Ditransitive Constructions

Annual Review of Linguistics

Volumn 1, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 19-41

  Haspelmath, Martin ^a  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR EVOLUTIONARY ANTHROPOLOGY   (Germany)

Author keywords

alignment; alternation; dative; double object construction; grammatical split; object object primacy; word order

Indexed keywords

EID: 84925273335     PISSN: 23339683     EISSN: 23339691     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-125204     Document Type: Review

References (77)

1. Adger D, Harbour D. 2007. Syntax and syncretisms of the person case constraint. Syntax 10:2-37
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. Barddal J. 2007. The semantic and lexical range of the ditransitive construction in the history of (North) Germanic. Funct. Lang. 14:9-30
4. Barss A, Lasnik H. 1986. A note on anaphora and double objects. Linguist. Inq. 17:347-54
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
7. Bhattacharya T, Simpson A. 2011. Diagnosing double object constructions in Bangla/Bengali. Lingua 121:1067-82
8. Bickel B. 2011. Grammatical relations typology. In The OxfordHandbook 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. AMalchukov, 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
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
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. In Valency Classes in the World's Languages, ed. A Malchukov, B Comrie. In press
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
20. Dixon RMW. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
21. Donohue M. 1996. Bajau: a symmetrical Austronesian language. Language 72:782-93
22. Dryer MS. 1986. Primary objects, secondary objects, and antidative. Language 62:808-45
23. Duranti A. 1979. Object clitic pronouns in Bantu and the topicality hierarchy. Stud. Afr. Linguist. 10:31-45
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
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.OBonami, 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
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
35. Gra-canin-Yuksek M. 2006. Double object construction in Croatian: arguments against Appl0. In Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 15, ed. R Compton, MGoledzinowska, 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
37. Guillaume A. 2008. Ditransitivité en cavineña: constructions à objet double. Amerindia 31:135-56
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
40. Haspelmath M. 2005a. Argument marking in ditransitive alignment types. Linguist. Discov. 3:1-21
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
43. Haspelmath M. 2008. Frequency vs. iconicity in explaining grammatical asymmetries. Cogn. Linguist. 19:1-33
44. Haspelmath M. 2011. On S, A, P, T, and R as comparative concepts for alignment typology. Lingust. Typol. 15:535-67
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
49. Hudson RA. 1992. So called double objects and grammatical relations. Language 68:251-76
50. Jackendoff RS. 1990. On Larson's treatment of the double object construction. Linguist. Inq. 21:427-56
51. Kittilä S. 2006. The anomaly of the verb "give" explained by its high (formal and semantic) transitivity. Linguistics 44:569-612
52. Krifka M. 2004. Semantic and pragmatic conditions for the dative alternation. Korean J. Engl. Lang. Linguist. 4:1-32
53. Larson RK. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguist. Inq. 19:335-91
54. Levin B. 2008. Dative verbs: a crosslinguistic perspective. Lingvist. Investig. 31:285-312
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. AMalchukov, MHaspelmath, 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
58. Plank F. 1987. Direkte indirekte Objekte: Was uns lehren lehrt. Leuvense Bijdr. 76:37-61
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
61. Rappaport Hovav M, Levin B. 2008. The English dative alternation: the case for verb sensitivity. J. Linguist. 44:129-67
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
66. Siewierska A. 2003. Person agreement and the determination of alignment. Trans. Philol. Soc. 101:339-70
67. Sinnemäki K. 2014. A typological perspective on differential object marking. Linguistics 52:281-313
68. Stefanowitsch A, Gries ST. 2003. Collostructions: investigating the interaction of words and constructions. Int. J. Corpus Linguist. 8:209-43
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, PMühlhäusler, 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, ed. 2008. The Typology of Semantic Alignment. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
76. Witzlack-Makarevich A. 2011.Typological variation in grammatical relations. PhDthesis, Univ. Leipzig. 330 pp.
77. Zovko, Dinković I. 2007. Dative alternation in Croatian. Suvrem. Lingvist. 63:65-83