Chapter Ditransitive Constructions: The Verb

'Give'
by Martin Haspelmath cite

1. Overview of the values

Ditransitive verbs are verbs with two arguments in addition to the subject: a “recipient” or “addressee” argument, and
a “theme” argument. Typical ditransitive verb meanings are ‘give’, ‘sell’, ‘bring’, ‘tell’. Since different ditransitive verbs
occur in different constructions in many languages, only a single verb meaning was taken into account for this
chapter: the verb ‘give’, which is probably the most frequent ditransitive verb in all languages.
The parameter of variation examined here is the relationship between the coding properties of the two ditransitive
objects and the properties of the single object in a standard monotransitive construction (with a typical transitive verb
like ‘catch’ or ‘kill’; this object is called patient here). The two coding properties which are taken into account
are case or adpositional marking and person-number indexing (“agreement”) on the verb.
There are three main types of ditransitive constructions:
(i) In the indirect-object construction, the theme of the ditransitive verb (i.e. the argument expressing the gift) is
coded like the monotransitive patient, and the recipient is coded differently. For example, in Krongo (Kadugli; Sudan),
the patient lacks case-marking (cf. 1a), and so does the ditransitive theme bìitì ‘water’ in (1b), whereas the
recipient à-káaw ‘to the person’ is marked by a dative-case prefix.

(1) Krongo (Reh 1985: 267-268)

a. N-àpá-ŋ àʔàŋ káaw y-íkkì.
  1-PFV.hit-TR I person M-that

  ‘I hit that man.’

b. N-àdá-ŋ àʔàŋ bìitì à-káaw.
  1-PFV.give-TR I water DAT-person

  ‘I gave water to the man/woman.’

In these constructions, the monotransitive patient and the ditransitive theme are grouped together as direct object,
as opposed to the recipient, which is referred to as indirect object.
(ii) In the double-object construction, both the theme and the recipient of the ditransitive verb are coded like the
monotransitive patient. For example, in Panyjima (Ngayarda, Pama-Nyungan; Western Australia) both ditransitive
objects bear accusative case, like the monotransitive patient.
 (2) Panyjima(Dench 1991: 193)
a. Ngunha parnka ngarna-rta mantu-yu.
  that lizard eat-FUT meat-ACC

  ‘That lizard will eat the meat.’

b. Ngatha yukurru-ku mantu-yu yinya-nha.
  I.NOM dog-ACC meat-ACC give-PST

  ‘I gave the dog meat.’

Note that word order is ignored in this chapter, so that the two objects in (2b) are considered as having identical
coding properties.
(iii) In the secondary-object construction, it is the recipient of the ditransitive verb that is coded like the
monotransitive patient, whereas the ditransitive theme is coded differently. For example,
in Chamorro (Austronesian; Guam), a definite monotransitive patient is preceded by an absolutive marker (cf. 3a),
and so is the ditransitive recipient ‘child’ in (3b), whereas the theme is preceded by an oblique marker.

(3) Chamorro(Topping 1973: 241, 251)

a. Ha tuge' i kannastra.
  he.ERG weave ABS basket

  ‘He wove the basket.’

b. Ha na'i i patgon ni leche.
  he.ERG give ABS child OBL milk

  ‘He gave the milk to the child.’

In this construction, the monotransitive patient and the ditransitive recipient are grouped together as primary object,
as opposed to the theme, which is referred to as secondary object.
In addition to these three major construction types, we also need to distinguish a fourth type: languages that show
a mixture of constructions. For example, in English the verb ‘give’ can occur both in an indirect-object construction
and in a double-object construction (see the translations of (1b) and (2b)), so English is classified as belonging to the
mixed type.
Thus, the following four values are shown on the map:
Values of Map 105A. Ditransitive Constructions: The Verb 'Give'
Go to map

Value Representation

Indirect-object construction 189

Double-object construction 84

Secondary-object construction 65
 Go to map

Value Representation

Mixed 40

Total: 378

There are of course further logical possibilities. In particular, one can imagine a language in which neither the
recipient nor the theme behaves like the monotransitive patient. Such further types are unattested.
It should be noted that pronominal objects often behave differently from full-NP objects. For example, in Pero (West
Chadic; Nigeria), full-NP recipients are marked with the preposition ti ‘to’ and thus occur in an indirect-object
construction (cf. 4a), whereas pronominal recipients are coded in the same way as pronominal themes and patients,
so that they occur in a double-object construction (cf. 4b).

