What is it about?
The purpose of this paper is two-fold: to address, in a usage-based perspective, the hypothesis that monotransitive direct objects (=OO) and ditransitive direct objects (=O2) are the same category and to see whether the ditransitive construction displays register variation.
Featured Image
Why is it important?
A contribution to variationist cognitive sociolinguistics, this article links an important, but largely untouched, hypothesis that is over 20 years old but remains relevant today to contemporary construction grammar. Moreover, it is a more sociolinguistically oriented contribution to the vast body of constructionist research on the ditransitive construction.
Perspectives
Writing this article was a welcome challenge to my co-author and myself as it required us to (re)consider several methodological issues and explore multiple theoretical perspectives. We both learned a lot from this experience.
Kim Ebensgaard Jensen
University of Copenhagen
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: Revisiting Hudson’s (1992) OO = O2 hypothesis: a usage-based variationist approach to the English ditransitive construction, Acta Linguistica Hafniensia, June 2017, Taylor & Francis,
DOI: 10.1080/03740463.2017.1333873.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
