003 - Cennamo (2003)

(In)transitivity and object marking: some current
issues*
Michela Cennamo
1. Introduction
In this paper we discuss the relationship between the degree of

(In)transitivity of the clause and the marking of one of its nuclear argu-
ments, the O participant (actant Y in Lazard’s terminology (Lazard 1984,
1994, 1997, 2002).1 In particular, we consider some aspects of the coding
of O in the intermediate area between prototypical transitive and intransi-
tive clauses, exemplified by the various types of object incorporation, anti-
passive/middle morphology, direct vs. oblique case patterns, and we inves-
tigate whether and to what extent they can be insightfully accounted for
within an ‘event structure’ perspective on Transitivity, following recent
work by Rappaport Hovav and Levin (1998), Levin (1999), an approach
also put forward, within different frameworks, in Croft (1998), (2000),
Van Valin (1993), (2002), Van Valin and La Polla (1997), among others.
Building on a recent proposal by Levin (1999), we show that bringing
together the insights from typological research on Transitivity and Actancy
(Hopper and Thompson 1980, Tsunoda 1981, 1985, 1994, int. al.), with
some current views on argument structure and linking, allows for a better
understanding and a principled, unified account of some aspects of the cod-
ing of O cross-linguistically.
The discussion is organized as follows. Section 2 illustrates the notion
of (In)transitivity and the approaches to event structure put forward in
Rappaport Hovav and Levin (1998), Levin (1999), Van Valin and La Polla
(1997), Van Valin (2002), Croft (1998), (2000), providing the general
background for the issue to be investigated. Section 3 reviews the varying
encoding of O crosslinguistically, and the semanto-pragmatic and some
syntactic factors involved in it. Section 4 places the crosslinguistic varia-
tion in the marking of O within the event structure perspective developed
50 Michela Cennamo
by Rappaport Hovav and Levin (1998), Levin (1999). And section 5 sum-
marizes the conclusions.
2. The (In)transitivity continuum and event structure
2.1. Transitivity/Intransitivity as gradients
The notions of Transitivity/Intransitivity are strongly intertwined, and rep-

resent opposite and at the same time complementary poles of one and the
same continuum, concerning the grammar of participants and the states of
affairs they are involved in (Hopper and Thompson 1982: 1–5).
In our discussion we follow Hopper and Thompson’s (1980) multifacto-
rial, scalar view, developed and further refined in subsequent studies
(Givón 1984, 1990, Hopper and Thompson 1982, Lazard 1984, 2002, No-
centini 1992a, Tsunoda 1994, int. al.), whereby Transitivity is a cline, de-
termined by the interplay of a number of semantic parameters, illustrated in
table 1, which are variously encoded in the morphosyntax of the clause in
the languages of the world. Transitivity therefore is a characteristic of the
clause, rather than the verb, unlike in its traditional formulation, and is de-
termined not only by the effective transfer of the action from an Agent (A)
(‘subject’) to the Patient (O) (‘object’), but by a number of other semantic
dimensions, often interconnected, such as the nature of the situation de-
noted by the verb/predicate (e.g., its telicity, modality, polarity), as well as
the degree of Control, Affectedness and Individuation (table 2) of the
core participants (S, A, O):
Table 1. The Transitivity continuum - Hopper and Thompson (1980: 252)

High Transitivity Low Transitivity
A. Participants two participants or more (A and O) one participant
B. Kinesis action non-action
C. Aspect telic atelic
D. Punctuality punctual non-punctual
E. Volitionality volitional non-volitional
F. Affirmation affirmative negative
G. Mode realis irrealis
H. Agency A high in potency A low in potency
I. Affectedness of O O totally affected O not affected
J. Individuation of O O highly Individuated O non-individuated
(In)transitivity and object marking 51
Table 2. The Individuation Hierarchy -Timberlake (1977: 162)

INDIVIDUATED NON-INDIVIDUATED
proper common
human, animate inanimate
concrete abstract
singular plural
count mass
Referential, definite non-referential
Not all the semantic parameters pointed out in Hopper and Thompson
(1980) are equally relevant in determining the morphosyntactic encoding of
clauses cross-linguistically (Tsunoda 1985). As pointed out by Givón
(1984), (1990), Tsunoda (1985), (1994), Lazard (1998), (2002), among
others, the main semantic parameters affecting syntactic transitivity involve
a) the presence of two highly individuated participants, A and O (i.e., of
two distinct participants ranking high on the Animacy, Definiteness and
Referentiality hierarchies), b) the Agentivity and Control of the A partici-
pant over the situation described by the verb, c) completeness/perfectivity
and realis modality/affirmative polarity of the situation expressed by the
verb, d) high degree of Affectedness of the O participant, that undergoes a
change of state.2
The morphosyntactic correlates of the semantic parameters illustrated in
tables 1-2 involve a) the linguistic expression of the core participants of a
clause, b) their coding (case-marking/adpositions), c) the occurrence of re-
lated patterns (passives, antipassives, reflexives, reciprocals), d) the pres-
ence of cross-reference markers, e) verb morphology, f) word order
(Tsunoda 1994: 4671). Also among the morphosyntactic reflexes of seman-
tic transitivity some features are more relevant and/or more frequently at-
tested than others. For instance, whereas the number of participants and
their case-frames are relevant to the morphosyntactic encoding of clauses in
all languages, and constitute the nub of the traditional definition of Transi-
tivity, the occurrence of special verb morphology and cross-reference
markers are not relevant for all languages, and word order plays a marginal
role, being mainly relevant in languages with so-called ‘inverse’ voice,
such as the Algonquian languages (Givón 1994, Klaiman 1991, Tsunoda
1994: 4672). Also syntactic reflexes such as passivization, antipassivization
and reflexivization are not found in all languages. When they do occur,
however, they generally apply to highly transitive verbs/clauses and anti-
52 Michela Cennamo
passivization as well as passivization may act as morphosyntactic tests to

ascertain the transitivity/intransitivity of the clause. In the Australian Abo-
riginal language Bandjalang, for instance, antipassive, normally applying
only to two-argument verbs, also occurs with cognate object verbs with a
‘highly specific understood O’ (e.g., juuma ‘smoke’, yarrbi ‘sing’) (1a),
which can never be overtly expressed, i.e., with verbs with which the ca-
nonical transitive construction (with O overtly expressed and A in the er-
gative case) is impossible (1b) (Austin 1982: 38–39; 46), thereby revealing
their transitivity despite the fact that these verbs never allow an O, just like
intransitive verbs:
(1) a. ngay gala juuma-le-ela

I-NOM this-NOM smoke-ANTI-PRES
‘I here am smoking (a cigarette)’
b. mali-yu dandaygam-bu yarrbi-ni
that-ERG old man-ERG sing-PAST.DEF
‘That old man sang (a song)’
In Russian the passive is possible with resultatives (i.e., (causative/active)

accomplishments) such as kill, build, but not with stative verbs (e.g., per-
ception verbs), which do not have a passive participle. With such verbs
only the active is possible, with topicalization of the O participant, which
occurs in sentence initial position (Fici Giusti 1994: 43):
(2) Ivana videli včera v kino

Ivan-ACC see-PAST-3PL yesterday at the-cinema
‘They saw Ivan at the cinema yesterday’
The active (3a) is also preferred to the passive (3b) when both A and O are
high in Individuation (e.g., human, and proper names) (Comrie 1989: 81–
82):
(3) a. Mašu ubila Tanja

Masha-ACC kill-PAST-3SG Tania-NOM
‘Tania killed Masha’
b. Maša byla ubita

Masha-NOM be-PAST-F.SG kill-PPP-F.SG
Tanej
Tania-INSTR
‘Masha was killed by Tania’
Activity verbs, on the other hand, take a different passive form, the reflex-
ive passive. (For instance, the activity verb stroit’ ‘build’ occurs with the
reflexive passive (dača stroit-sja (rabočimi) –dacha-NOM build.3SG-RFL
worker- (INSTR-PL)- ‘The dacha is (being) built (by the workers’),
whereas the active accomplishment verb postroit’ ‘build’, takes the auxil-
iary byt’ ‘be’+perfective participle (dača by-l-a postro-en-a rabočimi –
dacha-NOM be-PAST-F.SG build-PPP-F.SG worker-INSTR-PL – ‘The
dacha was built by the workers’) (Van Valin and La Polla 1997: 657, note
4; see also Keenan 1985: 254).
As pointed out by Van Valin and La Polla (1997: 657, note 4), there
seems to be a continuum of acceptability with the passive of activity verbs.
A sentence such as (4a), with a generic subject, a specific passive agent and
a durational adverbial phrase, for instance, is ungrammatical for some Eng-
lish speakers, whereas it is possible when no time interval is specified (4b),
though only with a generic agent, that indeed seems to be the relevant pa-
rameter (4c) (example from Peter Austin, p.c.) (see also discussion in sec-
tion 3):
(4) a. *spaghetti was eaten by Anna for five minutes

b. spaghetti is eaten by Italians
c. pork was eaten by these people/Anna (?) for years, but then they/
she gave it up
Transitivity and Intransitivity therefore are gradients, determined by the in-

terplay of syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic parameters, encompassing
the relationship between situations and the participants therein involved,
the nature of the participants themselves, as well as the type of clause link-
age and clause-clause linkage (e.g., dependent clauses, gerunds, participles)
and the type of cross-clausal reference maintenance (e.g., zero anaphora
pivot, switch reference) that in some languages affect the coding of two-
participant clauses, which are coded as ‘less transitive’ (Silverstein 1976,
1993). Although our discussion deals primarily with the first two aspects,
the last two parameters too (may) play a major role in transitivity, as we
54 Michela Cennamo
shall see in section 3.4 for the marking of O in dependent clauses (see also
discussion in Silverstein 1976, 1993, Austin 1992, 1998, int. al.).
One can grade clauses, and locate them along a continuum, usually con-
ceived of as an axis with two poles, illustrated in table 3, that refers to the
type of syntactic construction encoding events and their participants:
Table 3. Transitivity continuum- Lazard (1997: 260, 1998: 75)
semantics: prototypical non-prototypical action one participant

action with two participants
grammar: active passive or equivalent uniactant

antipassive or equivalent construction
At one pole of the transitivity gradient there occur prototypical transitive

clauses (Construction Biactancielle Majeure according to Lazard 1998:
74), denoting an action carried out by a highly agentive, individuated, hu-
man participant, that strongly affects an O participant, most typically non-
human, [± Animate], determining some change in it. Following Croft
(1991, 1998, 2000), these patterns may be characterized as involving an
asymmetric transmission of force from one entity to another entity, deter-
mining a change in it. Languages, in point of fact, tend to show a striking
convergence in the encoding of this type of situation, which in morphologi-
cally accusative and ergative constructions is marked, respectively, by
means of the NOM-ACC/ERG-ABS case-frame on the nuclear participants
(A/O), A vs. O agreement, and a verb form expressing a non durative,
completed, realis, affirmative state of affairs:
(5) a. the hunter killed the deer/Mark opened the door

b. lögreglan tók (Icelandic; Van Valin 1991: 150)
the-police-NOM take-PAST.3PL
Siggu fasta
Sigga-ACC fast-ACC
‘The police arrested Sigga’
c. jĩ: shrestha-Φ syā-nā (Newari; Tsunoda 1994: 4672)
I-ERG Shrestha-ABS kill-PERF
‘I killed Shresta’
Prototypical transitive clauses, therefore, involve a highly Agentive, ani-

mate A participant, discontinuous with previous discourse in a main predi-
cation, acting volitionally onto an O participant, which is distinct from it,
determining some change in it. The verbal process refers to a real, com-
plete, punctual, actual and affirmative situation. Therefore prototypical
transitive clauses most typically include verbs such as the English kill,
break, wound, clean, melt, move. Verbs such as hit, love, see, read, seek,
though usually regarded as transitive in the traditional definition of transi-
tivity, are less transitive, in that they do not involve a change of state in the
O participant, or not necessarily, like hit. This is shown by their different
morphosyntactic behaviour cross-linguistically. In many languages, in fact,
they take different case-frames, with O in the dative/instrumental case, or
omitted/incorporated/marked by an adposition, according to the language.
A verb such as hit, for instance, takes the ergative-dative case-frame in
Newari (Sino-Tibetan, Nepal) (6a) (Tsunoda 1994: 4672). The same case-
frame obtains in Warlpiri with verbs of ‘seeking’ (e.g., warri-rni ‘seek,
look for’), whose O is unaffected by the verbal activity and may also be
non-referential (6b) (Simpson 1991: 326) (‘intensional’ objects in Simp-
son’s terms):
(6) a. jĩ: shrestha-yātā dā—yā

