Guide:Ditransitive verbs
A ditransitive verb is a verb that takes on 3 arguments, compared to a monotransitive[*] verb which only takes two arguments.
Arguments
Ditransitive verbs take on them 3 arguments, it is commonly said it has a subject and two objects, one direct and one indirect. Though linguists often prefer calling them by the names of Donor, Recipient and Theme to distinguish them from the transitive verb arguments. The names comes from the verb "give".
- Donor (D) = The donor is the one that is performing the verb, in the verb "give" it is giving something.
- Recipient (R) = The recipient is the one that has the verb done toward it, in the verb "give" it recieves something.
- Theme (T) = The theme is the topic of happening, in the verb "give" it is the item that is being given.
"Donor gives Recipient Theme"
Properties
Examples
To give
The English verb "to give"is a verb which most often has analogues in other languages internationally. Due to its commonness and complexity with three arguments, it most often languages tend to have special rules for the verb, or its own section.
Suppletion
While it is not suppletion in the strictest sense possible it is suffiently close to be referred to as such.
While many languages can have suppletion in grammatical forms the verb "to give" can gain additional forms depending on the nature of the recipient and to a lesser degree the theme.
Recipient
The recipient is probably the most important one and the one that is most commonly having suppletion to it, that is the choice of word for "give" differ depending on the nature of the recipient.
The most common distinction that occures is First & Second person[*] vs Third person, the choice of word differ depending on wether the recipient is the speaker or the one spoken two and if its some other entity.
The second most common distinction is 1st person versus 2nd and 3rd person.
Theme
Theme suppletion is less common but does occur. Unlike the recipient the theme is nearly always inanimated and very low on the animacy scale[*] and therefor rarely ever second or third person which is why it never has the person suppletion like the recipient does. What it does commonly have though is shape suppletion where the shape of the theme dictates what word is used, long vs short, thick vs thin etc.
Types
Ditransitive verbs can be organised into three different types depending on function.
Transferal
Transferal ditransitive verbs are verbs in which the theme is being transfered from argument to another. The typical example is the verb "to give", which is ditransitive in many languages.
Roles
- Donor: The donor is the one transfering the ownership of the object to something else
- Theme: The theme is the object whichs ownership is being transfered
- Recipient: The recipient is the one that recieves the ownership of the object
Beneficiary
Beneficiary ditransitive verbs are verbs in which the recipient is benifited by the action. Typical example is the verb "to read" in english, "He read John a book"
Roles
- Donor: The donor is the one performing the verb.
- Theme: The theme is the object whichs the verb is done upon.
- Recipient: The recipient is the one that benefits from the action.
Attributial
Attributial ditransitive verbs are verbs in which the recipient is attributed the theme. Typical example is the verb "to name" in english, "I will name him Johan"
Roles
- Donor: The donor is the one performing the verb.
- Theme: The theme is the attribute that is being infused upon something
- Recipient: The recipient is the one that has the attribute infused upon it.
Voice application
Several voices can easily be applied to these verbs like any other though there are some general trends depending on the voice.
- Passive Voice[*]: The passive voice can be applied and render the verb a transitive verb, though wether the theme or the recipient is promoted to agent depends on the language's alignment.
- Anti-passive Voice[*]: This voice can be applied and like the passive makes the verb a transitive one, an interesting fact about this is that in almost all languages it always applies to the theme and never the recipient, regardless of the language's actual alignment. Anti-passive voice demotes the object (theme) and promotes the agent (donor). "I gave John the book" becomes "I was given John", But it does not mean what it would for an English speaker, in English it would mean "John was given something by me" or "I gave john something"
Using the english verb "to give" as an example. "I gave John a book" is in passive voice "John was given a book", This should not be confused with "The book was given", which would be the passive voice form of "I gave a book", The English verb "give" is ambitranistive and can be either ditranistive or transitive in this regard.
Alignments
Languages are classified as possessing one or more of several morphosyntactic alignment[*] depending on how they mark[*] the arguments in intransitive[*] and transitive verbs. The same can be done between transitive verbs and ditransitive verbs, though slightly differently - and more rarely in natural languages.
| Transitive | Agent | Object | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ditransitive | Donor | Recipient | Theme |
In this comparison it can be seen that the Donor and Agent are the same, which they nearly always are in ditransitive verbs, so they are never taken into consideration in these. But the Object/Patient overlaps Theme and Recipient, which gives the same possibility as with the intransitive-transitive relation, subject vs agent & object. Here it is of course Object vs Theme & Recipient and is illustrated according to this.
| Transitive | Object | |
|---|---|---|
| Ditransitive | Recipient | Theme |
The reason why the donor and the agent are nearly always marked the same is because they are both acting the verb but the focus may differ on what is more undergoing the verb between theme and recipient.
