97
alternation. In these two models with similar coding system, positive coefficients favor the benefactive PP construction V NP PP, negative ones favor the double
object construction V NP NP. The significance of the features which are suggested toward the choice of benefactive alternation, then, was seen from the p
value sig. Only p values which are less than 0.05 conventional significant level expresses strong influence toward the choice of benefactive construction. The
odds ratio expB, in addition, shows how certain features direct the choice of benefactive alternation. The range of the odds ratio which possibly appears was
bounded by the range of Confidence Interval 95.
4.2.1 Effect Direction and Size of the Linguistic Features to Ditransitive
The result shows that the intercept has a significant effect: B =-6.091 standard error 1.589, odds ratio expB 0.02, p value 0.00. This implies that
when all feature values are 0, there is a strong bias towards using the benefactive PP construction. In previous study on the English benefactive on adult and
children writing Theijssen
et al.
2009, the result shows a significant effect with B=8.1 standard error 2.83, 95 confidence interval 2.41-13.75.
p
0.005. In the dative case as in Bresnan
et al.
2007, the intercept is only 0.95, but no information given about its significance. The fairly large different between
intercepts for the Bresnan‟s dative, Theijssen‟s benefactive, and this research‟s benefactive can be explained. In the dative alternation case, the majority of
instances has a double object construction 79, while in Theijssen‟s benefactive alternation, the majority is benefactive PP 70.1. In this research similarly, the
majority of the instances is benefactive PP 60.8.
98
The significant coefficients,
p
value, odds ratio, and 95 CI in Bresnan‟s dative 2007, Theisjssen‟s benefactive 2009, and this research‟s Benefactive are
given in table 4. In Bresnan‟s dative 13 features possess great effects to the choice
of the dative alternation. Interestingly, Theijssen
et al.
finds 4 features, and this research finds six features which significantly affect the choice of the benefactive
construction. The figure below shows the statistical data of the alternations.
Table 4.16 Features relevant on dative and benefactive cases
Further away, both of research in benefactive alternations found less significant features compared to the features found in dative alternation. This
phenomena, though, is still explainable through the instances taken in the research. Bresnan
et al.
took 2360 instances of dative constructions in their data set, whereas, Theijssen
et al.
used 107 instances of adult data set, and this research
Bresnan‟s Dative Theijssen‟s
Benefactive This Research‟s Benefactive
Features B
ExpB 95 CI
B 95 CI
B ExpB
95 CI Recipientbeneficiary =
inanimate 2.54
12.67 5.56-
28,87 2.27
9.66 1.18-
79.38 NP-PP
NP-NP Recipientbeneficiry =
non-pronoun 1.17
3.22 1.70-6.09
Recipientbeneficiary = non-given
0.99 2.69
1.37-5.3 2.57
12.99 1.64-
102.8 Semantic class = transfer
0.96 2.61
1.44-4.69 Recipientbeneficiary =
indefinite 0.85
2.35 1,25-4.43
Theme = plural 0.50
1,65 1,05-2.59
2.6 4.6-0.6
Recipientbeneficiary = non-local
0.48 1,62
1,06-2.46 1,09
2.97 1,34-6.59
Theme = non-given -1,05
0.35 0.19-0.63
-3.0 -6.1-0.0
Structural parrarelism in dialoque = yes
-1,13 0.32
0.22-0.47 Theme = non-pronoun
-1,18 0.31
0.19-0.50 -2.18
0.11 0.02-0.59
Length difference recbenef-theme
-1,21 0.3
0.22-0.4 -1,2
-3.9- - 0.7
-0.59 0.55
0.40-0.76 Semantic class =
communication -,34
0.26 0.13-0.55
Theme = indefinite -1,37
0.25 0.15-0.44
-1,34 0.26
0.11-0.66
99
provides 400 instances of benefactive alternations. The fewer amount of instances taken in the research of benefactive due to the small occurrences of the
benefactive cons truction compared to dative construction as in Bresnan‟s. In this
research the occurrence of benefactive construction is 125 per ten thousand words. Apparently, six relevant features reach significance in this research. Most of the
features reflect what was found in Bresn an‟s dative, yet their strengths differ.
Three features appear to favor benefactive PP construction, while the other three show a preference for the double object construction.
The strongest effect towards the benefactive PP construction is found for the feature
beneficiary
=
non-given.
It means that when the beneficiary has not been mentioned previously in the text, the construction is expected to appear in
benefactive PP construction. While Theijssen
et al.
did not find the significance of this feature, Bresnan
et al.
found the same effect of this feature. In dative cases, non-given recipient tends to appear in prepositional dative construction. While the
direction of this feature effect is the same, the size of the feature to the choice of dative and benefactive appears to be much diverse. The feature non-given
beneficiary appears to be four times stronger than non-given recipient to the choice of benefactive and dative construction. Instance with non-given beneficiary
is more than twelve times likely to appear in benefactive PP than given beneficiary. On the other hand, instance with non-given recipient is only more
than twice likely to appear in prepositional dative than given recipient. Another strong effect towards the benefactive PP is found for the feature
beneficiary = inanimate.