I-ERG Shrestha-DAT hit-PRES
‘I hit Shrestha’
b. ngarrka-ngku ka-rla karli-ki warri-rni

man-ERG PRES-3DAT boomerang-DAT look for-NPAST
‘A man is looking for a boomerang’ (Hale 1982: ex 44a; Simpson
1991: 326)
In Warlpiri verbs of impact/concussion/contact may occur in either the Er-

gative-Absolutive or the Ergative-Dative case-frame, the so-called ‘cona-
tive’ alternation (Guerssel et al.1985), according to the degree of affected-
ness of O (Simpson 1991: 327–333):
(7) a. ngarra-ngku ka marlu luwa-rni

man-ERG PRES kangaroo.ABS shoot-NPAST
‘The man is shooting the kangaroo’ (Hale 1982: ex. 48a; Simpson
1991: 330)
56 Michela Cennamo
b. ngarrka-ngku ka-rla-jinta marluku luwa-rni

man-ERG PRES-3ERG-3DAT kangaroo-DAT shoot-NPAST
‘The man is shooting at the kangaroo’ (Hale 1982: ex. 47a; Simpson
1999:330)
This alternation resembles in meaning the ‘conative’ alternation in English

(Levin 1993: 41–42), where verbs such as kick, hit occur in a construction
where O is coded as a prepositional object (i.e., as an oblique3 argument),
introduced by the preposition at, in order to denote an attempted, unsuc-
cessful, uncompleted action, with O only partially affected (8b):
(8) a. I hit John

b. I hit at John
In other languages verbs of impact such as hit occur in so-called object in-
corporation constructions (9), which signal that O is non-referential (Co-
oreman 1994, Foley and Van Valin 1985: 341, Van Valin and La Polla
1997: 123):
(9) x-ø-mak-wi (Jacaltek; Foley and Van Valin 1985: 341)

ASP-3SG-ABS-hit-ANTI
ix naj
woman he
‘He hits women (women-hits)’
In Croft’s (1991) terms, these verbs involve only an asymmetric transmis-

sion of force, but no change on O, i.e., no ‘impingement’ on O (see also
Tsunoda 1985: 389, 1994). O therefore is not the end of the verbal profile
(see discussion in section 2.2), and is often encoded as an oblique (Croft
1998: 46). In his cross-linguistic study of the case-marking of two-
argument verbs, Tsunoda (1981), (1985) points out that deviations from the
canonical encoding of A and O reflect verb classes, and increase with verbs
that depart from the prototypical transitive template, realized by change of
state verbs (so-called resultatives/(causative/active accomplishments),
whose Os are highly affected), as with non-resultatives (activity verbs such
as hit, shoot), creation, consumption verbs (write, eat) in their activity use
(i.e., with an indefinite O), stative verbs (e.g., perception, pursuit, knowl-
edge and feeling). The lower the O locates along the affectedness scale, the
more likely it is to occur in an oblique case (cf. (6b)-(9) above).
At the other pole of the transitivity continuum there occur canonical in-
transitive patterns, i.e., patterns with only one participant, S. Whereas it is
relatively straightforward to characterize prototypical transitive clauses, it
is not easy to give a unitary definition of prototypical intransitive patterns.
Even if we confine ourselves to only one of the functional domains of In-
transitivity, namely that of eventive predicates (Stassen 1997), it is difficult
to single out syntactic, semantic and pragmatic properties which character-
ize prototypical intransitive clauses. They comprise, in fact, different pat-
terns, such as meteorological verbs (Italian piove –rain.3SG – ‘it rains’),
that in some languages require the presence of a dummy subject/pivot
holder (English it rains, German es regnet ‘it rains’), or a reflexive marker
on the verb (Russian sverkaetsja –daybreak.3SG-RFL- ‘it daybreaks’, Ital-
ian si fa buio –RFL make.3SG dark- ‘it is getting dark’), as well as differ-
ent types of impersonal constructions The latter may comprise either only
one participant, S, occurring in the accusative and/or dative case (German
es freut mich –it please.3SG I.ACC- ‘it pleases me’, Icelandic mig/mer lan-
gar að fara –I. ACC/DAT wish.3SG.IMP to go- ‘I wish to go’, mig kelur –
I.ACC freeze.3SG.IMP- ‘I am freezing’, mér kónar- I.DAT get.3SG.IMP
cold- ‘I am getting cold’) (Smith 1996: 22), sometimes with the presence
of a dummy subject, as in German, or they may involve the presence of two
participants, A and O, occurring in different case-frames (Icelandic–mér
líkar þu –I.DAT like.3SG.IMP you.NOM- ‘I like you’ (example from J.
Barðdal) (see Smith 1996: 28–29, Barðdal forthc.), Russian, snegom pok-
rylo dvor -snow.-INSTR cover-3SG.NEUT ground-.ACC - ‘the snow cov-
ers the ground’), the verb reverting to the unmarked third person singular
(if finite), or occurring in the unmarked (‘neutral’) form, according to the
language, if non-finite (most typically expressed as a past/perfective parti-
ciple) (North Russian dialects, u otca svoix detej zabyto -at father.GEN. his
child.PL-ACC forget-PPP-NEUT ‘the father has forgotten his children’)
(Fici Giusti 1994: 69).
Intransitives also comprise various types of impersonal-passive pat-
terns, i.e., patterns with a passive morphology and different types and de-
grees of defocusing of A, O, S, which are either unexpressed (Italian fu
discusso a lungo –be.3SG.PAST discuss-PP.M.SG at long- ‘one debated
for a long time’; Sorbian bu spane-be.3SG.PAST sleep-PP -‘sleeping took
place’ (Fici Giusti 1994: 130)) or surface as a dummy subject (German es
wurde getanzt ’it was danced’). The defocused argument may also be ex-
pressed by the reflexive morpheme, as in Italian (cf. si è pagato molto-RFL
be.3SG pay-PP.M.SG much - ‘one has paid a lot’, si è pagati molto -RFL
58 Michela Cennamo
be.3SG pay.PP.M.PL much- ‘one is paid a lot’), where the difference be-
tween the A-SA/O-SO orientation of the pattern (according to whether the
verb is either divalent or monovalent) is signalled, respectively, by the lack
vs. presence of past participle agreement with the underlying argument sig-
nalled by the reflexive morpheme (e.g., (si è) pagato (A-orientation: [-
AGR]) vs. (si è) pagati (O-orientation: [+AGR]); si è camminato –RFL
be.3SG walk.PP.M.SG- ‘one has walked’ (SA orientation: [-AGR] ) vs. si è
partiti – RFL be.3SG leave.PP.M.PL- ‘one has left’ (SO orientation:
[+AGR]) (Cennamo 1984, 1993: 40, 1995, 1997).
The term includes split-S and fluid-S marking systems as well. One-
argument intransitive verbs, in fact, in many languages do not constitute a
homogeneous class, but subdivide into two major subclasses, labelled
SA/Unergative, SO/Unaccusative verbs, depending on the theoretical per-
spective adopted, and in particular on whether the phenomenon is regarded
as mainly semantic, determined by the interplay of semantic parameters
such as inherent lexical aspect, the Agent/Patient-like nature of the S argu-
ment, as well as its degree of Control and affectedness (Van Valin 1990,
Klaiman 1991: 124–132, Mithun 1991, inter al.), syntactic, reflecting the
syntactic nature of S in a level of representation of the clause (D-
subject/initial 1 with unergative/SA verbs, D-object/initial 2 with unaccusa-
tive/SO verbs (Hale and Kayser 1987 for English, Perlmutter 1989) or syn-
tactico-semantic, i.e., ‘syntactically represented but semantically deter-
mined’ (Perlmutter 1978, Levin and Rappaport 1989: 316, Levin and Rap-
paport Hovav 1995, among others).
The distinction between S arguments behaving morphologically and/or
syntactically, like the O argument of canonical transitive verbs, and S ar-
guments with morphological and/or syntactic properties of A arguments of
canonical transitive verbs may show up in different areas of the grammar,
both synchronically and diachronically: auxiliary selection, as in Italian —
where it also correlates with the presence vs. lack of past participle agree-
ment with S, so that SA/unergative verbs select the auxiliary avere ‘have’
and lack past participle agreement (Giovanna ha camminato molto –Jane
have.3SG walk.PP.M.SG much- ‘Jane has walked a lot’) whereas
SO/unaccusative verbs select the auxiliary essere ‘be’ and show past parti-
ciple agreement (Giovanna è partita –Jane have.3SG leave.PP.F.SG - ‘Jane
has left’) – and other European languages (Sorace 2000, inter al.), passivi-
zation, as in English (Perlmutter 1978), applicatives, as in some Australian
Aboriginal languages (Austin 2002a) as well as word order, case-marking,
crossreferencing, causatives (Dixon 1994: 70–83 and references therein).
In some languages intransitives show ‘variable marking’(so-called fluid-S

