This article presents predominant views of the English and Thai ditransitive and dative sentence structures that take verbs to have two major meanings based on schemata: a caused possession and a caused motion. The main purpose of the study was to investigate the associations between verbs and their event schemata, the syntactic and semantic realizations available to the ditransitive and dative sentence structures, and the associations between the parallel structures of the sentences across the languages. The participants of the study were pre-service teachers majoring in English at a university in Thailand. The study was conducted in the 2020 academic year. The analyses demonstrated inference patterns and verb arguments in the double object construction across English and Thai. The results of the study also identified the syntactic and semantic similarities and differences with an account of variant choices that provided insightful explanations of the data in the crosslinguistic realm. Implications for educators revolve around individual differences and other related variables that might yield various results. The findings also suggest the multidimensionality of research into the crosslinguistic analyses of double object construction and linguistic devices.

Keywords:  ditransitive; dative; sentence structure; English; Thai

Atay, D. & Kurt, G. (2006). Prospective teachers and L2 writing anxiety. Asian EFL Journal, 8(4), 100-118.

Chanwaiwit, P. (2018). Using effective feedback to improve professionalism as an English student teacher. The New English Teacher, 12(2), 1-4.

Çelik, S. (2020). Building critical academic writing skills: The impact of instructor feedback on Turkish ELT graduate students. TESL-EJ: Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language, 24(3), 1-18.

Datchuk, S.M. (2016). Writing simple sentences and descriptive paragraphs: Effects of an intervention on adolescents with writing difficulties. Journal of Behavioral Education, 25, 166-188.

Goldberg, A. E. (1995). A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.

Haspelmath, M. (2015). Ditransitive constructions in the world’s languages, Annual Review of Linguistics, 1(1), 19-41. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-125204

Hovav, M.R. & Levin, B. (2008). The English dative alternation: The case for verb sensitivity. Journal of Linguistics, 44, 129-167.

Iwasaki, S., & Ingkaphirom, P. (2005). A Reference Grammar of Thai. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.

Jackendoff, R. S. (1990). On Larson’s treatment of the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry, 21(3), 427-456.

Jiang, L., & Huang, K. (2015). The efficacy of structural priming on the acquisition of double object construction by Chinese EFL learners. Higher Education Studies, 5(5), 38-49.

Kampookaew, P. (2020). An analysis of grammatical errors made by Thai EFL university students in an EAP writing class: issues and recommendations. rEFLections, 27(2), 246-273.

Larson, R. (1988). On the Double Object Construction. Linguistic Inquiry, 19(3), 335-391. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25164901

Levin, B. (2008). Dative verbs: A crosslinguistic perspective. Lingvisticæ Investigationes, 31(2), 285-312.

Nguyen, T. T. L. (2018). Reflections on modified genre-based instructions to teach essay writing to Thai university students. The Asian EFL Journal, 20(9.1), 148-174.

Nguyen, T. T. L. (2019). Reflective teaching in an EFL writing instruction course for Thai pre-service teachers. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 16(2), 561-575.

Office of Royal Society (n.d.). Knowledges. http://www.royin.go.th/?knowledges

O’Grady, W. (1998). The syntax of idioms. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 16, 279-312.

Petchprasert, A. (2013). A study of cohesive markers used in l1 and l2 essay writing: translation versus direct composition. 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies®, 19(1), 19-33.

Petchprasert, A. (2021). Utilizing an automated tool analysis to evaluate EFL students’ writing performances. Asian- Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 6(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862- 020-00107-w

Pongyoo, T. (2018). The acquisition of dative constructions by Thai learners of English [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Thammasat University.

Pylkkänen, L. (2008). Introducing arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Richards, J.C. (1990). The dilemma of teacher education in second language teaching, in Richards, JC & Nunan, D. (Eds.), Second Language Teacher Education. USA: Cambridge University Press.

Singh, N., & Solman, R. (1990). A stimulus control analysis of the picture-word problem in children who are mentally retarded: The blocking effect. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23, 525-532.

Thepkanjana, K., & Uehara, S. (2008). The verb of giving in Thai and Mandarin Chinese as a case study of polysemy: A comparative study. Language Sciences, 30(6), 621-651.

Timyam, N., & Bergen, B.K. (2010). A contrastive study of the caused-motion and ditransitive constructions. In H.C.Boas (Ed.), English and Thai: Semantic and pragmatic constraints. Contrastive Studies in Construction Grammar (pp. 137-168). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Implication for future research.

Timyam, N. (2015). A comparative study of English and Thai: An introduction. Kasetsart University Press. Bangkok.

Wells, C. S., & Wallack, J. A. (2003). An Instructor’s Guide to Understanding Test Reliability. Wisconsin: Testing and Evaluation Services, University of Wisconsin.

Wiwatsorn, W. (1998). Moonbotbanpakit: the use of kab, kae, tae, and taw. Journal of Letters, 27(2), 81-90.

Xie, Q. & Yuan, J. (2020). English writing anxiety and preservice teacher’ written corrective feedback. Language Education & Assessment, 3(2), 58-84. https://doi.org/10.29140/lea.v3n2.357