Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation

Linguistics

An Interdisciplinary Journal of the Language Sciences

Editor-in-Chief: van der Auwera, Johan

6 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2013: 0.658
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.626
Rank 72 out of 169 in category Linguistics in the 2013 Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Report/Social Sciences Edition

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR): 0.584
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP): 1.068

ERIH category 2011: INT1

VolumeIssuePage

Issues

A typology of tritransitives: alignment types and motivations

*Correspondence address: Seppo Kittilä, Dept of Linguistics, P.O. Box 9, 00014 University of Helsinki, Finland.

Citation Information: Linguistics. Volume 45, Issue 3, Pages 453–508, ISSN (Online) 1613-396X, ISSN (Print) 0024-3949, DOI: 10.1515/LING.2007.015, July 2007

Publication History

Received:
2004-11-16
Revised:
2006-07-24
Published Online:
2007-07-31

Abstract

The present article discusses the syntax and semantics of tritransitive constructions. The label comprises constructions like a physiotherapist made the phonetician give a book to the bassoon player and a phonetician gave a book to the bassoon player for the physiotherapist and their equivalents in the languages of the world. The article proposes a formal typology, which is based on the formal similarities and differences in the Recipient and Beneficiary/ Causee coding in ditransitive and tritransitive clauses. Four types are distinguished, all of which are illustrated by crosslinguistic data. The arguments either receive distinct formal treatment irrespective of clause type, or the differences may be confined to tritransitives (they may also be marked alike). Moreover, the attested differences can be divided into subtypes based on whether the relevant arguments bear marking not attested outside tritransitives, or whether their formal treatment is different in more general terms. In addition to the formal typology, the article also discusses the rationale behind the attested tritransitive types. The key feature here is Ambiguity Avoidance, which is compared to Case Hierarchy (see, e.g., Comrie 1975).

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.