systems), according to the semantics of the situation expressed by the verb
in a particular use (Dixon 1994: 78–83). In Tsova-Tush, an ergative North-
Central Caucasian language, for instance, with some intransitives (e.g., fall)
the case-marking of S reflects its degree of Control; absolutive (or nomina-
tive in Caucasian linguistic tradition) if S has no Control, ergative if S has
high Control (Holisky 1987: 105, Comrie 1989: 59) (So voz-en-so –I-ABS
fall-AOR-1SG-ABS ‘I fell down, by accident’, As vuiz-n-as –I-ERG fall-
AOR-1SG-ERG ‘I fell down, on purpose’).
The Intransitive pole therefore seems to comprise patterns which differ
greatly from one another, both semantically and syntactically, belonging to
different planes, ranging from structures with no participant(s) involved, to
patterns involving S and A-O participants, characterized by a deviant or
‘quirky’ encoding. Probably, as Tsunoda (1994: 4677) points out, the best
definition of prototypical Intransitivity is a negative one, taking the transi-
tive pole as the point of departure. There would therefore exist several
types of intransitive patterns, satellites of canonical transitive patterns, all
operating at different levels, and with distinct (and at times overlapping)
identificational properties.
In our discussion we consider only some aspects of the (In)transitivity
axis, namely the coding of the O participant in intermediate areas of
(In)transitivity, such as antipassives, object incorporation, direct vs. oblique
marking of O, and so-called cognate/internal objects. Whereas it is possible
to show the decrease in transitivity of these patterns by means of the transi-
tivity gradient, i.e., along a linear axis (Lazard 1994, 1997, 1998) (see table
3) when the non-canonical encoding of O reflects semantic and pragmatic
features, some instances of ‘quirky’/oblique objects are difficult to locate
along the same continuum, in that they seem to belong rather to different
levels. In point of fact, they show a reduced syntactic transitivity, which
does not appear to stem from semantic and/or pragmatic principles, but is
(morpho)syntactically determined, applying quite systematically in the lan-
guages in which they occur.
2.2. (In)transitivity and event structure
Recent work on event structure and argument linking, carried out within
different frameworks, has pointed out that the varying encoding(s) of O
60 Michela Cennamo
may be interpreted as reflecting differences in the nature of the event de-

scribed by the predicate and in the licensing of arguments.
In this section we illustrate the main claims of three such event structure
approaches to Transitivity, namely Rappaport Hovav and Levin’s (1998),
Levin’s (1999) distinction between objects (Os) licensed by structure and
constant participants, the Role and Reference Grammar notion of Macro-
role Intransitivity, and Croft’s (1991), (1998), (2000) notions of force dy-
namic relations between participants and of verb profiling. We argue that
these models offer interesting generalizations when confronted with cross-
linguistic variations in the coding of O, highlighting different aspects of the
event structure, with the notions of structure and pure constant participant
representing a higher level of analysis from which the other notions may be
derived.
2.2.1. Structure vs. constant participants
Levin (1999), building up on the theory of event structure developed in

Rappaport Hovav and Levin (1998), and in line with much current research
on the structure of events and the licensing of arguments (Grimshaw and
Vikner 1993; van Hout 1996, int. al.), regards argument realization as re-
flecting event complexity, which, in turn, only partially correlates with the
number of arguments of a verb. The different morphosyntactic realizations
of Os cross-linguistically therefore are regarded as resulting from their dif-
ferent event structure status. The starting point is the assumption that a
verb’s meaning is bipartite, and consists of a ‘structural’ and an ‘idiosyn-
cratic’ aspect - the former representing the grammatically relevant aspect of
the verb meaning (the so-called event structure template), common to other
verbs of the same semantic class (i.e., of the same ontological type) - the
latter representing the verb’s core meaning, the ‘constant’ (Rappaport
Hovav and Levin 1998: 107), which differentiates it from other verbs of the
same semantic and grammatically relevant type. For instance, resultative
(i.e., causative change of state) verbs such as the English kill, (trans.) break,
have the same event structure template, illustrated in (10a), but differ in the
realization of the constant, the state (represented between angle brackets)
(10b-c) (Rappaport Hovav and Levin 1998: 107):
(10) a. [[x ACT ] CAUSE [BECOME [y <STATE>]]]

b. [[x ACT ] CAUSE [BECOME [y <DEAD> ]]]
c. [[ x ACT ] CAUSE [BECOME [y <BROKEN>]]]
Arguments therefore are regarded as belonging to two types. They may

reflect the grammatically relevant aspects of the verb meaning, common to
other verbs of the same class, i.e., they may realize so-called structural par-
ticipants, or they may reflect the verb’s core meaning, the constant, so-
called constant participants. Verbs furthermore may realize complex causa-
tive events (e.g., English kill, break, open) or simple, non-causative
events, regardless of the number of arguments they take (English walk,
swallow, sweep, eat, write). The arguments of complex causative event
verbs are licensed both by the verb’s event structure template and by the
verb’s core meaning, i.e., they realize structure participants. With two-
argument simple event verbs (e.g., English sweep), only the A argument
realizes a structure participant; the O argument instead exemplifies a pure
constant participant. The different event structure status of O with these
verbs is said to account for the different behaviour of these verbs in Eng-
lish. Verbs such as kill, break do not allow omission of their objects4; verbs
of surface contact through motion such as sweep5, and verbs of consump-
tion such as eat, and creation like write, instead allow unspecified object
deletion. In addition, the objects of the sweep class are not fixed, i.e., these
verbs have a wider range of objects than verbs of the kill, break class (see
discussion in Levin 1999: 237–238, 2000: 425–426):
(11) a. John killed the beetle

b. *John killed
c. John broke the chair
d. *John broke
(12) a. John swept the floor

b. John swept
c. John swept the floor clean
(13) a. Mary ate buns

b. Mary ate
c. Mary ate two buns
62 Michela Cennamo
The event structure templates accounting for the various event types com-
prise various subtypes of simple event structure templates and one complex
event structure template (14) (Rappaport Hovav and Levin 1998: 108;
Levin 1999: 229–230):
(14) Simple event structure templates:

a. [x ACT< MANNER>] (one-argument activity) (run, sleep)
b. [x ACT <MANNER> y ] (two-argument activity) (sweep, wipe)
c. [ x <STATE>] (state) (love)
d. [BECOME [x <STATE> ]] (achievement) (be born, die, (intr.)
(break)
Complex event structure template:

e. [x ACT <MANNER>] CAUSE [BECOME]]] [y <STATE>]]]
(accomplishment) (kill, (trans.) break)
Verbs such as kill, break have a complex event structure template (14e).
They consist of two subevents, the causing event (an activity) and the re-
sulting change of state. Verbs such as sweep, eat have a basic simple event
structure (14b) in both their occurrences (with and without an object) (12a-
b) (13a-b). Of the two arguments associated with them, only the subject
realizes a structure participant; the object realizes instead a pure constant
participant (which is underlined). Their event structure template can be
augmented, leading to the complex event structure template illustrated in
(14e), as in their accomplishment uses (12c), (13c). Verbs of consumption
such as eat, in fact, behave like activities with an indefinite object (13a),
and like accomplishments with a definite one (13c).6
The different morphosyntactic behaviour of verbs such as kill, break and
sweep, hit in English, and the cross-linguistic variability in the encoding of
Os, therefore, is regarded as stemming from the different licensing of the O
argument. Structure participants are marked uniformly in English and
across languages in that their source is in the event structure template, and
therefore they fall within the universal linking rules. The x and y partici-
pants in causative complex event structure templates such as the one illus-
trated in (14e) above, are therefore realized by arguments encoded as sub-
ject and object (in languages where these relations obtain) (taking the
NOM-ACC or ERG-ABS case-frame, depending on the alignment and
case-marking system of a language or of patterns of a language). Pure
constant participants vary in their encoding in that they originate in the

constant, so they fall within language specific, ‘oblique’ rules (Levin 1999:
241). In the absence of such rules they fall within a default linking rule,
whereby they are marked as canonical objects (see Levin and Rappaport
Hovav 1995: 154).
This difference is claimed to account for the different encoding of O in
core and non core transitive verbs in English and in several other lan-
guages. It would account for instance for the oblique marking (da-
tive/instrumental case) of O with verbs belonging to some semantic classes
in a number of languages (Russian, North-West Caucasian, Hungarian,
German, Rumanian, as well as in Australian and Polynesian languages),
namely mental process verbs, verbs of communication, verbs of ruling and
disposition (Blume 1998), which rank lower than change of state verbs on
the transitivity scale. What these verbs share is an O argument which real-
izes a pure constant participant (Levin 1999: 240–242).
Similar (event structure) approaches are developed in Role and Refer-
ence Grammar (Foley and Van Valin 1985, Van Valin 1993, 2002, Van
Valin and La Polla 1997) and in Croft (1991), (1998), (2000).
2.2.2. Macrorole Intransitivity and event structure
In Role and Reference Grammar, a monostratal theory of grammar which

posits direct linking between the syntactic and the semantic levels, medi-
ated by the semantic macroroles of Actor and Undergoer, acting as the in-
terface between thematic and syntactic relations (Foley and Van Valin
1984, 2002, Van Valin and La Polla 1997), the non canonical encoding of
O (either by means of object incorporation or an antipassive construction,
or an oblique case, according to the language), is interpreted as reflecting
the M(acrorole) intransitivity of the verb/clause. A verb may take two ar-
guments and have only one macrorole (see discussion in Van Valin and La
Polla 1997: 147–153, Van Valin 2002: ch. 2). Resultative verbs such as the
English kill, break (causative accomplishments in the theory)7, for instance,
have two macroroles, an Actor and an Undergoer, realized, respectively as
subject and object.
In German and in several other languages (Icelandic, Russian, Latin,
among others) non-resultative verbs such as helfen ‘help’, take a dative O
and no corresponding passive pattern is possible (15b). Only an impersonal
64 Michela Cennamo
passive construction with the original O retaining its dative case is allowed
instead (15c):
(15) a. er hat seinem Freund geholfen (German)

b. *sein Freund wurde von ihm geholfen
c. seinem Freund wurde von ihm geholfen
The morphosyntactic behaviour of verbs such as helfen is regarded as re-

flecting the Macrorole intransitivity of the verb, that is a two-argument ac-
tivity event, with only one Macrorole, the Actor. The O argument does not
have a macrorole status, and is therefore encoded as an oblique, behaving
syntactically as a non Macrorole argument (as shown by the ungrammati-
cality of a corresponding passive construction).
In addition, verbs such as eat, read, build, write, i.e., verbs of consump-
tion and creation, are regarded as having only the Actor macrorole, and no
Undergoer, despite their having two arguments, if O is non-referential
(John eats buns, John reads thrillers). This is brought out by their differ-
ent behaviour with respect to passivization in English and in several other
languages:
(16) a. the buns were eaten by John

b. ?*buns were eaten by John
These verbs are regarded as basically activity verbs entering the activ-
ity/accomplishment alternation, a phenomenon which is very widespread
cross-linguistically. Unlike causative accomplishments (kill, (trans.) break),
causative achievements (trans. crack) and causative activities (trans.
bounce), active accomplishments do not denote a relationship of causation
between two events, but the sequence of two events (see also note 6).
Unlike the other causative classes, in fact, this type of alternation is never
marked with a causative suffix cross-linguistically (Van Valin and La Polla
1997: 101ff).
The O participant of multiple argument activity verbs qualifies the ver-
bal action rather than identifying a particular referent in the Universe of
discourse. In English and in other languages it is an inherent argument, in
that it can be freely omitted. In languages with noun incorporation and an-
tipassives, it is incorporated into the verb ((17b), (17d)), and/or deleted,
with the verb occurring in the antipassive voice if it is non-referential. If it
is referential instead, with some verbs it may be marked as an oblique core
argument (17f) (Van Valin and La Polla 1997: 123–124; 150 and discus-
sion in section 3):
(17) a. wičháša ki čhá ki kaksá-he (Lakhota)

