Object ordering in verbs marking two pronominal objects: Non-explanation and explanation

Gensler, Orin D.

doi:10.1515/lity.2003.015

Cited by 15 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…11 Cross-linguistically, this is in fact not true. Gensler (2003) demonstrates that any order of direct objects and indirect objects occurs with about the same frequency in the languages of the world, and that thus functional or cognitive explanations of one particular type cannot be entirely correct.…”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 97%

Object marking and morphosyntactic variation in Bantu

Marten

Kula

2012

Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper presents a detailed discussion of morphosyntactic variation in object marking in Bantu. Building on previous work (Marten et al., 2007), the paper investigates variation in object marking in 16 Bantu languages with respect to six parameters: the co-occurrence of object markers and lexical objects, the obligatoriness of object markers with specific classes of objects, the presence of locative object markers, multiple object markers, object marking in double object constructions, and object marking in relative clauses. The study shows that even within these fine-grained parameters, variation between different languages can be further distinguished. The paper provides a systematic overview of the kind of morphosyntactic variation found in Bantu, and provides an empirical framework for further descriptive and comparative studies.

show abstract

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 97%

Object marking and morphosyntactic variation in Bantu

Marten

Kula

2012

Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…First, negation affixes are more often prefixes than not (see Bybee et al 1990), and person markers commonly appear as prefixes even in SOV languages. As noticed by Dryer (1995Dryer ( : 1053, "[p]ronominal object affixes on verbs exhibit the opposite correlation (they are prefixes more often in OV languages than they are in VO languages)" (see however Gensler (2003) on double object ordering, which shows no preference for prefixation). DeLancey (2011) also argued that the prefixal personal indices in Kuki-Chin languages (SOV Sino-Tibetan languages) are secondary and developed out of possessive prefixes.…”

Section: Points Of Departurementioning

confidence: 99%

Harmonization and disharmonization of affix ordering and basic word order

Jacques

2013

Linguistic Typology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cross-category harmony (correlations between basic word order and preference for suffixes or prefixes) has been proposed by several typologists and psycholinguists as a principle to explain some apparent crosslinguistic tendencies.This article attempts to test whether cross-category harmony has an observable influence on morphosyntactic change, and reviews cases of harmonization and disharmonization of affix order. The grammaticalization of associated motion prefixes in Japhug Rgyalrong, a verb-final language of southwest China, constitutes a solid case of development of a disharmonic construction out of a harmonic one, and runs counter to the idea that head ordering principles have a direct effect on language change.

show abstract

“…Blansitt 1984;Givón 1984;Gensler 2003). Languages in which bound person forms on the verb are used for the R but not the T appear to be much more common than those in which the converse is the case.…”

Section: Bound Person Marking In Ditransitive Clausesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…

…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Bound person forms in ditransitive clauses revisited

Siewierska

Bakker

2007

FOL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a recent article Gensler (2003) has argued that little can be said about the ordering of bound person markers of the T(heme) and R(ecipient) relative to each other or relative to the verb stem apart from the fact that the outer markers are likely to be the result of a second-level cliticization process. We take issue with this claim and document that quite successful predictions with respect to the ordering of the T and R markers can be made on the basis of morphological alignment. Taking as our point of departure the typology of ditransitive alignment outlined in Haspelmath (2004;2005), we show that the ordering patterns in which the R is placed closer to the verbal stem than the T are favoured in all relevant alignment types apart from the indirective, which exhibits a preference for positioning the T closer to the verbal stem than the R. These preferences for the ordering of the R and T are argued to relate directly to the frequency of use of the relative person forms and thus are seen as constituting yet another piece of evidence for the usage-based model of grammar being developed within the functional-cognitive typological paradigm (cf. e.g.

show abstract

Object ordering in verbs marking two pronominal objects: Non-explanation and explanation

Cited by 15 publications

References 12 publications

Object marking and morphosyntactic variation in Bantu

Object marking and morphosyntactic variation in Bantu

Harmonization and disharmonization of affix ordering and basic word order

Bound person forms in ditransitive clauses revisited

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About