Sunday, June 30, 2019

grammar - Confusing syntax in sentences with indirect object complements

Some verbs produce unambiguous syntax when used with an indirect object.



    I brought a toy to Katy. --> I brought Katy a toy.

I bought flowers for my wife. --> I bought my wife flowers.



Neither of these sentence complements can be interpreted as a single noun phrase or object complement.



But if we use a pronoun instead of a proper noun we sometimes produce ambiguous syntax.



    I brought a toy to her. --> I brought her a toy.

I bought flowers for her. --> I bought her flowers.



The first sentence is not ambiguous because her a toy is not a sensible phrase, but her flowers is easily interpreted as a noun phrase (poss dt + n) that functions as the single direct object of the verb. Two possible interpretations with very different meanings.



Furthermore, BBC Learn English lists keep as a verb that can be used with OCi/OCd syntax but I can't seem to find a sentence that isn't ambiguous.




  1. I kept the money for you. --> I kept you the money.

  2. I keep the keys for the manager. --> *I keep the manager the keys.

  3. I keep secrets for her. --> I keep her secrets.

  4. I keep secrets for Jill --> *I keep Jill secrets.




Sentences 2 & 4 produce nonsense, and sentence 3 produces ambiguous syntax, where the OCi and OCd merge into a single noun phrase. Sentence 1 seems to work but it feels very awkward to me. But all of these sentences follow the rule of having a beneficiary or recipient of the action using to or for adverbial complement in the standard form.



So what's going on here? Does keep belong on this list or not?

No comments:

Post a Comment