man the wood the chop-CONT
‘The man is chopping the wood’
b. wičháša ki čhá-káksa-he
man the wood-chop-CONT
‘The man is chopping wood’ or ‘The man is wood-chopping’
c. na’e haka ’e he sianá ’a e (Tongan)
PAST cook ERG DEF man ABS DEF
Ika
fish
‘The man cooked a/the fish’
d. na’e haka-ika ’a e sianá
PAST cook-fish ABS DEF man
‘The man cooked fish’
e. piśaśa-m chy-r (West Circassian; Comrie 1978)
girl-ERG cherkesska-ABS
yad
3SG.sew.3SG.TRANS
‘The girl is sewing the cherkesska’
f. piśaśa-r chy-m yada
girl-ABS cherkesska-LOC 3SG.sew.INTR
‘The girl is sewing away at the cherkesska’
With resultatives which take both Macroroles (causative/active accom-

plishments, causative achievements in RRG), the Actor and Undergoer oc-
cur, respectively, in the NOM-ACC and ERG-ABS case-frames, depending
on the alignment of core arguments in the language. With multiple argu-
ment activity verbs with only one Macrorole, the O argument occurs in an
oblique case and/or is omitted, incorporated, according to the morphosyn-
tactic type of the language and to the transitivity parameters involved. Da-
tive is regarded as the default case8 for non-Macrorole O arguments (see
Silverstein 1976, 1981, 1993), and accusative/absolutive the cases for
Macrorole O arguments in accusative/ergative constructions, respectively
(see Van Valin and La Polla 1997: 352–370, Van Valin 2002: ch. 4).
66 Michela Cennamo
2.2.3. A three-dimensional model of causal/aspectual structures in argu-

ment linking
Croft (1998), starting from a model of argument linking based on the no-
tions of force dynamic relations among participants (Talmy 1985b) and of
verbal profile (i.e., the segment(s) of the causal (force-dynamic) chain de-
noted (=profiled) by the verb), hypothesizes that argument linking is con-
sistent cross-linguistically if “there is a straightforward force-dynamic rela-
tionship between two participants in an event and events are clearly indi-
viduated” (Croft 1998: 25). Cross-linguistic and intralinguistic variation in
the coding of O reflecting semantic parameters such as Control of the A
participant or degree of affectedness of O is regarded as reflecting the de-
gree of “self-containedness of the event” (Croft 1998: 47). If the event is
clearly self-contained (i.e., if the whole event is profiled by the verb), the
participants are encoded as canonical core arguments. If the event is not
clearly self-contained (i.e., if only some segment(s) of the event is (are)
profiled), O is coded as an oblique. In this case, in fact, O is not the “end-
point of the verbal profile” (Croft 1998: 46). This would account for the di-
rect-oblique case alternation in English (e.g. Engl. John hit the wall/hit at
the ball), and in several other languages, where it may be expressed not
only by an oblique case-marking on O, but by the antipassive morphology
as well (see discussion in section 3). Four universal linking rules are pos-
ited (18), based on the antecedence relationship between participants (X >
Y) in the force-dynamic chain (see Croft 1998: 24, 2000: 53):
(18) 1. The verbal profile is delimited by Subject and Object (if any)
2. Subject > Object
3. Antecedent Oblique > Object > Subsequent Oblique9
4. Subject > Incorporated Noun > Object (if any)
In more recent work (Croft 2000) the notions of force-dynamic relations

among participants and of verbal profile are integrated into a ‘three-
dimensional’ model of the causal-aspectual structure of events and of the
participants therein involved. A situation is viewed as organized along
three dimensions, a) its unfolding over time (t), b) qualitative change/state
(∆), c) the causal structure between the subevents that can be therein identi-
fied. A sentence with a prototypical transitive verb such as break (19) is
therefore represented as in figure 1 below (Croft 2000: 59):
(19) Jane broke the vase
Figure 1. Three-dimensional representation of the event structure of break (Croft

2000: 59)
A complex predicate such as break is decomposed into its subevents, each

involving one participant and its aspectual contour, denoting the ‘course’
of a situation in its unfolding over time, from its beginning (i.e., its ‘rest
state’) to its end (i.e., its ‘result state’), represented as a dotted line (….).
Solid lines in the figure (⏐) represent the ‘phase’ (<P) of the situation, the
profile of the sentence meaning, the part of the situation highlighted (i.e.,
profiled) by a linguistic expression (Croft 2000: ch. 1).
This framework represents simultaneously the force-dynamic relations
between participants (JANE ACT-ON VASE), which are regarded as re-
sponsible for the argument linking patterns crosslinguistically, the causal
relationship between (sub)events (IMPACT CAUSE BREAK), and the as-
pectual characteristics of the situation represented by the predicate. In par-
ticular, break belongs to the achievement aspectual type10, in that it is
punctual. It is an instance of punctual causation, to be contrasted with ex-
tended causation (i.e., continuous transmission of force to the endpoint),
instantiated by activity verbs entering the activity/accomplishment alterna-
tion, such as eat, whose structure is represented in figure 2 for its accom-
plishment use (20) and in figure 3 for its activity reading (21) (Croft 2000:
61).
68 Michela Cennamo
(20) Jack ate the lasagne
Figure 2. Accomplishment use of eat (extended causation) (Croft 2000: 61).
Notation of extended causation: arrows (↑↑) at the beginning/end of the time inter-
val
(21) Jack ate
Figure 3. Intransitive activity reading of eat (Croft 2000: 61)
The zig-zag line in figure 3 represents the profiled phase of the verb eat,
which is an undirected activity (Croft 2000: 9; 61). Achievements, accom-
plishments and activities differ in the phases profiled. With achievements
(e.g. break) the result state is not profiled (cf. figure 1); with accomplish-
ments (e.g. eat in (20)) all three phases of the situation are profiled (its in-
ception, the directed process, and its completion, i.e., its result state, repre-
sented by solid lines) (figure 2); activities involve an “unprofiled incep-
tion” (represented as a dotted line (…) and an “unspecified extension on
the t dimension” (represented by the zig-zag line) (figure 3) (see discussion

in Croft 2000: ch. 2).
A general claim of Croft’s theory is that “n-ary predicates can be ana-
lysed as (n-1)-ary predicates with an added subevent” (Croft 2000: 62). So
eat is a 1-ary activity which turns into an accomplishment by adding a
“subsequent accomplishment sub-event” (i.e., the result state) (ibid.).
Other instances of lower transitivity verbs, such as the English chew, en-
tering the conative alternation, are accounted for along similar lines. In par-
ticular, chew is given different representations according to whether the O
argument is completely affected by the verbal activity (22a) (figure 4) or
directly affected but not completely (22b) (figure 5) (Croft 2000: 70–72), a
semantic difference that results in its different encoding, which, in turn,
reflects different verbal profiles. In (22a), the accomplishment use of chew,
the whole event is profiled, unlike in (22b), its activity use.
(22) a. Tommy chewed up the bone
Figure 4. Highly affected O (Croft 2000: 70) (accomplishment use of chew)

70 Michela Cennamo
(22) b. Tommy chewed the bone
Figure 5. Direct effect on O, non-complete affectedness (Croft 2000: 71) (activity

use of chew)
The decrease in Transitivity is therefore reinterpreted, within the event

structure approaches outlined above, as reflecting a difference in the li-
censing of the non-actor/O argument, which in turn reflects the different
event structure template of verbs/predicates and the segment(s) of the
event profiled.
As we shall see in section 4, an event structure perspective on the no-
tion of ‘object’ offers interesting insights on the variability on the encoding
of Os crosslinguistically. In particular, Rappaport’s Hovav and Levin
(1998) and Levin’s (1999) notions of structure and constant participants
seem to offer a higher-level generalization which allows for a unitary ac-
count of some of the ‘quirky’/irregular/non-canonical encodings of Os
across languages, discussed in section 3 below.
3. (In)transitivity and object marking: an overview
We now illustrate the coding of the O participant in genetically unrelated

and typologically distant languages, in patterns which depart from proto-
typical transitive clauses. We consider in particular the different encoding
of O with two-argument verbs (in main clauses), as reflecting a number of
semantic and pragmatic parameters, namely:
a) the inherent characteristics of O, i.e., its degree of Individuation (com-
prising different hierarchies: Animacy, Person, Definiteness, Referential-
ity);
b) the nature of the verbal process (i.e., verbal aspect and verb classes);
c) the perfectivity/completeness of the event/action (i.e., compositional as-

pect) and the degree of Affectedness of O;
d) its pragmatic function (i.e., its given vs. new status (see Bossong 1984,
1991, 1998, Lazard 1984, 1986, 1994, 1998a, 1998b, Sasse 1984, Nocentini
1992a).
We also discuss cases where the non-canonical/ ‘quirky’ encoding of O,
though fairly systematic (i. e., not idiosyncratic), does not reflect semantic
or pragmatic factors, but syntactic ones (e.g., types of clause linkage) (sec-
tion 3.4.).
3.1. Individuation of O
In many languages the characteristics of the O participant, in particular its

position along the Individuation hierarchy, determine the presence/absence
of specific markers (case-markers or adpositions), a phenomenon known as
‘Differential Object Marking’. Bossong (1984, 1991, 1998), who has stud-
ied the issue in the Iranian and Semitic languages as well as the Romance
languages, points out that whereas Os characterized by a low degree of In-
dividuation (i.e., inanimate and/or referential, third person) do not need
overt encoding (probably in that the flow of information proceeds from a
highly individuated A towards an O participant which is low in Individua-
tion (most typically inanimate and indefinite) (see Comrie 1989: 128)), Os
(‘objects’) that are potential subjects, owing to their inherent semantics
(i.e., if highly individuated: animate, human, referential, specific, first
and/or second person), require an overt marker differentiating them from
the A participant (the ‘subject’). In the languages with differential object
marking, the patterns with an overt marking of O are semantically more
transitive than those which lack it.
In Spanish human objects are marked with the preposition a (23b) vs.
(23a). The presence of the preposition a, however, may signal referential
Os, and differentiates them from non referential ones (23c-d) (Hopper and
Thompson 1980: 257):
(23) a. busco mi sombrero

‘I am looking for my hat’
b. busco a mi amigo
‘I am looking for a friend of mine’
72 Michela Cennamo
c. Celia quiere mirar un bailarín (-referential)

