Ed,
My impression is that there are two ways to define "indirect object" and
(as is frequently the case with definitions) no universally accepted way
to arrive at a pronouncement about the "right" definition. From this and
previous discussions, I think we are dealing with which one(s) of the
following three claims a given analyst wants to accept:
(1)   [Semantic] Indirect Objects are Beneficiaries (to cadge a term
from Fillmore). 
(2)   [Semantic] Only Beneficiaries that are *required* by the semantic
structure of the verb count as indirect objects.  "Requirement," in this
sense, is adduced from the observation that making a sentence with the
verb without an overt Beneficiary sounds strange unless the Beneficiary
is clear from context.
(3)   [Structural] Objects have to be bare complements to the verb. PPs
do not, therefore, count as objects.
Playing these off against three example sentences yields different
judgments:
(a)               Bjarki gave Bjorn some lutfisk.
(b)               Bjarki gave some lutfisk to Bjorn.
(c)               Bjarki made some lutfisk for Bjorn.
Those who accept (1) but not (2) or (3) will see an indirect object in
all three sentences (and I would consider "hit the ball to me" analogous
to (c)). Those who accept (2) but not (1) or (3) will see an indirect
object in (a) and (b) only. Those who accept (2) and (3) will only see
an indirect object in (a). Those who accept only (3), eschewing semantic
definitions entirely, will simply talk about complements - some verbs
have one, some verbs have two, and you can call them whatever makes you
happy.
The problem, of course, is that "Indirect Object," as a grammatical
concept, was originally formulated to deal with the distinction between
accusative and dative objects in Latin, but English doesn't have a
dative case, really. Early English grammarians frequently decided to
consider prepositions as being exactly equivalent to case marking, even
to the extent of making case tables with prepositions in them
(accusative: him; dative: to him; ablative: from him). This led quite
naturally to considering both the "bare" complement in (a) and the
"prepositional complement" in (b) as being in the dative case, thus
exactly analogous to their Latin equivalents. I'm not bringing this up
to try to argue that calling the third constituent in (b) is a bad
thing, but rather to argue that the argument itself is irresolvable. It
is quite literally a matter of definition.
 
Bill Spruiell
________________________________

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Edward Vavra
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 12:21 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Prepositional phrase as an indirect object
 
    I was recently asked about "to me" in the sentence "Jack hit the
ball to me." Is "to me" an adverbial prepositional phrase, or can it be
considered a prepositional phrase that functions as an indirect object,
i.e., as a noun? My question is--Do members of this list agree on one or
the other explanation, or is their disagreement?
Thanks,
Ed
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select
"Join or leave the list" 
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/