(4) Pero(Frajzyngier 1989: 167, 109)

a. Músà mún-kò júrà tí D*íllà.
  Musa give-COMP peanut to Dilla
  ‘Musa gave peanuts to Dilla.’
b. À-mún-tée-nò-té-m.
  NEG-give-VENT-1SG.OBJ-3SG.OBJ-NEG

  ‘He did not give it to me.’

In English, the opposite situation obtains in many varieties: pronominal objects allow only the indirect-object
construction (Give it to them/*Give them it ). To simplify the picture, only constructions with two full-NP object
arguments have been taken into account for this chapter. Thus, Pero has been classified as showing the indirect-
object construction, and English as mixed.

2. The indirect-object construction

In almost all indirect-object constructions, the recipient has a specific case-marker (as in 1b) or adposition (as in 4a)
that distinguishes it from the theme, which may be unmarked or bear a direct-object marker. Constructions in which
the recipient is unmarked, contrasting with direct-object marking on the theme, are unattested. There are a very few
languages in which the coding difference of the recipient concerns verb indexing, not case or adpositional marking.
One such language is Abkhaz (Northwest Caucasian; Georgia), where full-NP arguments are not marked but are
indexed in the verb by prefixes. The recipient NP is indexed by a special set of recipient prefixes which follow the
patient/theme prefixes:
 (5) Abkhaz(Hewitt 1979: 209, 105)
a. A-š˚q˚'-k˚à Ø-z-be-yt'.
  ART-book-PL 3PL.PAT-1SG.AGT-see-FIN

  ‘I saw the books.’

b. Sarà a-x˚əč'-k˚a a-š˚q˚'-k˚à
  I ART-child-PL ART-book-PL

  Ø-rə̀-s-to-yt'.
  3PL.THM-3PL.RECP-1SG.AGT-give-FIN
  ‘I gave the books to the children.’

Languages without case or adpositional marking in which only the patient and theme, but not the recipient, are
indexed are unattested.
Quite a few languages show differential object marking, i.e. a special case marker or adposition on the
monotransitive patient (and ditransitive theme) only with animate and/or definite NPs (cf. Bossong
1985, 1998; Comrie 1989: ch. 6). When, as is commonly the case, the differential object marker is identical to the
recipient marker, we have a potential problem. Let us look at Spanish, which is well-known for its differential object
marker a occurring on animate patients (cf. 6a-b). The same preposition also marks recipients (cf. 6c).

(6) Spanish
a. Veo el libro.
  see.1SG the book

  ‘I see the book.’

b. Le veo a Juan.
  3SG.OBJ see.1SG DAT Juan

  ‘I see Juan.’
c. Le doy el libro a Juan.
  3SG.OBJ give.1SG the book DAT Juan

  ‘I give the book to Juan.’

Upon surface inspection of these examples, it might appear that both the theme ‘book’ and the recipient ‘Juan’ in (6c)
behave like the monotransitive patient, so that we would be dealing with a double-object construction. However,
examination of a greater range of data shows that with ditransitives the recipient is always marked with a,
independently of its animacy, while the theme has the same differential marking as the monotransitive patient.
Thus, Spanish and similar languages are classified here as indirect-object languages.

3. The double-object construction

In the great majority of cases, the two objects that behave alike and like the monotransitive patient show no marking
at all, i.e. neither case-marking nor indexing on the verb. Thus, example (7) from Dagbani (Gur, Niger-
Congo; Ghana and Togo) is more typical than example (2) above.
 (7) Dagbani(Olawsky 1999: 45)
Doo maa ti paɣa maa sima.
man DEF give woman DEF groundnut

‘The man gave groundnuts to the woman.’

