1932

Abstract

Ditransitive constructions are syntactic constructions with three arguments, 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 alignment (with the T treated in a special way), and neutral alignment (or double-object construction). Alignments may be construction specific, that is, different in argument coding and behavioral properties. Languages sometimes exhibit alignment alternations (multiple constructions 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.’

[Erratum, Closure]

An erratum has been published for this article:
Ditransitive Constructions
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-125204
2015-01-14
2024-04-17
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/linguistics/1/1/annurev-linguist-030514-125204.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-125204&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Adger D, Harbour D. 2007. Syntax and syncretisms of the person case constraint. Syntax 10:2–37 [Google Scholar]
  2. Atoyebi J, Haspelmath M, Malchukov A. 2010. Ditransitive constructions in Yorùbá. In Studies in Ditransitive Constructions, ed. A Malchukov, M Haspelmath, B Comrie, pp. 145–65. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
  3. Barðdal J. 2007. The semantic and lexical range of the ditransitive construction in the history of (North) Germanic. Funct. Lang. 14:9–30 [Google Scholar]
  4. Barss A, Lasnik H. 1986. A note on anaphora and double objects. Linguist. Inq. 17:347–54 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bassène A-C. 2010. Ditransitive constructions in Jóola Banjal. In Studies in Ditransitive Constructions, ed. A Malchukov, M Haspelmath, B Comrie, pp. 190–203. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
  6. Becher J. 2005. Ditransitive Verben und ihre Objekte im Wolof: Positionsregeln und Kombinierbarkeit. Hambg. Afr. Arb. 3:13–27 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bhattacharya T, Simpson A. 2011. Diagnosing double object constructions in Bangla/Bengali. Lingua 121:1067–82 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bickel B. 2011. Grammatical relations typology. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology, ed. JJ Song, pp. 399–444. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  9. Bickel B, Rai M, Paudyal NP, Banjade G, Bhatta TN et al. 2010. The syntax of three-argument verbs in Chintang and Belhare (Southeastern Kiranti). In Studies in Ditransitive Constructions, ed. A Malchukov, M Haspelmath, B Comrie, pp. 382–408. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
  10. Blake BJ. 1990. Relational Grammar London: Routledge
  11. Bonet E. 1994. The Person-Case Constraint: a morphological approach. MIT Work. Pap. Linguist 22:33–52 [Google Scholar]
  12. Bossong G. 1991. Differential object marking in Romance and beyond. In New Analyses in Romance Linguistics: Selected Papers from the XVIII Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, ed. D Wanner, D Kibbee, pp. 143–70. Amsterdam: Benjamins
  13. Bresnan J, Moshi L. 1990. Object asymmetries in comparative Bantu syntax. Linguist. Inq. 21:147–85 [Google Scholar]
  14. Bresnan J, Nikitina T. 2010. The gradience of the dative alternation. In Reality Expectation and Discovery: Pattern Instruction in Language and Life, ed. L Uyechi, LH Wee, pp. 161–84. Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf
  15. Comrie B. 1982. Grammatical relations in Huichol. In Studies in Transitivity, ed. P Hopper, SA Thompson, pp. 95–115. New York: Academic
  16. Comrie B. 2012. Some argument-structure properties of “give” in the languages of Europe and Northern and Central Asia. In Argument Structure and Grammatical Relations: A Cross-Linguistic Typology, ed. P Suihkonen, B Comrie, V Solovyev, pp. 17–35. Amsterdam: Benjamins
  17. Creissels D. 2015. Valency patterns in Mandinka. Valency Classes in the World’s Languages Malchukov A, Comrie B. In press [Google Scholar]
  18. Croft W. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  19. DeLancey S. 1981. An interpretation of split ergativity and related patterns. Language 57:626–57 [Google Scholar]
  20. Dixon RMW. 1994. Ergativity Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  21. Donohue M. 1996. Bajau: a symmetrical Austronesian language. Language 72:782–93 [Google Scholar]