It tells us that when the beneficiary is inanimate, the instance is expected to appear in benefactive PP construction. Theijssen did not
100
find the significance of this feature, yet Bresnan confirmed the significance of this feature toward dative construction. In dative cases, inanimate recipient tends to
appear in prepositional dative construction. The direction of the feature inanimate beneficiaryrecipient is, indeed, pretty similar to the choice of benefactive and
dative construction. However, the statistic shows that the effect of inanimacy of recipient toward prepositional dative construction is slightly stronger compared to
the effect of inanimacy of beneficiary toward benefactive PP construction. An inanimate recipient is more than twelve times likely to appear in prepositional
dative rather than an animate recipient. It makes inanimacy of recipient the strongest feature to the choice of prepositional dative. An inanimate beneficiary,
on the other hand is only more than 10 times likely to appear in benefactive PP construction rather than animate beneficiary.
The third significant feature which favors the benefactive PP construction is
beneficiary = non-local.
The table shows that when the beneficiary is not the first or second person pronouns, the construction favors benefactive PP
construction. While Theijssen did not find the significance of the feature, Bresnan find the feature significant and owns the same direction to the preference of
prepositional construction. In dative cases, non-local recipient favors prepositional dative construction. The sizes of the feature effect are fairly similar. The feature
non-local recipient is almost three times likely to appear in prepositional dative rather than local recipient. In benefactive cases, the feature non-local beneficiary
tends to appear in benefactive PP almost three times rather than local beneficiary. In opposite to those three features, three features favor double object
construction and the strongest significant feature which shows a preference for the
101
double object construction is
theme = non-pronoun.
This feature has negative coefficient -2.18, which favors the double object construction NP NP. This
structure places the theme at the end after the postverbal NP. In contrast, when
theme = pronoun
, the feature has value 0 which is positive compared to -2.18. Pronoun theme therefore has a greater tendency to favor the benefactive PP
structure. This structure, on the other hand, places the theme in immediate postverbal position preceding the PP. Compared to pronoun theme, non-pronoun
theme is 9 times likely to appear in double object construction. Conversely, pronoun theme is 9 times likely to appear in benefactive PP construction.
Theijssen, however did not find the significance. In dative cases, Bresnan confirms that the direction of non-pronoun theme is toward double object
construction and pronoun theme is toward prepositional dative. However, the result shows that the size differs from the one in benefactive construction,
showing that non-pronoun theme is 3 times likely to appear in double object construction than pronoun theme.
The second significant feature which fancies double object construction is
theme = indefinite.
The result confirms that when the instance owns indefinite theme, the construction tends to appear in double object construction rather than
when the theme is definite. Conversely, when the theme is definite, the construction is more probable to appear in benefactive PP. While Theijssen
et al.
did not find the significance of the feature in their research, this research and Bresnan
et al.
share similar finding on the size of the effect. Indefinite theme is almost 4 times likely to appear in double object construction rather than definite
theme. Similarly, in dative cases, indefinite theme is exactly 4 times likely to
102
appear in double object construction rather than definite theme. Dative, however, puts indefinite theme as the strongest feature toward the choice of double object
construction. The last significant feature favoring double object construction concerns
the
length different.
The log scale is derived from subtracting the number of words of theme to the number of words of beneficiary. If the theme is longer than the
beneficiary, the probability that the construction will appear in benefactive PP decreases, while it increases if the beneficiary is longer than the theme.
Theijssen‟s benefactive did not find the feature significant, while in dative cases, the feature length different affects correspondingly. When the theme is longer
than the recipient, the instance is less likely to appear in prepositional dative, and when the recipient is longer than the theme, the instance is more likely to appear
in double object construction. While the direction of the feature toward the choice of the construction is the same, the size of the effect is slightly different. In
benefactive cases, the length different only appears to be almost 2 times likely to take double object construction, whereas in dative cases, the length different
contributes a little greater effect which is more than 3 times likely to appear in double object construction.
In addition, Theijssen
et al.
promotes the significance of two more features toward benefactive construction apart from the six features this research suggests.
In their research, features
theme = plural
and
theme = non-given reach
the level of significance. Plural theme is a significant feature which shows preference for
the benefactive PP, while non-given theme favors double object construction. The direction of these two features validates Bresnan‟s finding saying that plural
103
theme prefers prepositional dative and non-given theme prefers double object construction.
4.2.2 The Interchangeability of the Significant Features to Ditransitive
