No, the first analysis is wrong. When you tell someone something, the direct object is the something not the someone. The someone is the indirect object.

@tchrist semantically perhaps, but grammatically/syntatically, it is no question that Stephanie is receiving the action of 'told' ('Who did John tell? He/John told Stephanie'); regardless of what semantical implications the verb 'told/tell' has in that "When you tell someone something, the direct object is the something not the someone."

No, telling Stephanie X is the same as telling X to Stephanie. That is why @tchrist wrote that Stephanie is the indirect object.

To add to the above: John told Stephanie some great advice. ->The collocation of "to tell advice" is incorrect. You can give/offer/proffer, etc., advice but you cannot tell advice. Correcting for this: John(S) gave(V) Stephanie(IO) some great advice(DO). (Compare John gave Stephanie a ring. Or John gave a ring to Stephanie.) To Stephanie can be considered either as the indirect object of "give" or an adverbial phrase.

To resign would be a good thing has the infinitive as the subject complement.

@tchrist According to CaGEL, nouns do not take direct objects: Stephanie is a noun, some great advice ("the thing") cannot be the direct object. P.30

@YosefBaskin read above.

@aesking No, you have it exactly backwards. Syntax is what drives the syntactic classification, and here the direct object is the thing not the person. When you tell your husband a story, the story is the thing you tell. Your husband is whom you've told that story to. Syntax is why it's an indirect object.

@Greybeard You're right that telling someone advice is an ungrammatical collocation. Thanks for providing a native speaker's advice. :)

@tchrist Also, my sentence is not exactly the same as John told (to) Stephanie some great advice, it is similar but not exactly the same. which absolutely sounds unidiomatic to me.. Aren't you aware that some prepositions can be elided and still remain grammatical? Prepositions can be elided and just because a preposition can fit into my sentence, doesn't mean that it was that preposition that has been elided or there is any preposition there at all.

[...] There are cases where the preposition is necessary: "I was annoyed at their rejection (OF) my proposals" and if you compare it with *"I was annoyed at their rejection my proposal" it is ungrammatical. But my sentence: 1) is grammatical and 2) does not have the preposition nor is a preposition necessary to maintain it grammatical

@Greybeard CaGEL disagrees with you there about 'To Stephanie' being an indirect object with the verb gave (sorry!). // 'Giving advice' sounds phrasally and idiomatic. How can you 'give' advice, as in physically give it? Your examples are objects 'ring'. But in my grammar, you can tell/speak words. How can you 'give' words/advice? Perhaps "giving advice' is the most common colloquiation. But I wouldn't say it's ungramamtical like tchirst says. I wouldn't say it is 'more unidiomatic' either: it's still a common phrasing to native speakers, even though its counterpart is more common.

Terminology can obfuscate. In The teacher wants to resign, 'to resign' can only be subject-orientated. But in The teacher wants the head to resign, 'to resign' can only be object-orientated: the desire is that the head should resign.

Where is the 'first analysis' taken from, please?

@EdwinAshworth it is a common analysis on grammar sites and has been asked on ELL before to which BillJ claims 'to-infinitives' can be used as object and subject complements, for example 1 and 2

Please go back and study the difference between a direct object and an indirect object in the context of ditransitive verbs such as give and tell, as you seem to have gotten these completely confused. Also, please take this to chat where it belongs.

@tchrist, it not me that needs to 'study' them to someone who makes a statement such as: "When you tell someone something, the direct object is the something not the someone. The someone is the indirect object.". It is not me that confuses them, I was addressing Greybeard's analysis: John 'gave' (to) Stephanie some great advice, that 'to Stephanie' is an indirect object. By the misinformartion of a preposition "to" comes from your analysis "that anything after a to- is an indirect object

[...] when there isn't even a preposition there after all.

@tchrist Also it is not me that started an "off-topic debate" in my own question, that was you. :)

In essence, if you are really insistent that these verbs such as give and tell are special, and you had prior knowledge of this before, maybe you could have provided the same detailed analysis in contrast to your rather reductionist, simplistic and to be blunt, wrong statements. Sorry.

Also if you know 'tell' was a ditransitive verb and you had this information in your mind - then why didn't you take that into account that before you made these statements. It is quite rude to tell someone to 'read' on something when it was me that corrected you on that same matter anyway.