  22. Dryer MS. 1986. Primary objects, secondary objects, and antidative. Language 62:808–45 [Google Scholar]
  23. Duranti A. 1979. Object clitic pronouns in Bantu and the topicality hierarchy. Stud. Afr. Linguist. 10:31–45 [Google Scholar]
  24. Dvořák V. 2010. On the syntax of ditransitive verbs in Czech. In Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 18, ed. W Browne, pp. 161–77. Ann Arbor: Mich. Slav. Publ
  25. Dyakonova M. 2007. Russian double object constructions. Amst. Cent. Lang. Commun. Work. Pap 2:3–30 [Google Scholar]
  26. Essegbey J. 2010. Inherent complement verbs and the basic double object construction in Gbe. In Topics in Kwa Syntax, ed EO Aboh, J Essegbey, pp. 177–93. Dordrecht, Neth.: Springer
  27. Fillmore CJ. 1965. Indirect Object Constructions and the Ordering of Transformations The Hague: Mouton
  28. Foley WA. 1991. The Yimas Language of New Guinea Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
  29. Francez I. 2006. Possessors, goals and the classification of ditransitive predicates: evidence from Hebrew. In Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 6, ed. O Bonami, P Cabredo Hofherr, pp. 137–54. Paris: Colloq. Syntax Sémant
  30. Gary J, Keenan E. 1977. On collapsing grammatical relations in universal grammar. In Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 8: Grammatical Relations, ed. P Cole, JM Sadock, pp. 83–120. New York: Academic
  31. Georgiafentis M, Lascaratou C. 2007. On the inherently close relation of the verb and its direct object in ditransitive constructions: evidence from Greek. J. Greek Linguist. 8:31–59 [Google Scholar]
  32. Givón T. 1979. On Understanding Grammar New York: Academic
  33. Givón T. 1984. Direct object and dative shifting: semantic and pragmatic case. In Objects: Towards a Theory of Grammatical Relations, ed. F Plank, pp. 151–82. New York: Academic
  34. Goldberg AE. 1992. The inherent semantics of argument structure: the case of the English ditransitive construction. Cogn. Linguist. 3:37–74 [Google Scholar]
  35. Gračanin-Yuksek M. 2006. Double object construction in Croatian: arguments against Appl0. In Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 15, ed. R Compton, M Goledzinowska, U Savchenko, pp. 94–112. Ann Arbor: Mich. Slav. Publ
  36. Gropen J, Pinker S, Hollander M, Goldberg R, Wilson R. 1989. The learnability and acquisition of the dative alternation in English. Language 65:203–57 [Google Scholar]
  37. Guillaume A. 2008. Ditransitivité en cavineña: constructions à objet double. Amerindia 31:135–56 [Google Scholar]
  38. Harley H. 2002. Possession and the double-object construction. In Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2, ed. P Pica, J Rooryck, pp. 31–70. Amsterdam: Benjamins
  39. Haspelmath M. 2004. Explaining the ditransitive person-role constraint: a usage-based account. Constructions 2:1–49 [Google Scholar]
  40. Haspelmath M. 2005a. Argument marking in ditransitive alignment types. Linguist. Discov. 3:1–21 [Google Scholar]
  41. Haspelmath M. 2005b. Ditransitive constructions: The verb ‘give.’ In The World Atlas of Language Structures, ed. M Haspelmath, MS Dryer, D Gil, B Comrie, pp. 426–29. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  42. Haspelmath M. 2007. Ditransitive alignment splits and inverse alignment. Funct. Lang. 14:79–102 [Google Scholar]
  43. Haspelmath M. 2008. Frequency vs. iconicity in explaining grammatical asymmetries. Cogn. Linguist. 19:1–33 [Google Scholar]
  44. Haspelmath M. 2011. On S, A, P, T, and R as comparative concepts for alignment typology. Lingust. Typol. 15:535–67 [Google Scholar]
  45. Haspelmath M. 2013. Argument indexing: a conceptual framework for the syntax of bound person forms. In Languages Across Boundaries: Studies in Memory of Anna Siewierska, ed. D Bakker, M Haspelmath, pp. 197–226. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
  46. Hawkins JA. 1994. A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  47. Hawkins JA. 2014. Cross-Linguistic Variation and Efficiency New York: Oxford Univ. Press
  48. Heine B, König C. 2010. On the linear order of ditransitive objects. Lang. Sci. 32:87–131 [Google Scholar]
  49. Hudson RA. 1992. So called double objects and grammatical relations. Language 68:251–76 [Google Scholar]
  50. Jackendoff RS. 1990. On Larson’s treatment of the double object construction. Linguist. Inq. 21:427–56 [Google Scholar]