‘Celia wants to watch a ballet-dancer’
d. Celia quiere mirar a un bailarín (+referential)
‘Celia wants to watch a ballet-dancer’ (one in particular; she has
one in mind)
In Icelandic with some verbs animate ([± Human]) Os occur in the dative
(24a), unlike inanimate Os, which take the accusative case (24b) (Barðdal
1993; 2001a: 148–149). Although dative marking on O is not usually re-
ferred to in the literature on Icelandic as a case of ‘differential object mark-
ing’ (see Svenonius 2001, Maling 2002: 27–29 for recent discussion), the
similarity with other languages which present this phenomenon is striking
(this interpretation of the occurrence of the dative in (24a) is apparently
supported by the sensitivity of case-marking to the Animacy hierarchy in
other areas of the grammar (J. Barðdal, p.c.):
(24) a. hann þvoði barninu (Barðdal 2001a: 148)

he-NOM wash-PAST the-child-DAT
‘He washed the child’
b. hann þvoði handklœðið
he-NOM wash-PAST the-towel-ACC
‘He washed the towel’
In Hindi the –ko suffix differentiates definite Os ([± Animate] from in-
definite ones (Magier 1987: 192–193):
(25) a. machuee-nee machlii (Hopper and Thompson 1980: 256)

fisherman-ERG fish
pakRii
catch-PAST
‘The fisherman caught a fish’
b. machuee-nee machlii-koo pakRaa
fisherman-ERG fish catch-PAST
‘The fisherman caught the fish’
In Persian the definiteness, referentiality and humanness of the O partici-
pant, as well as its pragmatic function (i.e., its given vs. new status) interact
in determining its morphosyntactic realization. O is usually unmarked if [-
Definite], and takes the postposition –râ if [+Definite] (26a) vs. (26b). This
marker may also occur if O is indefinite (and marked as such by a special
marker, -i) but refererential (Lazard 1998: 60.). An indefinite, non-

referential object however may occur with the postposition –râ if it conveys
given information, therefore occurring preverbally (26e) (Lazard 1994:
211, 1998: 60; and in this volume):
(26) a. ketâb xând-am (Lazard 1998: 60)

book read-PAST -1SG
‘I have read a book/books’
b. ketâb-râ xând-am
book-OBJ read-PAST-1SG
‘I have read the book’
c. ketâb-i xând-am
book-INDEF read-PAST-1SG
‘I have read a book (any book)’
d. ketâb-i-râ xând-am ke …
book-INDEF-OBJ read-PAST-1SG that …
‘I have read a book that…’
e. Kâx va garmâbe-râ naxost (Lazard 1994: 211)
palace and bathrooms-POSTP first
u banâ kard
he building make-PAST.3SG
‘He was the first to build the palace and the bathrooms’ (lit. ‘The
palace and bathrooms, he built first’)
In Finnish a definite O occurs in the accusative, whereas an indefinite O

occurs in the partitive case (see Renault 1998: 328ff, Kiparsky 1998, Sands
and Campbell 2001 for a recent detailed discussion):
(27) a. juo-n maito-a (Lazard 1984: 274)

drink-1SG milk-PART
‘I drink (some) milk’
b. juo-n maido-n
drink-1SG milk-ACC
‘I drink the milk’
In Mandarin Chinese definite Os are marked with the preposition bǎ, and
occur in preverbal position (28b), unlike indefinite, non-specific Os, which
are unmarked, and occur postverbally (28a) (Li and Yip 1979: 104, Lazard
1994: 176, 1998: 63). According to Lazard (1984: 275) the bǎ -pattern may
be regarded as a verbal voice, different from the one that occurs when O is
74 Michela Cennamo
indefinite. The definiteness of O therefore is reflected morphosyntactically

in the presence of the preposition bǎ, which acts as a voice marker, as well
as in word order:
(28) a. tā diū le ge píbāo

he lose ASP CL wallet
‘He has lost a wallet’
b. tā bǎ ge píbāo diū le
he PREP CL wallet lose ASP
‘He has lost his wallet’
When O precedes the verb and is introduced by the preposition bǎ it con-

veys given information; therefore it is definite or generic. This pattern is
only possible with verbs with which O is affected by the verbal process
(i.e., with resultatives/causative accomplishments) (Thompson 1973, in
Lazard 1998: 63, also Li and Yip 1979: 104). According to Lazard (1998:
63) this pattern is very similar to the Differential Object marking in Persian
(see ex. 26), although Animacy is not involved in this case.
In Austronesian the definiteness of O correlates with a different verbal
voice. In Chamorro (Western Austronesian), for instance, with indefinite
and/or non-referential Os, the verb occurs in the intransitive form (the anti-
passive). A occurs in the absolutive case (rather than the ergative one) and
O occurs in an oblique case (the dative, instrumental or locative case) (i.e.,
in a different case from that occurring in canonical transitive clauses) (Co-
oreman 1988: 570–576), or is (optionally) omitted, as in (29b) (Cooreman
1994: 54):
(29) a. ha- konne’ i peskadot i guihan

ERG.3SG-catch the fisherman the fish
‘The fisherman caught the fish’
b. mangonne’ (guihan) i peskadot

ANTI.catch (fish) the fisherman
‘The fisherman caught some fish’
An indefinite O ([±Animate] may be either incorporated into the verb, as
in Chukchi (30b) (Hopper and Thompson 1980: 257, Foley and Van Valin
1985: 342) or it may be unexpressed (31b), especially if it is generic. The
pattern refers to the activity itself, rather than to a process involving a sec-
ond participant (O). The verbs that most typically occur in this construction
are activity verbs (Foley and Van Valin 1985: 342). In languages with
cross-reference marking of S, A and O on the verb, in the antipassive voice
there only occurs one cross-reference marker, that of the A participant:
(30) a. tumg-e na-ntwat-n kupre-n

friend-ERG they-set (TRANS)-it net-ABS
‘The friends set the net’
b. tumg-t kupra-ntwat-g’at
friend-ABS net-they-set (INTR)
‘The friends engaged in net-setting’
(31) a. morg--man mt-wiriŋrkn-t tumg-t

we-ERG we-are-defending-them friends-ABS
‘We are defending our friends’
b. muri mt-ine-wiriŋrkn
we-ABS we-ANTI-are-defending
‘We are defending (someone/something)’
In (31b) the verb is in the antipassive voice, O is unexpressed and A occurs

in the absolutive case, the case of the sole participant of an intransitive
clause (for a detailed study of noun incorporation see Mithun 1984; see
Mithun and Corbett 1999 for its effects on argument structure).
In Sama (an Austronesian language spoken in the Phillippines) the anti-
passive occurs when O is non-referential, but the morphosyntactic encoding
of the participants does not change. The only difference between a canoni-
cal transitive clause and the antipassive lies in the voice of the verb (Van
Valin and La Polla 1997: 301):
(32) a. b’lli na d’nda daing ma onde’

buy ASP woman fish for child
‘The woman has already bought the fish for the child’
b. n-b’lli na d’nda daing ma onde’
ANTI-buy ASP woman fish for child
‘The woman is buying fish for the child’
daing, ‘fish’, is interpreted as definite and referential in (32a), and non-
referential in (32b), therefore the pattern has an atelic interpretation in
(32b), but telic in (32a).
In Dyirbal (Dixon 1972, in Van Valin and La Polla 1997: 302) in the
antipassive the verb takes the reflexive marker, the so-called ‘false reflex-
76 Michela Cennamo
ive’, A occurs in the absolutive case and the (optionally expressed) non-
referential O is in the dative (33b):
(33) a. ba-la-m wud⁄u-Ø baMgu-l ya∞a-Mgu

DEIC-ABS-III fruit-ABS DEIC-ERG-I man-ERG
d⁄aMga-Iu
eat-TNS
‘The man is eating the fruit’
b. ba-yi ya∞a-Ø d⁄aMgay-mari-Iu
DEIC-ABS.I man-ABS eat-RFL-TNS
(ba-gu-m wud⁄u-gu)
DEIC- DAT-III fruit-DAT
‘The man is eating (fruit)’
A similar pattern occurs in Russian and in other Slavic languages, in which

generic, indefinite, non-referential objects ([± Animate] are unexpressed,
and the verb occurs in the reflexive form (Fici Giusti 1994: 174–177,
Brecht and Levine 1985), with either a generic or an iterative meaning
(34a), (34b):
(34) a. sobaka kusaet-sja (*detej) /mel pačkaet-sja

the-dog-NOM bite-3SG-RFL (*people)/chalk stain-3SG-RFL
‘The dog bites/the chalk stains’
b. kurika snesla-s’ /Miša tolkaet-sja!
the-hen-NOM lay-PAST-3SG-RFL /Misha push-3SG-RFL
‘The hen has laid eggs /Misha is pushing me!’
In Menó Mené Sasak (eastern Indonesia) non-referential Os are usually

unexpressed and the verb occurs in the (nasal) prefixed form (35b), which
is absent with referential Os (35a) (Austin 2002b):
(35) a. kanak-nó bace bubu-ni

child-that (CLT) read book-this (CLT)
‘That child reads this book’
b. kanak-nó m-bace
child-that N-read
‘That child is reading’
The definiteness/indefiniteness of O is sometimes signalled on the verb, as

in Swahili, where definite objects are marked on the verb, which takes a
cross-reference marker ki- in (36b), related to kitabu ‘book’, that is lacking
if O is indefinite (36a) (Lazard 1994: 176, 1998: 64):
(36) a. ni-li-som-a ki-tabu (Lazard 1994: 176)

1SG-ASP-read-SUFF CM-book
‘I have read a book’
b. ni-li-ki-som-a ki-tabu
1SG-ASP-CM-read –SUFF CM-book
‘I have read the book’
In Hungarian, the verb occurs in the so-called subjective conjugation (37a)

(characteristic of intransitive verbs) if O is indefinite, and in the objective
conjugation (characteristic of transitive verbs) if O is definite (37b) (Mo-
ravcsik 1978, Lazard 1994: 177, 1998: 64):
(37) a. Péter olvas egy könyv-et (Lazard 1994: 177)

Peter read.3SG (SUBJ) ART book-ACC
‘Peter is reading a book’
b. Péter olvassa a könyv-et
Peter read.3SG (OBJ) ART book-ACC
‘Peter is reading the book’
The definiteness/indefiniteness of O may also be marked both on the verb

and on O, as in Amharic (Lazard 1994: 177).
In some languages the marking of O may reflect the Animacy hierarchy.
Os that rank high on the Animacy hierarchy may be coded, in fact, in a dif-
ferent way from less animate Os. This might be reflected either on the case-
marking of O or in verbal voice. In Warrungu, for instance, O takes either
the dative or the instrumental case, according to whether it is a pronoun
(dative only) or an inanimate noun (both dative and instrumental) (Tsunoda
1988: 600). In Pashto, an Iranian language with a two-case declension, if O
is a first/second person participant, it occurs in an oblique case, if instead it
is either a noun or a third person pronoun, it is in the so-called ‘direct’ case
(Lazard 1984: 281, 1994: 197):
(38) a. z? tā win-m
I-DIR you.OBL see-1SG
78 Michela Cennamo
‘I see you’
b. z? da saray winm
I-DIR DEM man.DIR see-1SG
‘I see a man’
In Dyirbal first and second person pronouns (both A and O) are inflected on
a nominative-accusative basis, whereas third person participants pattern on
an ergative-absolutive basis (Comrie 1989: 189). In some Amerindian lan-
guages (e.g. Algonquian and Tanoan languages), if O is higher in Indi-
viduation than A, (i.e., if A=3rd person/noun and O=1st, 2nd person) a dif-
ferent verbal voice must be used, the inverse (39) (see Klaiman 1991: 161–
226, for discussion of the controversial inverse/passive status of these
structures in some Tanoan languages, e.g., Picurís):
(39) a. ni- sēkih -ā -nān atim (Plains Cree; Klaiman 1991: 162)
1 scare DIR 1PL dog
‘We scare the dog’
b. ni- sēkih -iko -nān atim
1 scare INV 1PL dog
‘The dog scares us’
In Menó-Mené Sasak, when A is either a 3rd person or a noun, and O is a

