Ditransitive Constructions in Kashibo-Kakataibo and the non-distinguishable analysis. Studies in Language 36:4, 2012, 882-905. (original) (raw)
Related papers
Is there a Ditransitive Construction in Kokama-Kokamilla? Studies in Language, 34.1:75–107. 2010.
2010
In Kokama-Kokamilla (KK), ditransitive constructions —i.e. syntactic units that profile three participants and contain two non subject arguments— do not exist as a distinct type relative to transitives. KK shows both indirective and secundative alignment types (Haspelmath 2004, Dryer 1986, 2006), but no formal or behavioral evidence for a second object of any kind. In KK, typical three participant events are syntactically encoded in at least three ways, none of which comprises two grammatical objects. Further, these findings suggest that no verb or construction profiles three participants in the sense of Goldberg (1995:49). This paper adds to the literature on languages that code three-participant events by means of transitive clauses (Margetts & Austin 2007), which ultimately questions indirect object and secondary object as primitive notions as suggested by Dryer (1986). Keywords: Kokama-Kokamilla, ditransitive construction, core argument, oblique, causative.
Structural Properties of Rutooro Ditransitive Constructions: a lexical functional analysis
Linguistica Atlantica, 2021
Ditransitive verbs in Rutooro (JE12, Uganda) are mainly realized multimorphemically in the double object constructions (DOC), while there are a few cases of prepositional phrase constructions (PPC). Couched within the Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG) formalism, the current study shows that despite the existence of both the DOC and the PPC in Rutooro, it seems implausible to posit that the derivation process of the verb in the DOC involves the permutation of grammatical functions by rearranging semantic participants of the base verb to different grammatical relations, as Ndoleriire & Oriikiriza (1996) suggest in consonance with Kroeger's (2004) applicative rule. Rather, this study reverts to Alsina & Mchombo's (1993) applicative rule, and augments it so as to accommodate both the DOC and PPC, whereby all multimorphemic ditransitive verbs in Rutooro are derived from monotransitive verbs which have the potential of introducing a third argument (Harford 1993) by means of a verb extension mechanism or provided that such verbs can be used with appropriate prepositional phrases. Since the Rutooro goal PPC is constrained by the 'locomotional criterion' (Isingoma 2012), there are very few occurrences of goal PPCs in Rutooro, which moreover are ambiguous. While structural ambiguity is usually resolved in LFG by providing a different constituent structure for each meaning, the ambiguity of the Rutooro PPC cannot be resolved at this level, since one interpretation contains a non-overt NP that would appear here as an empty category in contravention of LFG axioms. Thus, a functional structure that treats the non-overt NP as 'higher structure' (cf. Attia 2008) is posited in one of the interpretations.
Ditransitive constructions (2015)
Annual Review of Linguistics, 2015
Ditransitive constructions are syntactic constructions with three argu- ments, an agent (A), a theme (T), and a recipient (R), which express an event of possessive transfer (‘give,’ ‘lend,’ etc.) or an event of cognitive transfer (‘tell,’ ‘show,’ etc.). Their cross-linguistic study has revealed three major alignment types: indirective alignment (with the R treated in a special way, distinct from monotransitive P), secundative align- ment (with the T treated in a special way), and neutral alignment (or double-object construction). Alignments may be construction spe- cific, that is, different in argument coding and behavioral properties. Languages sometimes exhibit alignment alternations (multiple con- structions with roughly the same meaning), and they often exhibit alignment splits (different constructions under different conditions). The splits are always based on the referential prominence of the R and the T, and show more explicit formal coding for less expected scenarios. Constituent order is also typically sensitive to the topic- worthiness of the objects. Object–object primacy is often based on linear order, but may also be determined by topic-worthiness, with the R having primacy over the T. Ditransitive verbs expressing ‘give’ show a stronger tendency for neutral alignment than do others with a more spatial meaning such as ‘bring’ or ‘send.’
This paper shows that there are two ditransitive alignment types in Ainu, viz. a frequently-used double-object construction (doc) and infrequently-used indirective object construction (ioc). Ainu ditransitives encoded by the doc are unusual cross-linguistically because all of them, including the verb kor-e [have-caus] ‘give’, are derived by causative, applicative or applicative-causative derivations. I argue that the ioc is possible in Ainu only either with those verbs which have no applicative (three-argument) counterparts or with ditransitive verbs of a slightly extended ditransitive case frame including Source/inanimate Goal instead of Recipient proper. Comparing the formal properties of the doc encoded ditransitives and those of other three-argument constructions, I claim that Ainu presents a counterexample to Kittilä’s (2006) Universal 1, since the so-called most typical ditransitive verb ‘give’, viz. the derived verb kor-e lit. ‘make/let sb have sth’ in Ainu, is outranked in formal transitivity by the underived three-argument verb o ‘put/place sth (pl) on sth’ of a non-ditransitive case frame.
