Cover not available
Part of
Contrastive Studies in Verbal Valency
Edited by Lars Hellan, Andrej L. Malchukov and Michela Cennamo
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 237] 2017
► pp. 177–218

Exploring the domain of ditransitive constructions

Ditransitive splits and ditransitive alternations across languages

Following up on (Malchukov, Haspelmath & Comrie 2010), the paper provides a description of the lexical variation in the domain of ditransitive constructions. It has been shown that the variation is not random, but there are cross-linguistically valid preferences of certain verb meanings (verb classes) for certain alignments, which can be captured in the forms of hierarchies and semantic maps. The ditransitive semantic map has been shown to be able to capture extensions of ditransitive constructions across a wide range of languages, and to be applicable to languages of different structural profiles (making use of either flagging or indexing), as well as to different kinds of alternations, which are represented as areas of overlap in a universal semantic space.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Basic alignment types
  • 3.Alignment variation and lexical splits in ditransitive constructions
  • 4.Lexical splits in the ditransitive domain: Introducing partial hierarchies
    • 4.1Ditransitive-Allative Hierarchy
    • 4.2Ditransitive-Benefactive Hierarchy
    • 4.3Ditransitive-Instrumental Hierarchy
    • 4.4Combining subhierarchies
  • 5.Towards a semantic map for ditransitive constructions
    • 5.1Ditransitive domain: A semantic map perspective
    • 5.2Ditransitive constructions in Mandarin
    • 5.3Ditransitive constructions in CAY Eskimo
    • 5.4Ditransitive constructions in Thai
    • 5.5Ditransitive constructions in Yorùbá
    • 5.6Some more maps and alignments splits
  • 6.Further application of the map
    • 6.1Constraining indexing: Mian
    • 6.2Applicative split: Ainu
  • 7.Problematic patterns
    • 7.1Interference of structural factors
    • 7.2Verb polysemy and pattern inheritance
  • 8.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 30 April 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.237.06mal
References
Asher, Ronald E. & Kumari, T.C.
1997 Malayalam. London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Atoyebi, Joseph, Haspelmath, Martin & Malchukov, Andrej
2010 Ditransitive constructions in Yorùbá. In Malchukov et al. (eds), 145–166.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Kristoffersen, Kristian E. & Sveen, Andreas
2011 West Scandinavian ditransitives as a family of constructions: With a special attention to the Norwegian V-refl-NP construction. Linguistics 49(1): 53–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blansitt, Edward L. Jr.
1984 Dechticaetiative and dative. In Objects: Towards a Theory of Grammatical Relations, Frans Plank (ed.), 127–150. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Borg, Albert & Comrie, Bernard
1984 Object diffuseness in Maltese. In Plank (ed.), 9–126.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan & Nikitina, Tatiana
2009 The gradience of the dative alternation. In Reality Exploration and Discovery: Pattern Interaction in Language and Life, Linda Uyechi & Lian-Hee Wee (eds), 161–184. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Bugaeva, Anna
2010 Ainu applicatives in typological perspective. Studies in Language 34(4): 749–801. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 Ditransitive constructions in Ainu. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung (STUF) 64(3): 237–255.Google Scholar
2015 Valency classes in Ainu. In Malchukov & Comrie (eds), 807–855.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard
1982 Grammatical relations in Huichol. In Studies in Transitivity [Syntax and Semantics 15], Paul J. Hopper & Sandra A. Thompson (eds), 95–115. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Conti, Carmen
2008 Receptores y beneficiarios: estudio tipológico de la ditransitividad. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Croft, William, Barddal, Johanna, Hollmann, Willem, Nielsen, Maike, Sotirova, Violeta & Taoka, Chiaki
2001 Discriminating verb meanings: The case of transfer verbs. Handout, LAGB Autumn Meeting, Reading.Google Scholar
Croft, William
2001 Radical Construction Grammar. Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003 Typology and Universals. Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cysouw, Michael, Haspelmath, Martin & Malchukov, Andrej
(eds) 2010 Semantic maps: Theory and applications. Linguistic Discovery 8(1).Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W.
1991 A New Approach to English Grammar, on Semantic Principles. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S.
1986 Primary objects, secondary objects, and antidative. Language 62: 808–845. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007 Clause types. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. II, Timothy Shopen (ed.), 224–275. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Essegbey, James
1999 Inherent Complement Verbs Revisited. PhD dissertation, University of Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Estrada Fernández, Zarina, Tubino, Mercedes & Villalpando, Jesús
2015 Valency classes in Yaqui. In Malchukov & Comrie (eds), 1359–1391.Google Scholar
Fedden, Sebastian
2010 Ditransitives in Mian. In Malchukov et al. (eds), 456–486.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J.
1970 The Grammar of Hitting and Breaking. In Readings in English Transformational Grammar, R.A. Jacobs and P.S. Rosenbaum (eds.), 120–133. Ginn: Waltham, MA.Google Scholar
Fortescue, Michael
1984 West Greenlandic. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Golluscio, Lucia
2010 Ditransitives in Mapudungun. In Malchukov et al. (eds), 710–757.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E.
1995 Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Guerrero, Lilián & Van Valin, Robert D. Jr.
2004 Yaqui and the analysis of primary object languages. International Journal of American Linguistics 70(3): 290–319. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hartmann, Iren, Haspelmath, Martin & Taylor, Bradley
(eds) 2013 Valency Patterns Leipzig. Leipzig: MPI for Evolutionary Anthropology. [URL]Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
