Cover not available

In:Contrastive Studies in Verbal Valency
Edited by Lars Hellan, Andrej L. Malchukov and Michela Cennamo
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 237] 2017
► pp. 177–218

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Exploring the domain of ditransitive constructions

Ditransitive splits and ditransitive alternations across languages

Published online: 30 April 2017
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.237.06mal
Abstract
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
References (66)
References
Asher, Ronald E. & Kumari, T.C. 1997. Malayalam. London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Atoyebi, Joseph, Haspelmath, Martin & Malchukov, Andrej. 2010. Ditransitive constructions in Yorùbá. In Malchukov et al. (eds), 145–166.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Borg, Albert & Comrie, Bernard. 1984. Object diffuseness in Maltese. In Plank (ed.), 9–126.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Bugaeva, Anna. 2010. Ainu applicatives in typological perspective. Studies in Language 34(4): 749–801. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011. Ditransitive constructions in Ainu. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung (STUF) 64(3): 237–255.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015. Valency classes in Ainu. In Malchukov & Comrie (eds), 807–855.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Conti, Carmen. 2008. Receptores y beneficiarios: estudio tipológico de la ditransitividad. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar. Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2003. Typology and Universals. Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cysouw, Michael, Haspelmath, Martin & Malchukov, Andrej (eds). 2010. Semantic maps: Theory and applications. Linguistic Discovery 8(1).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W. 1991. A New Approach to English Grammar, on Semantic Principles. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 1986. Primary objects, secondary objects, and antidative. Language 62: 808–845. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2007. Clause types. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. II, Timothy Shopen (ed.), 224–275. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Essegbey, James. 1999. Inherent Complement Verbs Revisited. PhD dissertation, University of Nijmegen.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Estrada Fernández, Zarina, Tubino, Mercedes & Villalpando, Jesús. 2015. Valency classes in Yaqui. In Malchukov & Comrie (eds), 1359–1391.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fedden, Sebastian. 2010. Ditransitives in Mian. In Malchukov et al. (eds), 456–486.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Fortescue, Michael. 1984. West Greenlandic. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Golluscio, Lucia. 2010. Ditransitives in Mapudungun. In Malchukov et al. (eds), 710–757.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hartmann, Iren, Haspelmath, Martin & Taylor, Bradley (eds). 2013. Valency Patterns Leipzig. Leipzig: MPI for Evolutionary Anthropology. <[URL]>Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2004. Explaining the ditransitive person-role constraint: A usage based account. Constructions 2.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2005b. Argument marking in ditransitive alignment types. Linguistic Discovery 3.1:1–21 (free online journal, [URL])Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015. Ditransitive constructions. Annual Review of Linguistics 1. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kemmer, Susan & Verhagen, Arie. 1994. The grammar of causatives and the conceptual structure of events. Cognitive Linguistics 5: 115–156. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kingkarn, Thepkanjana 2010. Ditransitive constructions in Thai. In Malchukov et al. (eds), 409–427.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kittilä, Seppo. 2005. Recipient-prominence vs. beneficiary-prominence. Linguistic Typology 9: 269–297. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2006. The anomaly of the verb ‘give’ explained by its high (formal and semantic) transitivity. Linguistics 44(3): 569–612. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2004. Semantic and pragmatic conditions for the Dative Alternation. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics 4: 1–32.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Rappaport Hovav, Malka. 2005. Argument Realization. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Li, Charles N. & Thompson, Sandra A. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej. 1995. Even. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej, Haspelmath, Martin & Comrie, Bernard. 2010. Ditransitive constructions: A typological overview. In Malchukov et al. (eds), 1–65.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej, Haspelmath, Martin, Comrie, Bernard (eds). 2010. Studies in Ditransitive Constructions: A Comparative Handbook. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej & Comrie, Bernard (eds). 2015. Valency Classes in the World’s Languages, 2 Vols. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Miyaoka, Osahito. 2010. Ditransitives in Central Alaskan Yupik. In Malchukov et al. (eds), 529–563.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. A Grammar of Central Alaskan Yupik (CAY). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Mosel, Ulrike. 2010. Ditransitive constructions and their alternations in Teop. In Malchukov et al. (eds), 486–509.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mukherjee, Joybrato, 2005. English Ditransitive Verbs: Aspects of Theory, Description and a Usage-based Model. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Newman, John. 1996. Give: A Cognitive Linguistic Study. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nikolaeva, Irina, 1999. Ostyak. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 1989. Learnability and Cognition. The Acquisition of Argument Structure Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Plank, Frans, 1987. Direkte indirekte Objekte: Was uns lehren lehrt. Leuvense Bijdragen 76: 37–61.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Sedlak, Philip. 1975. Direct/indirect object word order: A cross-linguistic analysis. Working Papers on Language Universals 18: 117–164.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Siewierska, Anna. 1998. Languages with and without objects. Languages in Contrast 1(2): 173–190. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2003. Person agreement and the determination of alignment. Transactions of the Philological Society 101(2): 339–370. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2004. Person. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Siewierska, Anna & van Lier, Eva. 2012. Ditransitive constructions with two human nonagentive arguments. Faits de Langues 39: 140–156.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert Jr. & Randy Lapolla. 1997. Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Function. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Luraghi, Silvia
2024. Embodied constructions. Review of Cognitive Linguistics DOI logo
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 22 november 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue