Person of Beneficiary gets you the four-course meal less probable

75

4.1.5 Person of Beneficiary

In the model, the nominal value of person of beneficiary was coded to categorical variable beneficiary=local is 1, and beneficiary=non-local is 2 See Appendices 1 and 2 for the detailed identification and annotating process of the benefactive data. The default of the feature is non-local, whereas the default of the benefactive construction is benefactive PP. The p value of the feature person of beneficiary reaches the number 0.007 See Table 4.3 and Appendix 3 which is less than the conventional significance level 0.05. Thus, the feature person of beneficiary is proven to be relevant to the choice of benefactive construction. The crosstabulation table of person of beneficiary toward ditransitivity shows that 74.8 of non-local beneficiary take benefactive PP construction, only the rest 25.2 of non-local beneficiary take double object construction. Conversely, 80.4 of local beneficiary take double object construction, and the rest 19.6 take benefactive PP construction. Both statistics say that local argument tends to come first. 76 Person of Beneficiary toward Ditransitivity Crosstabulation Ditransitivity Total benefactive constructio prepositiona l Person of Beneficiary local beneficiary Count 82 20 102 within Person of Beneficiary 80.4 19.6 100.0 within Ditransitivity 52.2 8.2 25.5 of Total 20.5 5.0 25.5 non-local beneficiary Count 75 223 298 within Person of Beneficiary 25.2 74.8 100.0 within Ditransitivity 47.8 91.8 74.5 of Total 18.8 55.8 74.5 Total Count 157 243 400 within Person 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 4.12 Crosstabulation of person of beneficiary toward ditransitivity The result shows that the feature givenness of beneficiary possesses positive coefficient B of 1.090. It means that the default non-local beneficiary favors the default benefactive PP construction. The size of the effect of the feature is explainable through the odds ratio expB of 2.974. It suggests that non-local beneficiary is almost 3 times likely to take benefactive PP construction. The 95 confidence interval CI supports the claim, showing that non-local beneficiary tends to choose benefactive PP construction between 1.340 to 6.597 times. Conversely, if the beneficiary is local, the sentence will tend to appear in the double object construction. The coefficient B, odds ratio expB, and 95 CI above are presented in Table 4.3 See also Appendix 3. The examples below 77 illustrate the tendency of instances with non-local and local beneficiary toward benefactive construction. 17

a. plays a card for her non-local beneficiary