publication . Article . 2005

Argument Marking in Ditransitive Alignment Types

Martin Haspelmath;
Open Access
  • Published: 01 Jan 2005 Journal: Linguistic Discovery, volume 3 (eissn: 1537-0852, Copyright policy)
  • Publisher: Dartmouth College Library Press
Abstract
This paper discusses the patterns of case-marking/adpositional marking and indexing of ditransitive clauses in the world's languages, i.e. clauses with an Agent, a Recipient and a Theme argument. It distinguishes three major alignment types, indirective, secundative, and neutral, corresponding to accusative, ergative and neutral in monotransitive constructions. The alignment and coding patterns are recorded for a sample of 100 languages from around the world. Ditransitive alignment is compared with monotransitive alignment, alignment of case-marking/adpositional marking is compared to alignment of indexing, and the various coding types are distinguished, dependi...
Subjects
free text keywords: morphology, ergative, ergativity, ditransitive, transitive, typology, case, alignment, argument alignment, ditransitivity, case marking, Intransitive verb, Computer science, Transitive verb, Linguistics, Artificial intelligence, business.industry, business, Ergative case, Generative grammar, Syntax, Typology, Natural language processing, computer.software_genre, computer, lcsh:Language. Linguistic theory. Comparative grammar, lcsh:P101-410
Communities
Digital Humanities and Cultural Heritage
32 references, page 1 of 3

Brown, Lea. 2005. Nias. The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar, ed. by K. Alexander Adelaar and Nikolaus P. Himmelmann, 562-589. London: Routledge,.

Bybee, Joan L. 1988. The diachronic dimension in explanation. Explaining language universals, ed. by John A. Hawkins, 350-379. Oxford: Blackwell.

-----. 2003. Los mecanismos de cambio como universales lingüísticos. En Torno a Los Universales Lingüísticos, ed. by R. Mairal and J. Gil, 245-263. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 245-263. [English original version available from author's website]

Comrie, Bernard. 1978. Ergativity. Syntactic typology, ed. by Winfred P. Lehmann, 329-94. Austin: University of Texas Press,.

-----. 1982. Grammatical relations in Huichol. Studies in transitivity, Syntax and Semantics 15, ed. by Paul J. Hopper and Sandra A. Thompson, 95-115. New York: Academic Press.

Croft, William. 1990. Typology and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Davies, William D. 1986. Choctaw verb agreement and universal grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Dayley, Jon P. 1985. Tzutujil grammar. University of California Publications in Linguistics 107. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Dixon, R.M.W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dryer, Matthew. 1986. Primary objects, secondary objects, and antidative. Language 62: 808-45.

-----. 1989. Large linguistic areas and language sampling. Studies in Language 13:257-92.

-----. 2005. Genealogical language list. The world atlas of language structures, ed. by Martin Haspelmath, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil and Bernard Comrie, 584-644. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

-----. To appear. Clause types. To appear Language typology and syntactic description, 2nd ed., ed. by Timothy Shopen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Givón, Talmy. 1976. Topic, pronoun and grammatical agreement. Subject and topic, ed. by Charles N. Li, 149-89. NewYork: Academic Press. [OpenAIRE]

Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. Universals of grammar, ed. by Joseph H. Greenberg, 73-113. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

32 references, page 1 of 3
Any information missing or wrong?Report an Issue