1st or 2nd person, the passive voice must be used (Musgrave 2000: 49–50,
Austin 2002b). In Yukulta (an ergative Australian language) the antipassive
generally occurs if O ranks higher than A on the Animacy hierarchy (Keen
1983: 236; 253 in Lazard 1994: 201).
3.2. Nature of the verbal process (=Lexical aspect)
As pointed out in section 2, in several languages with non resultative

verbs (e.g., activities and statives) O occurs in a different case from the one
it takes with resultatives (causative/active accomplishments). For instance,
O with non resultative verbs such as hit, occurs in the dative/locative case,
with the case-frame ERG/DAT-LOC in Tibetan (Tsunoda 1985: 390) and
ERG/DAT in Newari (Tsunoda 1994: 4672), unlike resultative verbs such
as kill, break, with which O is in the absolutive case in both languages, with
the case-frame ERG-ABS (ex. (40) = (5c)):
(40) a. jĩ: shrestha-Φ syā-nā (Newari; Tsunoda 1994: 4672)

1SG-ERG Shrestha-ABS kill-PERF
‘I killed Shresta’
b. jĩ: shrestha-yātā dā-yā (Newari; Tsunoda 1994: 4672)
1SG.ERG Shrestha-DAT hit-PERF
‘I have hit Shrestha’
With activity and mental process verbs in many Australian languages there
obtains the ABS-DAT case-frame (Blake 2001: 145–146) (see (41a), from
Bayangu (Austin 1982: 41 and references therein) and (41b), from Warlpiri
(Simpson 1991: 96; 317–20)):
(41) a. yinha kupuju pirungkarri-yi ngurnu

this-NOM child-ABS fear-PRES that-DAT
kaparla-ku
dog-DAT
‘This child fears that dog’
b. rdanpa-rni ka-rna-rla ngaju (Simpson 1991: 96)
accompany-NPST PRES-1SS-3DAT I.ABS
wati-ki
man-DAT
‘I accompany the man’
In Japanese O occurs in the nominative case, in the case-frame DAT-NOM,

with verbs denoting mental process, ability, possession, and generally a non
volitional process (Tsunoda 1994: 4676):
(42) a. Taroo ni eigo ga wakar-u

Taro DAT English NOM understand-PRES/FUT
‘Taro understands English’
b. Taroo ga eigo o wakar-oo-to

Taroo NOM English ACC understand-NON-FIN
s-ita
attempt-PAST
‘Taro tried to understand English’
80 Michela Cennamo
As we can observe in (42b), if these verbs express a volitional action, they

occur in the canonical transitive case-frame, with O in the accusative case.
With (activity) verbs such as au ‘meet, sitagau ‘obey/follow’, katu ‘win’,
and other verbs with affected subjects (42c), O occurs with the dative parti-
cle ni (Shibatani 2001: 309: 310):
(42) c. Ken ga hasika ni kakat-ta

Ken NOM measles DAT contract-PAST
‘Ken contracted measles’
The same type of marking obtains in Icelandic, where the dative case on O
appears to correlate with the affectedness/lack of Control of A (43), the pat-
tern being analogous to the Chukchi examples discussed in section 1 (note
2, ex. (vi)), where the degree of control of A over the verbal activity is re-
flected in the Instrumental marking of O (though also involving a different
voice, the antipassive):
(43) Ég tyndi úrinu (Andrews 2001: 102)

I-NOM lose-PAST the-watch-DAT
‘I lost the watch’
In the Indo-Aryan languages (e.g., Bengali), in Russian, and in Georgian

(in the so-called ‘indirect pattern’ (Lazard 1994)), and in some Germanic
languages (e.g., Icelandic), with verbs denoting a non volitional process
(so-called ‘affective’ verbs (Lazard 1994: 148)) (e.g., with mental process
verbs) the verb occurs in the impersonal form, and A and O occur in dif-
ferent case-frames from the one of canonical transitive clauses. (In (44b) –
am is an oblique enclitic pronoun (Lazard 1994: 147)):
(44) a. aamaa-r tomaa-ke bhaalo (Bengali; Klaiman 1980: 275)

I-GEN you-ACC well
laag-e
think-3SG
‘I am very much in love with you’
b. az in film xoš-am (Persian; Lazard 1994: 147)

PREP this movie amiable-to-me
âmad
come-PAST.3SG
‘I love this movie” (lit. ‘of this movie it has come amia-
ble/agreeable’)
In Icelandic, with these verb classes (i.e., with non-agentive verbs) O may
occur in the nominative, and the verb may revert to the impersonal form
(45b) (Andrews 1990: 210):
(45) a. stráknum líkar (/líka) slíkir bílar

the-boy-DAT like-3SG /like-3PL such cars-NOM
‘The boy likes such cars’
b. barninu batnaði veikin
the-boy-DAT recover-from-3SG.PAST the-disease-NOM
‘The boy recovered from his illness’
Also the internal (‘cognate’) object in some languages may occur in non-
canonical transitive case-frames. In Diyari (and in many other Australian
Aboriginal languages), for instance, cognate objects occur in the absolutive
case, in the case-frame ABS-ABS/NOM-ABS (Austin 1982: 39–40, Lazard
1994: 153):
(46) a. nganhi diyar yawada yatha-yi (Austin 1982: 39)

I-NOM diyari language-ABS speak-PRES
‘I speak Diyari’
In Icelandic cognate objects tend to occur in the dative (46b) (Svenonius

2001: 15, Maling 2002: 40–44):
(46) b. Hún grét sárum gráti (Maling 2002: 40)

she cry-PAST.3SG bitter tear-PL-DAT
‘She cried bitter tears’
3.3. Perfectivity/completeness of the verbal process (compositional aspect)

and Affectedness of O
82 Michela Cennamo
In some languages the coding of O reflects the completeness / incomplete-

ness of the verbal process (i.e., telicity), and may combine with the defi-
niteness/specificity of the O participant as well as its degree of affected-
ness. In Finnish, for instance, the partitive case on O signals imperfective
aspect (47b), whereas accusative case signals perfective aspect (47a)
(Hopper and Thompson 1980: 262, Kiparsky 1998, Sands and Campbell
2001, int. al. and references therein). The partitive/accusative alternation
also conveys a difference in the nature of O (i.e., definiteness), therefore a
sentence such as (47b) is three-way ambiguous (Kiparsky 1998: 272) (For
the interaction of aspect, definiteness and degree of affectedness of O in
Finnish see discussion in Kiparsky 1998):
(47) a. Hän kirjoitt-i kirjee-tä (Kiparsky 1998: 272)

he/she write-PAST.3SG letter-PL.ACC
‘He/She wrote the letters’ (telic V, def. O)
b. Hän kirjoitt-i kirje-i-tä
he/she write-PAST.3SG letter-PART
(1) ‘He/she wrote (some) letters’ (… and left) (telic V, indef. O)
(2) ‘He/She was writing letters’ (…. when I came) (atelic V, indef. O)
(3) ‘He/She was writing the letters (… when I came) (atelic V, def. O)
In some languages the complete/incomplete nature of the state of affairs in-

tertwines with other semantic parameters, such as the realis/irrealis modal-
ity, the affirmative/negative polarity (i.e., counterfactualness) as well as
with the degree of affectedness of O. In Georgian for instance, resultative
verbs in clauses denoting a realis, completed event, conveyed by the simple
past (or aorist) take the ERG-ABS case-frame (48a), whereas when the
event is potential, uncompleted, there occurs the ABS-DAT case-frame
(48b) (Tsunoda 1994: 4675):
(48) a. bič’-ma YaFl-0 mo- Ø

boy-ERG dog-ABS PREVERB-3.
-k’l-a
ACC-kill-3SG.NOM.PAST
‘The boy killed the dog’ (Tsunoda 1994: 4675)
b. bič’-i YaFl- -s mo- Ø

boy-ABS dog-DAT PREVERB-3.
-k’l-av-s
ACC-kill-STEM-3SG.NOM.PRES
‘The boy will kill the dog’
In Russian counterfactuality and low degree of Affectedness/Individuation

of O determines the encoding of O in the genitive case instead of the accu-
sative case (49a) vs. (49b) (Timberlake 1975, Comrie 1989: 195, Tsunoda
1994: 4676, Cooreman 1994, among others):
(49) a. Ja našël cvety (Tsunoda 1994: 4676)

I-NOM find-M-PAST flower-PL-ACC
‘I found (the/some) flowers’
b. Ja ne našël cvetov
I-NOM NEG find-M-PAST flower-PL-GEN
‘I did not find any flowers’
Most typically, Affectedness of O and completion/telicity of the verbal

process covary.
In English and Hungarian, for instance, the object is expressed by
means of a prepositional phrase (i.e., it is formally marked) when it is low
in affectedness and the verb denotes a non-complete action, as in (50b),
(50d), (50f). (These patterns constitute counterexamples to the general ten-
dency outlined in section 3.1. above, whereby clauses with overt marking
of O tend to be more transitive than clauses where O is morphologically
unmarked):
(50) a. John hit him

b. John hit at him
c. John climbed the mountain
d. John climbed up the mountain
e. megmászta a hegyet
up-climbed-he/she-it the mountain-ACC
‘He/she climbed the mountain’
f. felmászott a hegyre (Moravcsik 1978: 259)
up-climbed-he/she the mountain-onto
‘He/she climbed up the mountain’
Whereas in (50a), (50c) and (50e) the situation described by the verbs is
portrayed as attained, in (50b), (50d), so-called conative constructions, the
presence of a prepositional object in English, and of the adverbial case in
84 Michela Cennamo
Hungarian signals lack of attainment of the process, which is interpreted as

attempted, but not completed. Therefore in (50a), (50c) and (50e) the object
is highly affected, unlike in (50b), (50d), (50f) (see Moravcsik 1978: 258–
259, Lazard 1998: 80 for similar remarks on what he refers to as ‘indirect’
patterns).
In Icelandic the degree of affectedness of O has been shown to deter-
mine its accusative/dative encoding. An O undergoing a change of location
takes the dative case (51a), wheras an O undergoing a change of state (i.e.,
highly affected) is in the accusative (51b) (BarCdal 1993, 2001a: 151–156,
Svenonius 2001, Maling 2002: 32–38, Minger 2002):
(51) a. Hann þeytir laufunum burt (Maling 2002: 33)

he fling-3SG the-leaf-PL.DAT away
‘He flings the leaves away’
b. Hann þeytir rjómann
he whip-3SG the-cream-ACC
‘He whips the cream’
The interplay of the aspectual nature of the predicate and the degree of af-
fectedness of O may be regarded as the basis for the dative coding of O
with some resultative verbs entering the anticausative alternation (e.g.,
fœkka ‘decrease’, fjölga ‘increase’, sökkva ‘sink’) (52a-b). The verbs fœkka
and sökkva, in fact, are not prototypical transitive verbs. They are ‘gradual
completion verbs’, i.e., they imply the gradual approach to a telos that may
be unspecified and not necessarily reached (Bertinetto and Squartini 1995:
12–13) and therefore they are less telic than core resultatives such as drepa
‘kill’, which take an accusative O. The dative therefore might reflect the
low degree of affectedness of O resulting from the aspectual nature of
these verbs:
(52) a. flugfélagið fœkkaði (Zaenen and Maling 1990: 143)

the-airline-NOM decrease-PAST
ferðunum um þriðdjung
the-trips-DAT by one-third
‘The airline decreased the number of trips by one third’
b. skipstjórinn sökkti skipinu

the-captain-NOM sink-PAST the-ship-DAT
‘The captain sank the ship’
In some languages the degree of Affectedness of O and/or telic-

ity/completion of the verbal process is signalled by the presence/lack of the
antipassive voice. In Jakaltek (a Mayan language), for instance, if O has a
low degree of affectedness the verb occurs in the antipassive, and the con-
troller of the absolutive agreement is the A participant, which occurs in the
absolutive (53b) (Van Valin and La Polla 1997: 301) (see also Cooreman
1994: 59 for a similar use of the antipassive in Chamorro):
(53) a. X-Ø-s-mak ix naj