2003 The geometry of grammatical meaning: Semantic maps and cross-linguistic comparison. In The New Psychology of Language, Vol. 2, Michael Tomasello (ed.), 211–43. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
2004 Explaining the ditransitive person-role constraint: A usage based account. Constructions 2.Google Scholar
2005 Ditransitive constructions: The verb ‘give’. In The World Atlas of Language Structures, Martin Haspelmath, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil & Bernard Comrie (eds), 426–429. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2005a Ditransitive Constructions: The Verb ‘Give’. In The World Atlas of Language Structures, M. Haspelmath & M. S. Dryer & D. Gil & B. Comrie (eds.), 426–429. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2005b Argument marking in ditransitive alignment types. Linguistic Discovery 3.1:1–21 (free online journal, [URL])Google Scholar
2015 Ditransitive constructions. Annual Review of Linguistics 1. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kemmer, Susan & Verhagen, Arie
1994 The grammar of causatives and the conceptual structure of events. Cognitive Linguistics 5: 115–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kingkarn, Thepkanjana
2010 Ditransitive constructions in Thai. In Malchukov et al. (eds), 409–427.Google Scholar
Kittilä, Seppo
2005 Recipient-prominence vs. beneficiary-prominence. Linguistic Typology 9: 269–297. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006 The anomaly of the verb ‘give’ explained by its high (formal and semantic) transitivity. Linguistics 44(3): 569–612. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred
2004 Semantic and pragmatic conditions for the Dative Alternation. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics 4: 1–32.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth
1993 English Verb Classes and Alternations. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Rappaport Hovav, Malka
2005 Argument Realization. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, Charles N. & Thompson, Sandra A.
1981 Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej
1995 Even. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
2005 Case pattern splits, verb types, and construction competition. In Competition and Variation in Natural Languages: The Case for Case, Mengistu Amberber & Helen de Hoop (eds), 73–117. Oxford: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej, Haspelmath, Martin & Comrie, Bernard
2010 Ditransitive constructions: A typological overview. In Malchukov et al. (eds), 1–65.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej, Haspelmath, Martin, Comrie, Bernard
(eds) 2010 Studies in Ditransitive Constructions: A Comparative Handbook. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej
2013 Alignment preferences in basic and derived ditransitives. In Languages across Boundaries. Studies in Memory of Anna Siewierska, Dik Bakker & Martin Haspelmath (eds), 263–291. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej & Comrie, Bernard
(eds) 2015 Valency Classes in the World’s Languages, 2 Vols. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Miyaoka, Osahito
2010 Ditransitives in Central Alaskan Yupik. In Malchukov et al. (eds), 529–563.Google Scholar
2012 A Grammar of Central Alaskan Yupik (CAY). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Margetts, Anna & Austin, Peter K.
2007 Three participant events in the languages of the world: Towards a crosslinguistic typology. Linguistics (3): 393–451.Google Scholar
Mosel, Ulrike
2010 Ditransitive constructions and their alternations in Teop. In Malchukov et al. (eds), 486–509.Google Scholar
Mukherjee, Joybrato
2005 English Ditransitive Verbs: Aspects of Theory, Description and a Usage-based Model. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Newman, John
1996 Give: A Cognitive Linguistic Study. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nikolaeva, Irina
1999 Ostyak. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven
1989 Learnability and Cognition. The Acquisition of Argument Structure Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Plank, Frans
1987 Direkte indirekte Objekte: Was uns lehren lehrt. Leuvense Bijdragen 76: 37–61.Google Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, Malka & Levin, Beth
2008 The English dative alternation: The case for verb sensitivity. Journal of Linguistics 44(1): 129–167.Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi
1996 Applicatives and benefactives: A cognitive account. In Grammatical Constructions: Their Form and Meaning, Masayoshi Shibatani & Sandra A. Thompson (eds), 157–194. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Sedlak, Philip
1975 Direct/indirect object word order: A cross-linguistic analysis. Working Papers on Language Universals 18: 117–164.Google Scholar
Siewierska, Anna
1998 Languages with and without objects. Languages in Contrast 1(2): 173–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003 Person agreement and the determination of alignment. Transactions of the Philological Society 101(2): 339–370. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004 Person. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siewierska, Anna & van Lier, Eva
2012 Ditransitive constructions with two human nonagentive arguments. Faits de Langues 39: 140–156.Google Scholar
Taylor, John R.
1998 Double object constructions in Zulu. In The Linguistics of Giving [Typological Studies in Language 36], John Newman (ed.), 67–96. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, Robert Jr. & Randy Lapolla
1997 Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Function. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wunderlich, Dieter
2006 Towards a structural typology of verb classes. In Advances in the Theory of the Lexicon, Dieter Wunderlich (ed.), 57–166. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Fedriani, Chiara & Maria Napoli
2023. The Missing Dative Alternation in Romance: Explaining Stability and Change in the Argument Structure of Latin Ditransitives. Transactions of the Philological Society 121:1 ► pp. 33 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 9 november 2023. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.