Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-7drmj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-04T10:41:31.932Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Primary Objects, Secondary Objects, and Antidative

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

Matthew S. Dryer
Matthew S. Dryer*
Affiliation:
University of Alberta
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Languages differ as to whether they are accusative or ergative. In other words, grammatical rules in some languages are sensitive to the distinction between Subjects and Objects; in others, to the distinction between ergatives and absolutives. The central thesis of this paper is that, similarly, rules in some languages are sensitive to the distinction between Direct Objects and Indirect Objects; but in others, they are sensitive to a distinction between Primary and Secondary Objects. A Primary Object is an Indirect Object in a ditransitive clause or a Direct Object in a monotransitive clause, while a Secondary Object is a Direct Object in a ditransitive clause.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 62 , Issue 4 , December 1986 , pp. 808 - 845
Copyright
Copyright © 1986 by Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

I am indebted to Judith Aissen, Scott DeLancey, Don Frantz, Ed Keenan, David Perlmutter, and Sandy Thompson for comments on earlier drafts of this paper.

References

Aissen, Judith. 1983. Indirect Object advancement in Tzotzil. In Perlmutter, 272–302.Google Scholar
Aissen, Judith. 1984. Themes and absolutives: Some semantic rules in Tzotzil. The syntax of Native American languages, ed. by Cook, Eung-Do & Gerdts, Donna B. (Syntax and semantics, 16), 1–20. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Allen, Barbara J., and Frantz, Donald G. 1983a. Advancements and verb agreement in Southern Tiwa. In Perlmutter, 303–16.Google Scholar
Allen, Barbara J., and Frantz, Donald G. 1983b. Goal advancement and verb agreement in Southern Tiwa. ms.Google Scholar
Allen, Barbara J., Gardiner, Donna B.; and Frantz, Donald G. 1984. Noun incorporation in Southern Tiwa. IJAL 50. 292–311.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1976. On the notion of subject in ergative languages. In Li, 1–14.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1977. Comments on the paper by Wasow. Formal syntax, ed. by Culicover, Peter W. et al., 361–7. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Aoki, Haruo. 1970. Nez Perce grammar. (University of California publications in linguistics, 62.) Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Beller, Richard, and Beller, Patricia. 1977. Huasteca Nahuatl. Studies in Uto-Aztecan grammar, 2: Modern Aztec grammatical sketches, ed. by Langacker, Ronald, 199–306. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Blansitt, Edward L. Jr. 1984. Dechticaetiative and dative. In Plank, 127–50.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1956. Eastern Ojibwa: Grammatical sketch, texts, and word list. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Borg, Albert J., and Comrie, Bernard. 1984. Object diffuseness in Maltese. In Plank, 109–126.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1982. The passive in lexical theory. The mental representation of grammatical relations, ed. by Bresnan, Joan, 3–86. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Camp, Elizabeth, and Liccardi, Millicent. 1967. Itonama. Bolivian Indian grammars, II, ed. by Matteson, Esther, 257–352. Norman, OK: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Channon, Robert. 1982. 3→2 advancement, beneficiary advancement, and with. BLS 8. 271–82.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. (Studies in generative grammar, 9.) Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam., and Halle, Morris. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Christaller, Rev. J. G. 1875. A grammar of the Asante and Fante language called Tshi. Gold Coast: Basel German Evangelical Mission. [Reprinted, Ridgewood, NJ: Gregg Press, 1964.]Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra. 1976. An object-creating rule in Bahasa Indonesia. LI 7. 41–87. [Reprinted in Perlmutter 1983:219–71.]Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra. 1978. Case marking and grammatical relations in Polynesian. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Cole, Peter, and Sadock, Jerrold M. 1977 (eds.) Grammatical relations. (Syntax and semantics, 8.) New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1981. Ergativity and grammatical relations in Kalaw Lagaw Ya (Saibai dialect). Australian Journal of Linguistics 1. 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1982. Grammatical relations in Huichol. Studies in transitivity, ed. by Hopper, Paul J. & Thompson, Sandra A. (Syntax and semantics, 15), 95–115. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David R. 1982. Grammatical relations and Montague grammar. In Jacobson & Pullum, 79–130.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 1982. Passive and inversion in Kannada. BLS 8. 311–21.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 1983. Indirect Objects in Kinyarwanda revisited. In Perlmutter, 129–40.Google Scholar
Elbert, Samuel H. 1974. Puluwat grammar. (Pacific linguistics, B-29.) Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Ellis, C. Douglas. 1983. Spoken Cree. Revised edn. Edmonton: Pica Pica Press.Google Scholar
Emonds, Joseph E. 1976. A transformational approach to English syntax. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Faltz, Leonard. 1978. On indirect objects in universal syntax. CLS 14. 76–87.Google Scholar
Frantz, Donald. 1981. Grammatical relations in universal grammar. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1979. On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1984a. Syntax: A functional-typological introduction, 1. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1984b. Direct object and dative shifting: Semantic and pragmatic case. In Plank, 151–82.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth. 1973. Person marking in Walbiri. A festschrift for Morris Halle, ed. by Anderson, Stephen R. & Kiparsky, Paul, 308–44. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Harris, Alice C. 1982. Georgian and the Unaccusative Hypothesis. Lg. 58. 290–306.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1983. Word order universals. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, Teun. 1984. Transitivity: Grammatical relations in government-binding theory. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J., and Thompson, Sandra A. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Lg. 56. 251–99.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Pauline, and Pullum, Geoffrey K. 1982 (eds.) The nature of syntactic representation. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jelinek, Eloise. 1984. Empty categories, case, and configurationality. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 2. 39–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, David. 1974. Toward a theory of relationally-based grammar. Urbana: University of Illinois dissertation.Google Scholar