Please cite this paper as: Kittilä, Seppo. (2007) A typology of tritransitives: alignment types and motivations. Linguistics 45(3): 455-508. Abstract The present paper discusses the syntax and semantics of tritransitive constructions. The label comprises constructions like a physiotherapist made the phonetician give a book to the bassoon player and a phonetician gave a book to the bassoon player for the physiotherapist and their equivalents in the languages of the world. The paper proposes a formal typology, which is based on the formal similarities and differences in the Recipient and Beneficiary/Causee coding in ditransitive and tritransitive clauses. Four types are distinguished, all of which are illustrated by cross-linguistic data. The arguments either receive distinct formal treatment irrespective of clause type, or the differences may be 1 Academy of Finland (project number 105771) has provided financial support for the present study. I would also like to express my heartfelt gratitude to Daniela Frerick, Martin
IJAL, 2017
This paper discusses objecthood in Kakataibo (Panoan, Peru) by studying three different types of non-subject arguments in the language: objects of transitive predicates, quasi-objects, and oblique objects. Quasi-objects are similar to objects because of their lack of overt case marking, but they appear with intransitive predicates. Oblique objects also appear with some intransitive predicates but differ from objects and quasi-objects by carrying an indirect locative marker. Only objects of transitive predicates can control important object-based syntactic operations, such as object agreement and object switch-reference, but objects, quasi-objects, and oblique objects can be reflexivized and recipro-calized. Adjuncts in Kakataibo cannot undergo either reflexivization or reciprocalization, and they are always morphologically marked. It is argued here that the existence of three different non-subject arguments in Kakataibo produces a continuum-like effect in the distinction between objects and adjuncts, and it reveals that objecthood in the language needs to be understood as a gradient and variable category.
What Does a Verb-Sensitive Approach to Japanese Ditransitive Constructions Tell Us?
2019
This paper examines Japanese ditransitive constructions from a lexical semantic perspective in lines with Kishimoto (2001) and Levin (2010). Ditransitive verbs in Japanese, a head-final language with scrambling or apparent free word order, allow their internal arguments to surface in two orders, either in the dative-accusative or accusative-dative order, as exemplified in (1).1 Note that ni is ambiguous between the dative marker and the locative marker corresponding to English prepositions like to, at, in, on, but it is glossed as Dat throughout this paper since the distinction is not always clear.
Ditransitive alignment and referential hierarchies in Araki
Since Bossong (1985), referential hierarchies have proven useful in accounting for patterns of differential object marking (DOM) in monotransitive clauses. More recent studies (Siewierska 1998; Haspelmath 2005; Bickel 2008; papers in this volume) have also shown the relevance of such hierarchies in explaining the alignment patterns of ditransitive verbs – that is, how languages treat formally the Theme and the recipient or Goal. Araki, a highly endangered Oceanic language of Vanuatu, not only shows DOM with its transitive verbs, but is also sensitive to referential properties of arguments in its handling of ditransitive alignment. On a hierarchy defined by the features [local] (i.e. speech-act participant) and [human], the higher-ranking participant receives the status of object, while the other one is demoted to a peripheral role. The result is a pattern of regular alternation between indirective and secundative alignment, depending on the relative properties of the Theme and the Goal. The present article will describe these patterns, and discuss cases of variation. Ultimately, rules of ditransitive alignment in Araki can be explained functionally as a competition between non-agent participants on a scale of affectedness.
The Effects of Referential Factors in Mojeno Trinitario Derived and Non-Derived Ditransitive Verbs
Linguistic Discovery, 2012
This paper investigates the effects of referential factors (more specifically the person hierarchy) in non-derived and derived three-participant constructions of Mojeño Trinitario, an Arawak language of Bolivia. The basic effect of referential properties in the three-participant constructions is that only one object may be indexed on the verb, and it is has to be a speech act participant. Referential factors thus indirectly create a competition between the two nonagentive arguments for the object status. The person value of the two non-agentive arguments is thus conditioning a construction alternation between a double-object and an indirective alignment based on a semantic role hierarchy ordering Patient and Theme higher than Recipient and Causee. Differences along four tests of objecthood can be observed among the three types of three-participant constructions (ditransitive verb 'give', causativized and applicative-marked monotransitive roots). The clearest conclusion is that derived ditransitive verbs do not behave like non-derived three-participant verbs.