Ditransitive alignment splits and inverse alignment

Haspelmath, Martín

doi:10.1075/fol.14.1.06has

Cited by 63 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Examples such as those in (1)-(3) are not at all rare cross-linguistically, but similar cases are attested in a number of languages scattered around the globe (see, e.g., Blansitt 1973;Dryer 1986;Haspelmath 2007;Kittilä 2007;Heine and König 2010, see, however, Siewierska 1998band Malchukov et al 2010 for an opposite claim). The kind of variation exemplified in (1)-(3) is typically known as dative shift or dative alternation (the first of these terms is adopted in this paper).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Dative shift in a language without dative? The (allative) case of Finnish

Kittilä

2014

Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dative shift is a two-fold process that affects both the morphological coding and the order of T and R arguments of a three-participant construction, as in the teacher gave a book to the student vs. the teacher gave the student a book. Across languages, dative shift tends to express similar functions including differences in animacy, definiteness, semantic role of arguments, affectedness of recipient and permanence of transfer. This is understandable, since dative shift increases the formal transitivity of the affected clauses, and all the expressed functions are somehow related to transitivity. The goal of this paper is to study whether, and to what extent, mere changes in word order suffice to express the functions of dative shift. The examined language is Finnish, which suits very well for this purpose due to its relatively free word order and inherently different coding of Theme and Recipient. It can be hypothesized that mere word order changes readily express features related to definiteness and animacy, while they are less capable of expressing features such as affectedness of the recipient.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Dative shift in a language without dative? The (allative) case of Finnish

Kittilä

2014

Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moreover, the two types of DRM are clearly split in this regard. The first type of DRM (Haspelmath, 2007) is closer to DOM as regards the interplay of animacy and semantic role. This is expected, since also the features of T contribute to the changes in R coding.…”

Section: Semantic Role and Animacymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Only rather recently has there been more interest in animacy effects on indirect objects (Recipients/ Goals) 2 . Recent studies of the topic include Haspelmath (2007) and Kittilä (2008). The authors define the phenomena somewhat differently (see Section 2 for an elaboration), but they are both dealing with cases where the marking of R arguments is determined by animacy.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Formal and Functional Differences between Differential Object Marking and Differential R Marking: Unity or Disunity?

Kittilä¹

2011

OJML

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A number of studies (see e.g. Bossong, 1985; Aissen, 2003 and Næss, 2003) have shown that the marking of objects is influenced by animacy and definiteness. The effects of animacy are not confined to the marking of direct objects only, but the marking of Recipients/Goals is also determined by animacy in many languages. The phenomenon is labeled as Differential R/Goal Marking (DRM) by Haspelmath (2005) and Kittilä (2008). Even though both DOM and DRM are governed by animacy (and also definiteness), the two phenomena display both formal and functional differences. For example, disambiguation, which can be claimed to be the triggering factor of DOM in many languages, is clearly less relevant to DRM. These formal and functional differences between DOM and DRM will be discussed in this paper. The problem will be studied in light of three formal and four functional features. In light of the discussed features, it will be shown that DOM and DRM should not be seen as a uniform phenomenon, but they display evident differences

show abstract

“…Subsequently, na-marking of human patients has spread onto animate and even inanimate patients deemed to be topic worthy participants. Since human recipients, being inherently more topical than theme arguments (Kittilä, 2006;Haspelmath, 2007), are marked by na in ditransitive constructions, by analogy na was extended to human (also topical) patients in transitive constructions. Thus the syntactic marking on recipients was replicated on human patients with a high discourse status.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Contact Hypothesis Revised: DOM in the South Slavic Periphery

Bužarovska

2020

J. Lang. Contact

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this paper is to provide an explanation of the emergence of dom in peripheral Macedonian dialects through a reevaluation of the contact hypothesis. The southern and south-western dialects in the contact zones with Greek and Aromanian use a dative-based pattern to mark specific, predominantly human and animate referents. However, the contact hypothesis cannot fully explain the origin of dom in the southernmost dialects because it overlooks the wider interlingual context within which this change occurred. Relying on the analysis of the examples from the oldest sources with dom, the author argues in favor of a multifactorial explanation of its origin: contact obscured the case marking functions of clitics and provided an analytic direct object pattern. The introduction of na-marking on direct objects satisfied both the semantic and pragmatic requirements of a successful message by discriminating between the syntactic functions and discourse prominence of the object participant.

show abstract

Ditransitive alignment splits and inverse alignment

Cited by 63 publications

References 32 publications

Dative shift in a language without dative? The (allative) case of Finnish

Dative shift in a language without dative? The (allative) case of Finnish

Formal and Functional Differences between Differential Object Marking and Differential R Marking: Unity or Disunity?

The Contact Hypothesis Revised: DOM in the South Slavic Periphery

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About