Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 237n):
Blogger Comments:
i.e.
congruent:
but
is metaphorical for:
And there are clauses with give which, though superficially like transfer of possession, differ from these in that they do not exhibit the contrast between + preposition and – preposition. These are clauses with a nominalised verb as one participant, as in give somebody a kick/punch/kiss/hug. Thus while we can say, he gave the dog a kick, we are much less likely say he gave a kick to the dog. Such clauses are in fact mildly metaphorical variants of clauses where kick, punch, kiss, hug, etc. is a verb serving as the Process: he gave the dog a kick: he kicked the dog. This suggests that the nominalised verb is in fact a Scope rather than a Goal and that what might at first appear to be a Recipient is in fact construed as a Goal (and can thus be probed with do to/with): [Actor:] he [Process:] gave [Goal:] the dog [Scope:] a kick (cf. what he did to the dog was give it a kick but not what he did with the kick was give the dog it) …
Blogger Comments:
i.e.
congruent:
He
|
gave
|
the dog
|
a stick
|
Actor
|
Process: material
|
Recipient
|
Goal
|
but
He
|
gave
|
the dog
|
a kick
|
Actor
|
Process: material
|
Goal
|
Scope
|
|
He
|
kicked
|
the dog
|
|
Actor
|
Process: material
|
Goal
|
So 'give' provides the only means of construing Scope in a transitive clause.