to rest while your Dutch girl - what s her name? Catrine? – gets us Corpus Linguistics

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 cat egory 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 doesnt 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 dont care. I got ta have a martini. So the bartender fixes him a martini

real fast, grabs his money, and runs out the back 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 Wasow2002, Szmrecsanyi2004. 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 the natural logarithm of the theme from the natural logarithm of beneficiary 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, its the old cliche -- I play them one game at a time. Elliott, the wide receiver, Its 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 theme prefers prepositional construction, putting the theme in post verbal position. 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 Appendices 1 and 2 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 themerheme in relation to givennew 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 categorization made by Bresnan 2010. The seven categories of discourse 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 3 rd Proper noun 3 rd Human 3 rd Animate 3 rd Inanimate 3 rd . The findings suggest that 1 st or 2 nd person pronouns are marked when they are subjects of transitive clauses, but not when they are objects. 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, youll be cleared. Mar. Marcel aside. Play him some trick to frighten him and hell confess all. Ber. Bertrand verb : play theme : some trick : non-pronoun beneficiary : him : 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 Local person Pronoun 3 rd Proper noun 3 rd Human 3 rd Animate 3 rd 25 Inanimate 3 rd . The findings suggest that 1 st 2 nd 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 inclusiveexclusive 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 recipientbeneficiary 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 isnt of much account. Now, theres Dinah gets you a capital dinner , -- soup, ragout, roast fowl, dessert, verb : gets beneficiary : you : local 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 recipient is placed into a phrase in the context of There isare __ permits an 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 linguistics. The theories aim at developing a theory of language that not only 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 situation. 29

2.4 Probabilistic Model of Logistic Regressions