<p>This kind of confusion is usually caused by using English grammar to understand Chinese.</p>
<p>In Chinese grammar, 中國向美國報復:</p>
<p>中国， subject</p>
<p>向美国， prepositional phrase worked as adverbial(介词短语作状语); 美国 is the object of the preposition 向.</p>
<p>報復，predicate(谓语)</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-19T10:18:04.673Z
I upvoted this, because your explanation is simple and (mostly) correct. However, about your last remark, I must point out that direct vs. indirect object is a linguistics concept, which exists both in English and Chinese. It's not "*English perspective*", it's **linguistics**.
blackgreen
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-19T11:21:28.370Z
Let us [continue this discussion in chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/111960/discussion-between-blackgreen-and-dan).
blackgreen
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-19T11:33:38.747Z
I deleted most of the comments here (although they can be found in the above chat); I feel this back-and-forth is better off in chat.
Becky 李蓓
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-19T01:57:33.150Z
2020-08-23T11:54:25.823Z
2020-08-23T11:54:25.823Z
dan
<ul>
<li><p>[中國 (subject)] [向 (preposition) 美國 (indirect object) [報復 (verb) (intransitive verb, no direct object)]</p>
</li>
<li><p>[中國 (subject)] [向 (preposition) 美國 (indirect object) [徵收 (verb)][關稅 (direct object)]</p>
</li>
</ul>
<p>Even &quot;向美國&quot; is a prepositional phrase, it doesn't change the fact that the target of 報復 is 美國. Since we know the direct object is 關稅, 美國 would be an indirect object in this sentence</p>
<p>Similarly,</p>
<p>In &quot;我向彼得投球&quot;:</p>
<p>我 = subject</p>
<p>向 = preposition</p>
<p>彼得 = indirect object</p>
<p>投 = verb</p>
<p>球 = direct object</p>
<p>~</p>
<p>In &quot;我投球給彼得&quot;</p>
<p>我 = subject</p>
<p>投 = verb</p>
<p>球 = direct object</p>
<p>給 = preposition</p>
<p>彼得 = indirect object</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-19T03:20:27.957Z
彼得 isn't indirect object. we understand  "我向彼得投球" as I throw the ball in the direction of Peter / towards Peter.  So, 向彼得 is adverbial to modify the predicate 投球.
dan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-19T05:30:29.490Z
"我向彼得投球" and "我向彼得的方向投球" are two different things.
Tang Ho
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-19T05:55:27.827Z
我投球給彼得, in Chinese grammar, 給彼得 is a complement (补语)，denoting aim or purpose(目的).
dan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-19T01:22:30.133Z
2020-08-19T01:22:30.133Z
Tang Ho
<p>A discussion arose from this post <a href="https://chinese.stackexchange.com/questions/40773/">In ` 向谁说`, does `向` play the same role / have the same meaning as `对`?</a></p>
<p>What is the role of the noun after 向 in &quot;向 + noun + verb&quot;?</p>
<p>Is it the object? Someone argued 向 is a preposition, which introduces a prepositional phrase, therefore, the noun after 向 cannot be the object.</p>
<p>So, What is the role of 美國 in &quot;中國向美國報復&quot;?</p>

<grammar><linguistics>
What is the role of 美國 in "中國向美國報復"?
# What is the role of 美國 in "中國向美國報復"?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2020-08-19)

A discussion arose from this post [In ` 向谁说`, does `向` play the same role / have the same meaning as `对`?](https://chinese.stackexchange.com/questions/40773/)

What is the role of the noun after 向 in "向 + noun + verb"?

Is it the object? Someone argued 向 is a preposition, which introduces a prepositional phrase, therefore, the noun after 向 cannot be the object.

So, What is the role of 美國 in "中國向美國報復"?

**Tags:** grammar, linguistics


---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2020-08-19. Score: 1

This kind of confusion is usually caused by using English grammar to understand Chinese.

In Chinese grammar, 中國向美國報復:

中国， subject

向美国， prepositional phrase worked as adverbial(介词短语作状语); 美国 is the object of the preposition 向.

報復，predicate(谓语)

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: I upvoted this, because your explanation is simple and (mostly) correct. However, about your last remark, I must point out that direct vs. indirect object is a linguistics concept, which exists both in English and Chinese. It's not "*English perspective*", it's **linguistics**.  
> **username_2**: Let us [continue this discussion in chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/111960/discussion-between-username_2-and-dan).  
> **username_3**: I deleted most of the comments here (although they can be found in the above chat); I feel this back-and-forth is better off in chat.  

---

### Answer by username_0 on 2020-08-19. Score: 0

* [中國 (subject)] [向 (preposition) 美國 (indirect object) [報復 (verb) (intransitive verb, no direct object)]
* [中國 (subject)] [向 (preposition) 美國 (indirect object) [徵收 (verb)][關稅 (direct object)]

Even "向美國" is a prepositional phrase, it doesn't change the fact that the target of 報復 is 美國. Since we know the direct object is 關稅, 美國 would be an indirect object in this sentence

Similarly,

In "我向彼得投球":

我 = subject

向 = preposition

彼得 = indirect object

投 = verb

球 = direct object

~

In "我投球給彼得"

我 = subject

投 = verb

球 = direct object

給 = preposition

彼得 = indirect object

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: 彼得 isn't indirect object. we understand  "我向彼得投球" as I throw the ball in the direction of Peter / towards Peter.  So, 向彼得 is adverbial to modify the predicate 投球.  
> **username_0**: "我向彼得投球" and "我向彼得的方向投球" are two different things.  
> **username_1**: 我投球給彼得, in Chinese grammar, 給彼得 is a complement (补语)，denoting aim or purpose(目的).  

---

