactive PP construction rather than given beneficiary. The 95 confidence interval CI
supports the claim, showing that non-given beneficiary tends to choose benefactive PP construction between 1.642 to 102.853 times. Conversely, if the
beneficiary is given, the sentence will tend to appear in the double object construction. The coefficient B, odds ratio expB, and 95 CI above are
60
presented in Table 4.3 See also Appendix 3. The examples below illustrate the probability of the occurrence of instances possessing non-given and given
beneficiary.
1
a. getting work for the nonet non-given beneficiary more probable b. getting the nonet work
