33 givenness of theme, structure pararelism, concreteness of theme, person of
reciepient, number of theme, definiteness of recipient, semantic class
‘
transfer of possession
’
, discourse givenness of recipient, pronominality of recipient, and animacy of reciepient.
The fourth study, which is the study on benefactive construction done by Theijssen
et al.
2009 found four features to be significant in the choice of benefactive construction. They analyze the benefactive construction in adult and
child data. They found
syntactic complexity, discourse givenness of theme,
number of theme, and semantic verb class ‘communication’ significant to the
choice of benefactive construction.
The other interesting result of this study is that the adult and child data does not seem to greatly different. They argue that this
due to the children tend to imitate the constructions made by adult as closely as possible.This study proposed the validity test of the data using ten-fold cross-
validation technique which is then also employed in this research.
2.6 Theoretical Framework
This chapter has discussed some theories of ditransitivity, semantic verb class, syntactic complexity, animacy of theme and beneficiary, discourse
givenness of theme and beneficiary, pronominality of theme and beneficiary, concreteness of theme, person of beneficiary, number of theme and beneficiary,
and definiteness of theme and beneficiary. This part shows how the theories help answering the research questions.
The theory of ditransitivity tells us that the construction includes dative and benefative. It is very important to understand the nature of both dative and
34
benefactive and how they differ from one another. This theory is the basis used to determine the dependent variable and is useful in answering both research
questions. The theory gives the alternation of benefactive which can take benefactive PP or double object construction. Similarly, it tells us how dative
construction may appear in prepositional dative or double object constrictions. The issue of ditransitivity, especially in benefactive cases is prominent to conduct
this research analysis to find out the significant features affecting the construction. The theories in the chapter 2 of semantic verb class, syntactic complexity,
animacy of theme and beneficiary, discourse givenness of theme and beneficiary, pronominality of theme and beneficiary, concreteness of theme, person of
beneficiary, number of theme and beneficiary, and definiteness of theme and beneficiary become prominent as these features are treated as independent
variables, which are the predictors or parameters of the occurrences of benefactive construction. The research should use the theories of how some of these features
which are basically nominal can be coded using binary values and one feature should be coded using ordinalcontinuous scale value. Therefore, the results of the
annotating process of these relevant features become the guidelines to reveal the probability of benefactive construction occurrences.
The related studies which are presented in this chapter provide the researcher with the example of corpus and probabilistic grammar research. These
studies function as a type of guidelines in conduction the corpus probabilistic model research. This research puts itself among those related works, contributing
an insight of how well corpus probabilistic model can predict benefactive and
35
dative at the same time. Hence, this study relies on the basic principle of conducting corpus linguistic study, the empirical data of language use.
36
CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter discusses the methodology of the research, and it is divided into three parts: research type, research data, and data analysis. The research type
explains the kind of study this research belongs to. The research data provides description of the nature and the origin of the data used in this study. This part
also includes the explanation of how the data were collected and processed. The last part, data analysis explains how the data were processed and interpreted.
3.1 Research Type
In general, the research belongs to the domain of a Corpus Linguistic Study with some reasons. The first reason is that the research used a collection of
data set which is claimed to be natural namely corpus. The research is empirical, analyzing the authentic patterns of use in natural texts Biber, 1998. The natural
data is also said to be a „real world‟ text as the instances in the corpus are simply written from the real usage of language. The corpus machine gives access to
naturalistic language information, to texts which are products of real life situation. This research in fact took the natural language information from the corpus to
make a probabilistic model to grammar of the real life language users. The second reason is that the research used the corpus as foundation of
analysis. The research utilized a large and principled collection of natural texts, known as a “corpus” as the basis of analysis Biber, 1998. The research was
applied in the domain of the modern form of corpus linguistics, where the