The double-object type also includes languages in which both the recipient and the theme are indexed on the verb,
and they are indexed by the same markers as the patient. An example is Kinyarwanda (Bantu; Rwanda; Dryer 1983).
In many double-object languages, the recipient and the theme can be distinguished by word order, and when the
order of recipient and theme is fixed, it is generally the recipient that comes first (cf. Sedlak 1975, Primus 1998).
However, there are also quite a few double-object languages where not even word order distinguishes recipient and
theme, so that the role assignment must be inferred from the context (e.g. Shipibo-
Konibo(Panoan; Peru), Valenzuela 2002).

4. The secondary-object construction

While there are a few languages that, like Chamorro, show special case-marking of the ditransitive theme, in most
secondary-object languages the theme's special behavior concerns verb indexing: In these languages there is no
object case-marking, and only the monotransitive patient and the ditransitive recipient are indexed on the verb. A
typical example comes from Motuna (East Bougainville; Papua New Guinea).

(8) Motuna(Onishi 2000: 117-118)

a. Aanih nii tangu-m-u-i-na.
  Aanih (F) me slap-1OBJ-3AGT-NEAR.PST-F
  ‘Aanih slapped me.’
b. Nii ong miika o-m-i-ng.
  me that betel give-1OBJ-2AGT-PL.IMPF

  ‘Give that betel mixture to me.’

Languages with the opposite pattern, verb indexing of only the ditransitive theme, are unattested.

5. Mixed languages
A language has been classified as mixed if it exhibits two equally widespread alternative constructions with the verb
‘give’, or if it has two verbs meaning ‘give’ which occur in different constructions. The former case is illustrated
by Mandarin (cf. 9a-b), as well as by English.
 (9) Mandarin(Huang and Ahrens 1999: 2)
a. Wŏ sòng tā yī bĕn shū.
  I give s/he one CLF book

  ‘I gave him/her a book.’

b. Wŏ sòng yī bĕn shū gĕi tā.
  I give one CLF book give him/her

  ‘I gave a book to him/her.’

There is one further kind of behaviour that could be regarded as mixed: when a construction is characterized both by
case-marking and by verb indexing, and when these two do not go together. For example, in Bawm (Chin, Tibeto-
Burman; Myanmar and India), the recipient is marked by the postposition sinah, contrasting with the unmarked
theme, and is indexed on the verb by an object clitic which also indexes the monotransitive patient (nan= in (10a-b)).

(10) Bawm(Reichle 1981: 147, 152)

a. Nangmah ka nan=umpî.
  you I 2=marry

  ‘I marry you.’
b. Nan sinah chabu ka nan=pêk.
  you to book I 2=give

  ‘I give the book to you.’

It has been decided somewhat arbitrarily not to categorize such languages as mixed, but to classify them according
to the behavior of their case or adpositional marking. Thus, Bawm is classified as an indirect-object language for the
purpose of this map.

6. Geographical distribution
The two clear geographical generalizations are the overwhelming predominance of the indirect-object pattern in
Eurasia (except for mainland Southeast Asia), and the absence of this pattern from North America. Mesoamerica
and adjacent areas in South America are also dominated by indirect-object languages, but elsewhere the patterns
are more mixed. In Africa, there appears to be some alignment with language families: Afroasiatic and Mande
languages tend to show the indirect-object construction, while Niger-Congo languages other than Mande tend to
show double-object and secondary-object constructions.
Ditransitive constructions are not independent of other typological parameters: dependent-marking languages with
case-marking tend to show the indirect-object pattern, head-marking languages with verb indexing of two core
arguments tend to show the secondary-object pattern, and the double-object pattern is most common in languages
with no case-marking (see the maps in chapters 23, 51, and 104).