Johnson, David. 1977. Ergativity in universal grammar. ms.Google Scholar
Johnson, David., and Postal, Paul. 1980. Arc Pair Grammar. Princeton: University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, Marion. 1980. Ergativity in Inuktitut (Eskimo) in Montague Grammar, and in Relational Grammar. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Jolley, Catherine A. 1982. On the Plains Cree passive: An analysis of syntactic and lexical rules. Grammatical relations and relational grammar, ed. by Joseph, Brian D. (Ohio State working papers in linguistics, 26), 1–33. Columbus.Google Scholar
Josephs, Lewis S. 1975. Palauan reference grammar. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii.Google Scholar
Karapurkar, Pushpa. 1976. Kokborok grammar. (CIIL grammar series, 3.) Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward. 1976. Toward a universal definition of subject. In Li, 303–33.Google Scholar
Johnson, David. 1984. Semantic correlates of the ergative/absolutive distinction. Linguistics n.s. 22. 197–223.Google Scholar
Johnson, David., and Comrie, Bernard. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. LI 8. 63–100.Google Scholar
Kimenyi, Alexandre. 1980. A relational grammar of Kinyarwanda. (University of California publications in linguistics, 91.) Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Kisseberth, Charles W., and Abasheikh, Mohammad Imam. 1977. The object relationship in Chi-Mwi:ni, a Bantu language. In Cole & Sadock, 179–218.Google Scholar
Klimov, G. A. 1972. K xarakteristike jazykov aktivnogo stroja. Voprosy Jazykoznanija 1972:4.3–13. [English translation in Linguistics 131. 11–25, 1974.].Google Scholar
Klimov, G. A. 1977. Tipologija jazykov aktivnogo stroja. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Larsen, Thomas W., and Norman, William M. 1979. Correlates of ergativity in Mayan grammar. Ergativity: Towards a theory of grammatical relations, ed. by Plank, Frans, 347–70. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lawler, John. 1977. A agrees with B in Achenese: A problem for Relational Grammar. In Cole & Sadock, 219–48.Google Scholar
Li, Charles N. 1976 (ed.) Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Li, Charles N., and Thompson, Sandra A. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mallinson, Graham, and Blake, Barry J. 1981. Language typology. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec P. 1984. On the nature of grammatical relations. (LI monograph 10.) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Matisoff, James A. 1973. A grammar of Lahu. (University of California publications in linguistics, 75.) Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Migeod, Frederick W. H. 1914. A grammar of the Hausa language. London: Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, Edith, and Wirth, Jessica. 1980 (eds.) Current approaches to syntax. (Syntax and semantics, 13.) New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munro, Pamela, and Gordon, Lynn. 1982. Syntactic relations in Western Muskogean. Lg. 58. 81–115.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 1980. Linguistic theory in America. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David. 1980. Relational Grammar. In Moravcsik & Wirth, 195–229.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David. 1982. Syntactic representation, syntactic levels, and the notion of subject. In Jacobson & Pullum, 283–340.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David. 1983 (ed.) Studies in Relational Grammar 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David., and Postal, Paul. 1977. Toward a universal characterization of passivization. BLS 3. 394–417. [Reprinted in Perlmutter 1983:3–29.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perlmutter, David., and Postal, Paul. 1983. Some proposed laws of basic clause structure. In Perlmutter 1983:81–128.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David., and Rosen, Carol. 1984 (eds.) Studies in Relational Grammar 2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Plank, Frans. 1984 (ed.) Objects: Towards a theory of grammatical relations. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul. 1977. Antipassive in French. Lingvisticae Investigationes 1. 333–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Postal, Paul. 1982. Some Arc Pair Grammar descriptions. In Jacobson & Pullum, 341–425.Google Scholar
Rabel, Lili. 1961. Khasi, a language of Assam. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.Google Scholar
Rhodes, Richard. 1976. The morphosyntax of the Central Ojibwa verb. University of Michigan dissertation.Google Scholar
Rude, Noel. 1982. Promotion and topicality of Nez Perce objects. BLS 8. 463–83.Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1917. Review of Het passieve karakter van het verbum transitivum of van het verbum actionis in talen van Nord-Amerika, by Uhlenbeck, C. C. IJAL 1. 82–6.Google Scholar
Taylor, F. W. 1953. A grammar of the Adamawa dialect of the Fulani language. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, Laurence. 1965. A Vietnamese grammar. Seattle: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr., and Foley, William A. 1980. Role and reference grammar. In Moravcsik & Wirth, 329–52.Google Scholar
Watters, David E. 1973. Clause patterns in Kham. Clause, sentence, and discourse patterns in selected languages of Nepal, I: General approach, ed. by Hale, Austin, 39–202. Norman, OK: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1984. Grammatical relations. LI 15. 639–73.Google Scholar
Wordick, F. J. F. 1982. The Yindjibarndi language. (Pacific linguistics, C-71.) Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar