This study provides a generative syntactic analysis of the dative case in German and English, two languages exhibiting stark morphological divergence. Adopting a framework combining the Minimalist Program and Distributed Morphology, the paper argues that surface differences, German’s overt morphological dative versus English’s dative alternation (Double Object Construction vs. Prepositional Object Construction), stem from parametric variation under shared principles of Universal Grammar. The analysis posits that the English DOC and the German dative construction share an identical abstract syntactic structure involving an Applicative Phrase (ApplP), where the Recipient receives abstract dative case via an Agree operation. The English POC, in contrast, is derived from a distinct structure with a prepositional phrase and lacks an ApplP. Cross-linguistic variation is localized modularly: differences in verb behavior (e.g., donate vs. give) are attributed to lexical specifications; the multiple functions of the German dative (Recipient, Benefactive, Possessor) are unified under different semantic “flavors” of ApplP. And the presence versus absence of overt morphological case marking is explained post-syntactically by the spell-out rules of Distributed Morphology at the PF interface. While offering a unified account of dative phenomena, the paper acknowledges theoretical limitations, including potential circularity in lexical explanations and challenges posed by second language acquisition data regarding the psychological reality of abstract Case and its morphological realization. The study concludes by suggesting directions for future research, including finer-grained syntactic modeling, psycholinguistic experimentation, and detailed investigation of parameter resetting in L2 acquisition. e.
References
[1] Nefdt, R. M. (2016) Scientific modelling in generative grammar and the dynamic turn in syntax. Linguistics and Philosophy, 39(5), 357-394.
[2] Davis, D. R. (2019) World Englishes and descriptive grammars. The handbook of world Englishes, 507-522.
[3] Ferreira, F., Qiu, Z. (2021) Predicting syntactic structure. Brain Research, 1770, 147632.
[4] McFadden, T. (2020) Case in Germanic. The Cambridge handbook of Germanic linguistics, 282-312.
[5] Osborne, T. (2021) NPs, not DPs: the NP vs. DP debate in the context of dependency grammar. Acta Linguistica Academica. An International Journal of Linguistics (Until 2016 Acta Linguistica Hungarica), 68(3), 274-317.
[6] Jäschke, K., Plag, I. (2016) The dative alternation in German-English interlanguage. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(3), 485-521.
[7] Woods, R. (2016) The acquisition of dative alternation by German-English bilingual and English monolingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19(3), 527-543.
[8] Trenkic, D., Mirkovic, J., Altmann, G. T. (2014) Real-time grammar processing by native and non-native speakers: constructions unique to the second language. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17(2), 237-257.
[9] Jilani, S. F., Anwar, B. (2018) Lexico-semantic features of Pakistani English newspapers: a corpus-based approach. International Journal of English Linguistics, 8(4), 50-63.
[10] Behrens, H. (2021) Constructivist approaches to first language acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 48(5), 959-983.
[11] Henry, N. (2022) The offline and online effects of processing instruction. Applied Psycholinguistics, 43(3), 711-740.
Share and Cite
Jiang, H. (2025) Parametric Variation and Morphological Realization: A Generative Account of the Dative Case in German and English. Journal of Social Development and History, 1(2), 43-47.