Search

In Movima (isolate, Amazonian Bolivia), the structure of transitive clauses is determined by referential properties of the core arguments: the encoding of an argument depends on the relative position of its referent on a referential hierarchy. Movima has no ditransitive constructions. Three-participant events are expressed by monotransitive clauses, with one of the non-Agent participants having the status of an argument and the other that of an adjunct. In three-participant clauses there are no reference effects, i.e., there is no competition for argument status between the two non-Agent participants based on their relative referential properties. Instead, the choice of which non-Agent participant is encoded as an argument and which as an adjunct is determined by the lexical or derivational properties of the predicate.

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, depending on the occurrence of zero-coding and overt coding. Seven cross-linguistic generalizations emerging from the data are proposed as valid tendencies, and possible functional explanations for these tendencies are discussed.

Agreement in Itelmen is represented by means of both prefixes and suffixes. While the prefixes reference subjects (of both transitive and intransitive verbs), the suffixal agreement morphemes on a given verb may reference the subject, the object, or an oblique argument, or some combination of these. We propose that the proper characterization of the factors that determine which arguments control suffixal agreement involves a division of labour between morphology and a notion of discourse prominence/salience. In essence, we propose that the suffixal agreement morpheme is an object agreement marker, but the features of the subject are reflected in this position when the object lacks the relevant features (for example, we treat third person as the lack of a person feature), or is absent altogether (thus, intransitive verbs agree twice with their subjects). When a verb occurs with an oblique as well as a direct object, discourse salience will determine which of these non-subject arguments will control object agreement. In addition to providing a description of a complex range of facts from Itelmen, the paper sheds light on the nature of “multiple exponence” and the role of “competition” among affixes for a particular position in the verbal agreement system.