Is "indirect object" syntactically definable or useful, in English or generally?

Question

In traditional English grammar, we're taught that phrases like those boldfaced below are "indirect objects":

1. I gave the book to Ted.
2. I gave Ted the book.

But this appears to be based on semantics (namely, Recipient role) rather than syntax. In (1), to Ted is a prepositional phrase, which by most definitions means it can't be an object of any kind. In (2), Ted doesn't seem to be syntactically any different from other objects: such arguments use the objective form where this is distinct (I gave him the book), and they can serve as the subject in a corresponding passive construction (Ted was given the book).

In other languages, "indirect object" is sometimes used to refer to an obligatory argument that appears in an oblique case, as in German:

3. Ich helfe dem Mann. "I help the man-DAT"

Here there is syntactic justification for regarding this argument as something different from a regular object (different morphology, also can't be a passive subject), yet still regarding it as an object of some kind (given that it's an NP subcategorized for by the verb). But this is a different situation from that of English, and I can think of yet other ways that languages might treat NPs as somewhat-but-not-completely object-like (e.g., an NP that's cross-referenced by an agreement marker on the verb, but doesn't pass some syntactic test for objecthood).

So, is there a coherent syntactic definition for "indirect object" in English, in other languages, or cross-linguistically? Do syntacticians and typologists use this term at all anymore, and if so what do they mean by it?

Answer 1

I am by no means a lingustics expert, just fluent in German (native), English (native-level) and Spanish (native-level). As you observed, German retains enough case markers to distinguish four cases much like they existed in (say) Latin. To take up your example '1. I gave the book to Ted' / '2. I gave Ted the book', in German it would look like this:

Ich gab Ted das Buch.

This is equivalent to your number 2. Here, Ted is in the dative case but you wouldn't know that from looking at the word, since names don't get inflected in German (except in genitive case). It helps to add an article (this usage is quite colloquial, and you wouldn't usually see it in written/formal language):

Ich gab dem Ted das Buch.

Here the dative case is clearly visible due to the article 'dem.' Grammatically, 'dem Ted' is the indirect object in the dative case, 'das Buch' is the direct object in the accusative case (here identical to the nominative case since 'das Buch' is neuter). For emphasis or other purposes, you can freely switch the word order around without affecting the inherent meaning of the sentence, e.g.:

Ich gab das Buch dem Ted.

In English you no longer have a case marker to distinguish between dative and accusative case, therefore you need either a convention about where in the sentence you find the direct object, and where the indirect object, or you need to add a preposition (or another morphological marker) to distinguish the two, and make it possible to change word order.

EDIT: Without the article, the sentence is 'Ich gab das Buch Ted.' While correct, it sounds awkward, and most Germans would insert a preposition like in your sentence number 1, making it 'Ich gab das Buch an Ted.'

Why are the objects called direct and indirect? That is because the direct object ('das Buch') will turn into the subject of the corresponding sentence in passive voice, while the indirect object ('Ted') stays in the dative case:

Das Buch wurde dem Ted (von mir) gegeben.

EDIT: Not pertinent to the question but as an aside, there is also a passive voice using 'bekommen' as the auxiliary verb which will turn the indirect object into the subject while leaving the direct object in the accusative case:

Der Ted bekam das Buch (von mir) gegeben.

I am not aware of an equivalent construction in English.

EDIT: As far as the 'ordinary' passive goes, your sentences transform as follows:

1. I gave the book to Ted. => The book was given to Ted.
2. I gave Ted the book. => Ted was given the book.

In both cases, 'the book' is transformed from an object of the active voice to the subject of the passive voice, therefore 'the book' is the direct object in the active voice sentence. 'Ted'/'to Ted' remain in object position, and are therefore indirect objects.

Since English is in essence a Germanic language, I suppose linguists felt inclined to take the terminology that existed for German (or for Latin), and apply it to English even though it lacks syntactical markers to make sense of the distinction between direct and indirect object.

Answer 2

You have different manners to define syntactic functions. There are the syntactic position and the morphological marking. These markedness' can be combined or opposite. Moreover, nothing restrains a syntactic function to one markedness. Finally, the syntactic function is determined in relation to other arguments too. So that being said, English I.O. has two markings that are used in complementarity.

First, when IO is placed in the third position and is not marked by a morpheme: S V IO O.

Second, when IO is placed in the fourth position and is marked with to-: S V O to-IO.

These conditions are sufficient not to confuse the arguments. Everything is well discriminated, because the Object, here, has other marks opposite to the Indirect Object.

As for other languages, there is WALS website where you can find more informations: https://wals.info/chapter/105