PAST-3ABS-3ERG-hit CL.she CL.him
‘She hit him’
b. X-Ø-mak-wa ix y-in‚ naj
ABS-hit-ANTI CL.she 3ERG-on CL/he
‘She tried to hit him’
c. ħe-m qw0pŝħe-r (Kabardian; Van Valin /La Polla 1997: 124)
dog-ERG bone-ABS
je-dzaqe
TNS-bite
‘The dog bites the bone (through to the marrow)’
d. ħe-r qw0pŝħe-m je-w-dzaqe
dog-ABS bone-ERG TNS-ANTI-bite
‘The dog is gnawing on the bone’
In many languages, as often pointed out in the literature (Comrie 1989,

Tsunoda 1988, Cooreman 1994, Dixon 1993: 151, Lazard 1997: 259,
among others) the antipassive occurs to denote an ongoing, incomplete, it-
erative, aimed at or habitual activity, i.e., to convey imperfective aspect,
depending on the language. The pattern highlights the activity in which the
A participant is engaged; O is backgrounded, and either deleted/ juxta-
posed/incorporated into the verb, according to the language (if non-
referential) or surfaces in an oblique case (if referential) (Mithun 1984,
Van Valin and La Polla 1997: 149, also discussion in section 2.2). In West
Greenlandic Eskimo, for instance, the antipassive construction (54b) under-
lines the habitual/repetitive nature of the verbal process (see Cooreman
1994: 57):
(54) a. inuit tuqup-pai (Cooreman 1994: 57) (ergative)
people-ABS kill-VTR.IND.3SG.ERG.3PL
‘He killed the people’
86 Michela Cennamo
b. inun-nik tuqut-si-vuq (antipassive)

people.INST kill-ANTI-VINTR.IND./3SG.ABS
‘He killed people’
The habitual nuance associated with the antipassive is also apparent in (55),
from Tzutujil (a Mayan language) (Dayley 1985: 346, in Cooreman 1994:
58), where the O participant is deleted and A occurs in the absolutive case:
(55) ja nuutee7 b’aráata nk’ayin wi7

the my.mother cheaply 3SG.ABS.sell.ANTI EMPH
‘My mother sells cheaply (i.e., at low prices)’
Sometimes in the antipassive there occurs a meaning shift, from perfective

to imperfective (see Cooreman 1994: 58 for Chamorro, Tsunoda 1988:
604 for Warrungu and other Australian languages, also discussion in
Mithun 1984).
3.4. Syntactically driven ‘quirky’ objects
In some languages the irregular coding of O does not always reflect

semantic and/or pragmatic factors, but in some cases it appears to be purely
(morpho)syntactic, and occurs also in constructions which meet the transi-
tivity prototype, involving an asymmetric transmission of force between the
A and O participants, with O undergoing a change of state (i.e., highly af-
fected). We consider in particular the nominative O in main and (infinitive)
dependent clauses in Finnish (section 3.4.1.) and the dative, dative/allative
O with two-argument verbs in dependent clauses in two Australian Abo-
riginal languages, Jiwarli (north-west of Western Australia) and Bayungu
(central coast of Western Australia) (section 3.4.2.).
3.4.1. Nominative Os in Finnish
In Finnish, with two-argument verbs O occurs in the nominative (partitive

if unaffected/not fully affected) if A (the subject) is not overtly expressed
(56a). This rule, which reflects a functional principle, the need for overtly
marking O only when A is expressed, in order to differentiate A from O
(Comrie 1975: 7, int. al.), applies also to the O argument of an infinitive
clause when the A of the governing verb is not overtly expressed, as in im-
peratives (56b) or impersonal constructions (56c) (the Finnish passive is in
fact an impersonal verb form) (Sands and Campbell 2001: 280–284)11:
(56) a. syö kala! (Comrie 1975: 7)

eat-IMPER fish-NOM
‘eat the fish!’
b. anna Marja-n ost-a (Sands and Campbell 2001: 280)
let.IMPER Marja-GEN buy-INF
auto
car-NOM
‘Let Marja buy a car’
c. minun käske-ttiin osta-a (Sands /Campbell 2001: 281)
I-GEN buy-PASS-PAST buy-INF
auto
car-NOM
‘I was told to buy a car’
According to Sands and Campbell (2001: 279) the nominative O cannot be

considered as an instance of a non-canonical object, but rather it reflects
strictly syntactic rules of the language.
It is true, nevertheless, that the above examples depart from the canoni-
cal encoding of O in prototypical transitive clauses, where O occurs in the
accusative.
3.4.2 .‘Quirky’ Os in dependent clauses in Jiwarli and Bayungu
In Jiwarli, which has a split-ergative case-marking system, and where A

occurs in the ergative case, and O is either in the accusative (if [+ Ani-
mate]) (57a) or the absolutive (if [–Animate]), the O of a two-argument
verb in dependent adverbial/relative clauses (so-called ‘imperfective
clauses’, i.e., clauses describing an event taking place at the same time as
the matrix clause, conveying subsidiary or background information to the
matrix clause event (Austin 1992: 10)) occurs in the dative case (57b), ir-
respective of the Animacy hierarchy (Austin 1992, 1998: 21; 27–28):
(57) a. ngatha mana-nyja yanya-nha mantharta-nha
I get-PAST another-ACC man-ACC
ngurtirti-nha
88 Michela Cennamo
Ngurtirti-ACC
‘I got another man Ngurtirti’
b. parampu-wu ngunh a kumpa-ja purra-rnu
acacia-DAT that sit-PAST grind-IMPFVSS
marrkara nganaju parampu- wu pirruwa-wu
younger brother I-DAT acacia-DAT husk-DAT
‘My younger brother sat grinding acacia husks’
In ‘purposive’ clauses dependent Os of two-argument verbs take the alla-

tive case (which normally marks the direction towards a place, and which is
formally and functionally related to the dative (Austin 1992: 18)), regard-
less of the nature of O (58):
(58) kaji nhurra yana-ma mana-ngku ngurlu

try you go-IMPER get-PURPSS that-ALLAT
karla-rla
fire-ALLAT
‘You try and go to get the fire!’
The same situation obtains in Bayungu, where in nonfinite participial

clauses O takes a different marking from the one it has in main clauses
(59a) (accusative –if a pronoun, demonstrative or an animate noun – or ab-
solutive for all other nouns) (Austin 1982: 41), occurring in the dative (59b)
(Austin 1982: 42):
(59) a. ngulu kanyara-lu ngunhandha murla

that-ERG man-ERG that-ACC meat-ABS
warni-nmayi
cut-PAST
‘That man cut that meat’
b. ngunha kanyara nyina-yi murla-ku
that-NOM man-ABS sit-PRES meat-DAT
warni-lkarra
cut-PP
‘That man is sitting down cutting meat’
Jiwarli and Bayungu therefore exemplify languages where the coding of O
with two-argument verbs is syntactically driven, determined by the type of
clause linkage (see discussion in Silverstein 1976, 1981, 1993).
4. The coding of O and event structure in a cross-linguistic perspective
The review of the coding of Os (‘objects’) across languages presented in

section 3, and in particular the analysis of the relationship between the
marking of Os and the (In)transitivity of the patterns in which they occur,
reveals the existence of recurrent features determining the non-canonical
encoding of Os, realized, according to the language, either as oblique ar-
guments, or optionally expressed, juxtaposed/incorporated into the verb, or
suppressed, and the verb taking a special marker (occurring in the antipas-
sive/reflexive-middle/passive voice). These intransitive and intransitive-
like patterns generally occur when O is low in Individuation (e.g., indefi-
nite, non-referential, inanimate and unaffected by the verbal process), and
usually denote an ongoing, habitual or attempted activity. In all these pat-
terns O does not clearly identify an entity in the Universe of discourse, but
it simply qualifies the activity denoted by the verb (Hopper and Thompson
1980, Mithun 1984: 850, Cooreman 1994, Van Valin and La Polla 1997,
among others). The non-canonical encoding of O therefore reflects the lack
of either the change of state component of the prototypical transitive clause
(as with two-argument activity verbs with non referential Os), or the lack of
both a change of state and an asymmetric transmission of force from one
entity to another (as with two-argument stative verbs) (see also Levin
1999).
The notion of low Transitivity can be given a more precise and at the
same time more general definition by considering the event structure of the
predicates involved. Indeed, when tested on a wider range of languages, the
claim put forward in Levin (1999), whereby the different encoding of ob-
jects may be given a ‘potentially’ unitary treatment by considering their
event structure status (Levin 1999: 243), seems to be confirmed. It also
seems to offer a higher-level generalization for the various types of coding
of Os cross-linguistically. One could in fact argue that most cases of se-
mantically and/or pragmatically determined non-canonical marking of Os
reflect their pure constant nature, i.e., their being licensed by the verb’s
core meaning only. The reduced syntactic transitivity of the patterns in
which irregular Os occur may therefore be claimed to reflect the pure con-
stant event structure status of the O argument (which is realized, accord-
ing to the language, either as an oblique, or suppressed/juxtaposed/ incor-
porated, and signalled by the verb morphology).
In particular, following Levin (1999), starting from the distinction be-
tween complex and simple events and the licensing of arguments according
90 Michela Cennamo
to whether they originate in the verb’s event structure template or in the

verb’s core meaning only, one can say that the arguments of verbs denot-
ing complex events, such as the English kill, consisting of two sub-events
related by a causal relationship and involving a complete, irreversible
change on O (Croft 2000: 60) (i.e., structure arguments), are marked uni-
formly across languages and follow universal linking rules, whereby A and
O occur in the NOM-ACC/ERG-ABS case-frames, respectively in accusa-
tive and ergative constructions, bearing the grammatical functions of ‘sub-
ject’ and ‘object’ (when they can be identified). Two-argument verbs
denoting complex events, involving a change whose terminal point is either
unspecified or not necessarily reached (e.g., ‘gradual completion’ verbs), in
some languages may mark their O as ‘quirky’ (e.g., the dative in Icelandic),
i.e., they may encode the O argument as if it were a constant argument.
Also the O argument of two-argument activity verbs consisting of a simple,
non-causative event structure template (English sweep) and of two-
argument stative verbs (English love) tends to show non-uniform marking,
and may take a non-canonical/ ‘quirky’ encoding (Levin 1999: 228 and
discussion in section 3).
The general notion underlying several aspects of non-canonical/’quirky’
encoding of O cross-linguistically can be regarded as the pure constant na-
ture of O with these predicates. O is an argument of the verb, but it is li-
censed by the verb’s core meaning only (i.e., the constant), not by the
event structure template, so it realizes a pure constant participant. Therefore
it has no Macrorole status, and this determines the partial/lack of self-
containedness of the event. This indeed would account for the da-
tive/oblique marking of cognate objects in several languages, which can be
reduced to the simple event structure nature of the predicate licensing the
O argument, and consequently to the pure constant nature of the latter (see
Svenonius 2001 for an analogous claim for Icelandic, though within a dif-
ferent framework).
The notion of pure constant argument (which may be regarded as en-
compassing the RRG notion of Macrorole intransitivity and Croft’s notion
of lack of/partial self-containedness of the event, which may both be
viewed as reflecting the pure constant nature of O), though accounting for
several aspects of the encoding of Os in main clauses across languages,
does not seem adequate to account for the non-canonical encoding of Os
with verbs with a complex event structure, where the instrumental case on
O and the antipassive voice appear to mark the habitual nature of the verbal
process as in West Greenlandic Eskimo (see (ex. 54b)) (Cooreman 1994:
57). The phenomenon is fairly widespread. Do we have to say that the O