Indirect
In the indirect alignment the Theme and Object are marked the same while the Recipient has its own marking.
| Indirect Language | ||
|---|---|---|
| Transitive | Object | |
| Ditransitive | Recipient | Theme |
| Examples | ||
| Transitive | I hit him | |
| Ditransitive | I gave him a book | |
Passive Voice
Passive voice in indirect alignment is often counterintuitive for english speakers due to how it transforms. Passive voice promotes the main object and demotes the agent, or here the donor, but one has to keep in mind that the theme here is the primary object (T=O)as it caries the object casing. so "I gave John the book" becomes "the book was given John (by me)", But it does not mean what it would for an english speaker, in english it would mean "John was given the book (by me)"
Pros
- Economical - It requires only one additional case
Cons
Secundative
In the Secundative alignment the Recipient and Object are marked the same while the Theme has its own marking.
| Secundative Language | ||
|---|---|---|
| Transitive | Object | |
| Ditransitive | Recipient | Theme |
| Examples | ||
| Transitive | I hit him | |
| Ditransitive | I gave him a book | |
Passive Voice
Passive voice in secundative alignment is often intuitive for English speakers due to how similar it is to English. Passive voice promotes the main object and demotes the agent, or here the donor, but one has to keep in mind that the Recipient here is the primary object (R=O)as it carries the object casing. So "I gave John the book" becomes "John was given the book (by me)"
Pros
- Economical - It requires only one additional case
Cons
Neutral
In the Neutral alignment the Recipient and Theme both have the same marking as Object.
| Neutral Language | ||
|---|---|---|
| Transitive | Object | |
| Ditransitive | Recipient | Theme |
| Examples | ||
| Transitive | I hit him | |
| Ditransitive | I gave him a book | |
Passive Voice
In neutral alignment both the Recipient and the Theme can be promoted and typicly it is context that supplies the information required to know which.
Anti-passive Voice
Neutral alignment is one of the few alignment that can acctually demote even the recipient here, though when it does that it is demoting both the theme and the recipient at once rendering the verb acctually into na intransitive verb instead.
Pros
- Cheap - It requires no additional cases
Cons
- Ambigious - It makes no distinction between required parts
Tripartite
In a tripartite language the Object, Recipient and Theme are all marked seperately, this alignment is quite rare because it is not economical[*] information wise, it adds an additional form of flagging[*] without supplying any additional information.
| Tripartite Language | ||
|---|---|---|
| Transitive | Object | |
| Ditransitive | Recipient | Theme |
| Examples | ||
| Transitive | I hit him | |
| Ditransitive | I gave him a book | |
Passive and Anti-passive voice:
Due to its nature the regular Passive and Anti-passive voice are unable to "reach" the arguments in tripartite so these languages are often employing other voices to achive the same goals.
Pros:
- Unambigious
Cons:
- Uneconomical, it requires two more cases and or adpositions[*] rather than one
Horisontal
In a horisontal language the Recipient and the Theme are marked the same but the object differ, this one is also rather rare due to its inability to properly make a distinction between the two relevant parts while still having an additional case.
| Horisontal Language | ||
|---|---|---|
| Transitive | Object | |
| Ditransitive | Recipient | Theme |
| Examples | ||
| Transitive | I hit him | |
| Ditransitive | I gave him a book | |
Pros
- Economical - It requires only one additional case
Cons
- Ambigious - It does not make the neccisery distinction
- Ineffient - Requires additional case without supplying additional information
Split-P
| Split-PLanguage | ||
|---|---|---|
| Transitive | Object | |
| Ditransitive | Recipient Recipient |
Theme Theme |
| Examples | ||
| Transitive | I hit him | |
| Ditransitive | I gave him a book | |
| Ditransitive | I gave him a book | |
Word orders
The order of the arguments has shown to be depended on both alignment and the general word order.
R-T vs T-R
Wether the recipient or the theme comes first followed by the other tends to be depended on the alignment in question. If its secundative or neutral alignment the R tends to want to be closest to the verb while if its Indirect the T wants to be closest to the verb.
List
This is a lest of general word orders for dintraistive verbs compared to the primary order of transitive verbs.
While one might tihnk that the verb could come between T and R there is no documentet case of that ever occuring.
| Primary Order |
Ditransitive Order | |
|---|---|---|
| R-T | T-R | |
| SVO | SVO1O2 | SVO1O2 |
| DVRT | DVTR | |
| SOV | SO1O2V | SO1O2V |
| DRTV | DTRV | |
| VSO | VSO1O2 | VSO1O2 |
| VDRT | VDTR | |
| VOS | VO1O2S | VO1O2S |
| VRTD | VTRD | |