  51. Kittilä S. 2006. The anomaly of the verb “give” explained by its high (formal and semantic) transitivity. Linguistics 44:569–612 [Google Scholar]
  52. Krifka M. 2004. Semantic and pragmatic conditions for the dative alternation. Korean J. Engl. Lang. Linguist. 4:1–32 [Google Scholar]
  53. Larson RK. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguist. Inq. 19:335–91 [Google Scholar]
  54. Levin B. 2008. Dative verbs: a crosslinguistic perspective. Lingvist. Investig. 31:285–312 [Google Scholar]
  55. Malchukov A. 2013. Alignment preferences in basic and derived ditransitives. In Languages Across Boundaries: Studies in Memory of Anna Siewierska, ed. D Bakker, M Haspelmath, pp. 263–89. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
  56. Malchukov A, Haspelmath M, Comrie B. 2010. Ditransitive constructions: a typological overview. In Studies in Ditransitive Constructions, ed. A Malchukov, M Haspelmath, B Comrie, pp. 1–64. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
  57. Miyagawa S, Tsujioka T. 2004. Argument structure and ditransitive verbs in Japanese. J. East Asian Linguist. 13:1–38 [Google Scholar]
  58. Plank F. 1987. Direkte indirekte Objekte: Was uns lehren lehrt. Leuvense Bijdr. 76:37–61 [Google Scholar]
  59. Polinsky M. 1998. A non-syntactic account of some asymmetries in the double object construction. In Conceptual Structure and Language: Bridging the Gap, ed. J-P Koenig, pp. 403–23. Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf
  60. Ransom EN. 1979. Definiteness and animacy constraints on passive and double-object constructions in English. Glossa 13:215–40 [Google Scholar]
  61. Rappaport Hovav M, Levin B. 2008. The English dative alternation: the case for verb sensitivity. J. Linguist. 44:129–67 [Google Scholar]
  62. Rudzka-Ostyn B. 1996. The Polish dative. In The Dative, Vol. 1: Descriptive Studies, ed. W Van Belle, W Van Langendonck, pp. 341–94. Amsterdam: Benjamins
  63. Ryding K. 2005. A Reference Grammar of Modern Standard Arabic Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  64. Sabel J. 2011. Deriving linear order in OV/VO languages: evidence from Oceanic languages. In Topics in Oceanic Morphosyntax, ed. C Moyse-Faurie, J Sabel, pp. 27–64. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
  65. Siewierska A. 1998. Languages with and without objects: the functional grammar approach. Lang. Contrast 1:173–90 [Google Scholar]
  66. Siewierska A. 2003. Person agreement and the determination of alignment. Trans. Philol. Soc. 101:339–70 [Google Scholar]
  67. Sinnemäki K. 2014. A typological perspective on differential object marking. Linguistics 52:281–313 [Google Scholar]
  68. Stefanowitsch A, Gries ST. 2003. Collostructions: investigating the interaction of words and constructions. Int. J. Corpus Linguist. 8:209–43 [Google Scholar]
  69. Thepkanjana K. 2010. Ditransitive constructions in Thai. In Studies in Ditransitive Constructions, ed. A Malchukov, M Haspelmath, B Comrie, pp. 409–26. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
  70. Thompson SA. 1990. Information flow and “dative shift” in English. In Development and Diversity: Linguistic Variation Across Time and Space, ed. J Edmondson, K Feagin, P Mühlhäusler, pp. 239–53. Dallas, TX: Summer Inst. Linguist
  71. Thompson SA. 1995. The iconicity of “dative shift” in English: considerations from information flow in discourse. In Syntactic Iconicity and Linguistic Freezes: The Human Dimension, ed. ME Landsberg, pp. 155–75. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
  72. Thráinsson H. 2007. The Syntax of Icelandic Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  73. Topping D. 1973. Chamorro Reference Grammar Honolulu: Univ. Press Hawaii
  74. Wasow T. 2002. Postverbal Behavior. Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf
  75. Wichmann S, Donohue M. 2008. The Typology of Semantic Alignment Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  76. Witzlack-Makarevich A. 2011. Typological variation in grammatical relations. PhD thesis, Univ. Leipzig. 330 pp
  77. Zovko, Dinković I. 2007. Dative alternation in Croatian. Suvrem. Lingvist. 63:65–83 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-125204
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-125204
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error