argument of a verb such as kill (i.e., a structure argument) is a pure con-
stant argument when the verb refers to a habitual action? This seems to be
counterintuitive.
Also the non-canonical encoding of O with nouns ranking high on the
Animacy hierarchy (i.e., ‘atypical’ Os) is difficult to accommodate, as well
as the purely syntactic instances of quirky encoding illustrated for Jiwarli
and Bayungu (section 3.4). In these cases we would have structure argu-
ments which are encoded as pure constant arguments. One possible answer
would be that this encoding reflects language particular linking rules,
which may vary in number and type, and that not all aspects of the marking
of Os fall within the structure of events (e.g., Animacy, B. Levin, p.c.).
Despite the fact that further research is obviously needed, the notion of
pure constant argument does seem to offer an interesting higher-level gen-
eralization accounting for several aspects of the coding of Os cross-
linguistically.
5. Conclusions
In this paper we have presented a cross-linguistic survey of the coding of O

in intermediate transitivity areas such as object incorporation, antipassives,
oblique vs. direct case-marking, bringing together two current strands of
research, the typological approach to Transitivity and Actancy and the
event structure perspective on the notions of argument structure and argu-
ment realization.
In particular, we have argued that recent attempts to relate the
morphosyntactic behaviour of Os to the event structure of the predicate
with which they occur seem to provide a useful starting point for a better
understanding of the principles governing the coding of objects across
languages.12 We have also shown that most of the predicates which occur
in the intransitive-like patterns examined are either stative, or activity
verbs (and marginally accomplishment verbs with reduced telicity as well).
These aspectual features interact with other semantic notions such as
Control (e.g., Animacy, Agentivity) and Affectedness, which affect both
the constant and the structure arguments. This seems to be indeed the nub
of the variation in the coding of O that we have reviewed.
Not all the semantic parameters which affect the coding of O cross-
linguistically fall within the domain of event structure, and not all the
92 Michela Cennamo
‘quirky’ Os we have examined are privileged syntactic arguments (i.e.,

grammatical relations) like for instance dative Os in Icelandic. Indeed, fu-
ture lines of research will involve detecting which aspects of the marking
of Os within the individual languages are verb-internal (reflecting the struc-
ture of events), as well as investigating the relationship between event-
structure and non-event structure related aspects of case-marking.
Notes
* I would like to thank Peter Austin, Jóhanna BarCdal, Giuliana Fiorentino,

Romano Lazzeroni, Mair Parry and the series editor, Bernard Comrie, for
their helpful comments on an earlier draft. I have also benefited from discus-
sion, at different stages, with Giuliano Bernini (whose choice of viva topic ac-
tually prompted this research), Thórhallur Eythórsson, Beth Levin, Fabrizio
Raschellà and Nigel Vincent, all of whom I wish to thank for their remarks
and suggestions. All shortcomings and inaccuracies are my own responsibil-
ity.
The following abbreviations are used: ABS = absolutive (case); ACC = accu-
sative (case); ACT = active; AGR = agreement; ALLAT = allative (case);
ANTI = antipassive; AOR = aorist; ART = article; ASP = aspect(ual marker);
GEN = genitive (case); CL = classifier; CLT = clitic (Sasak); CM = cross-
reference marker; CONT = continuative; DAT = dative (case); DEF, def =
definite; DEI = deictic ; DEM = demonstrative pronoun; DET = determiner;
DIR = direct case; EMPH = emphatic; ERG = ergative (case); F = feminine;
FUT = future; GEN = genitive (case); IMP = impersonal; IMPER = impera-
tive; IMPF = imperfective aspect/imperfect tense (marker); IMPFVSS = im-
perfective suffix in dependent (imperfective) clauses when the subject is
coreferential with the matrix clause subject (Jiwari); INCH = inchoative; IND
= indicative; INDEF = indefinite; INSTR = instrumental; INTR = intransi-
tive; INV = inverse; LOC = locative; M = masculine; N = nasal prefix (Sa-
sak); NEUT= neuter; NEG = negation; NOM = nominative; NON-FIN = non-
finite; NPAST = non-past (verbal inflection); OBL = oblique; (OBJ) = objec-
tive conjugation; OBJ = object marker; PART = partitive; PASS = passive;
PAST = past (tense marker); PERF = perfective aspect/perfect tense (marker);
PL = plural; POSTP = postposition; PP = past participle; PPP = past partici-
ple passive; PREP = preposition; PRES = present (tense marker)/present im-
perfect AUX marker; PURP = purposive; PURPDS = purposive suffix (when
the purposive clause subject is non-coreferential with the matrix clause sub-
ject) (Jiwarli); PURPSS = purposive suffix (when the purposive clause subject
is coreferential with the matrix clause subject) (Jiwarli); RFL = reflexive pro-
noun/marker; (SUBJ) = subjective conjugation; SG = singular; TNS = tense
(marker); TRANS, trans = transitive; VINTR = intransitive verb; 1 = first per-

son; 2 = second person; 3 = third person; 3DAT = third dative AUX pro-
nominal clitic (Warlpiri); I, III = Dyirbal noun classes.
1. S, A, O (P in Comrie 1978, 1989: 70) are syntactico-semantic primitives, re-

ferring, respectively, to the sole participant of an intransitive predicate and to
the Agent-like/Patient-like participants of a transitive predicate. In their ca-
nonical realizations they coincide with the grammatical categories of Subject
and Object, in the languages where such relations can be identified (Dixon
1979, 1994: 6–8 and recent discussion in Mithun and Chafe 1999). (They cor-
respond, respectively, to Actants Z, X, Y in Lazard 1984, 1994, 1997,1998,
2002 and to the Actor/Undergoer macroroles in Foley and Van Valin 1984,
Van Valin 1993, 2002, Van Valin and La Polla 1997).
2. According to Tsunoda (1985, 1994: 4676) the degree of affectedness of O is
the most important parameter affecting the morphosyntactic encoding of a
clause, whereas Control of A is marginal. This statement, however, holds only
partially. While it is true, as we shall see, that the Affectedness of O affects
its case-marking crosslinguistically, Control of the A participant too plays an
important role (see also further discussion in Lehmann 1988, Bhat 1991,
Dixon 1994). For instance, in the Australian Aboriginal language Gugu Yu-
lanji, the degree of Control of A is reflected in the occurrence of the Ergative
case (+ Control) vs. the locative one (-Control) (Peter Austin, p.c.). In Span-
ish, Russian and Sinhalese, A occurs in the dative case and the verb takes the
reflexive/middle marker se/sja/na if A has no Control over the verbal process
(exs. (i), (iii), (v)):
i.. se me ha olvidado la cartera (Spanish) (impersonal)
RFL I-DAT have-3s forget-PP.SG the bag
‘I have forgotten the bag’
vs.
ii. me he olvidado la cartera (personal)
I-DAT have-1SG forget.PP.SG the bag
‘I have forgotten the bag’
iii. pesnja emu slyšitsja (Russian) (-Control)
the-song-NOM he-DAT hear-3SG-RFL
‘He can hear the song’
on slyšit pesnju (+Control)
he-NOM hear-3SG the-song-ACC
‘He is listening to the song’
iv. mam vatur bivva (Sinhalese; Dixon 1994: 26)
I-NOM water-NOM drink.PAST.ACT
‘I drank water’ (e.g., with my meal)
94 Michela Cennamo
v. ma vatur pevuna

I-DAT water-NOM drink.PAST.MIDDLE
‘(When I fell into the river) I (accidentally) swallowed water’
In some languages the degree of Control of A over the verbal process affects
the coding of O and relates to a different voice. In Chukchi (Polinskaja/Ned-
jalkov 1987: 263, in Lazard 1994: 186), if A has no Control over the verbal
process, the verb occurs in the antipassive voice and O is in the instrumental
case:
vi. ’ətt’-n ine-nlp’et-g’i gutilg-e
dog-ABS ANTI-break-3SG leash -INSTR
‘The dog breaks the leash (and runs away)’
vii. ’ tt’- rlp’en-nin gutilg-n
dog-ERG break-3SG/3SG leash-ABS
‘The dog breaks the leash’
In (vii) speakers regard the ergative pattern as odd, in that it implies a higher
Control of A over the verbal process (Lazard 1994: 186).
3. The term ‘oblique’ is used with a variety of meanings in the literature (see
Blake 2001 for an overview). In this paper it is used as a cover term, referring
to the non-canonical encoding of core arguments (e.g., da-
tive/instrumental/adpositional O) as well as to non-core arguments (which
may be marked either by a case-marker or an adposition). In some languages
the same marker used for a non-core argument (e.g., the dative/instrumental
case) may also occur for core arguments (e.g., non-canonical Os) (Blake
2001: ch.5 and references therein).
4. For some English speakers, however, kill, unlike break, can occur without an
object, to refer to a habitual activity (M. Parry, p.c.):
(i) John killed/has killed, this is why he is in prison
(ii) Stalin’s police killed indiscriminately/for many years
This suggests that more fine-grained distinctions are to be made within the
class of core transitives.
5. Not all verbs of surface contact through motion, however, allow unspecified
object deletion. Wipe and rub, for instance, can be used intransitively only if
their object is contextually recoverable ((i)-(ii)) (Rappaport Hovav and Levin
1998: 115):
(i) John washed and Mark wiped (sc. the dishes)
(ii) John applied the polish onto the brass handles and Mark rubbed
6. Although accomplishments such as kill, (trans.) break, and the accomplish-
ment uses of sweep, eat, as in (12c) Jane swept the floor clean and in (13c)
Jane ate two buns are represented as having the same event structure template
(14e), they instantiate two different subclasses of accomplishments. Unlike
with kill, break, the two subevents unfold together, i.e., they are temporally
dependent in the accomplishment uses of otherwise activity verbs such as

sweep, eat, and no causation is involved between them (see Levin 2000). This
difference indeed might account for their low transitivity status noticed by
Tsunoda (1985) in his cross-linguistic study of case-marking (section 2.1).
7. In RRG four basic types of verb classes are recognized: states (know), activi-
ties (swim; read, eat), achievements (instantaneous change of state/activity
with an inherent terminal point) (explode, faint), accomplishments (temporally
extended change of state/activity leading to a well-defined terminal point/final
state) (intr. open, melt, increase; learn). These classes denote spontaneous
states of affairs, from which the corresponding induced, i.e., causative types
may be derived: causative states (frighten), causative achievements ((trans.)
crack), causative accomplishments (kill, (trans.) open, break), causative ac-
tivities (trans. bounce), causative active accomplishments (trans. march, roll)
(Van Valin and La Polla 1997: ch. 3, Van Valin 2002: ch. 2).
8. The dative is regarded in this theory as the (default) case of non-Macrorole
arguments in accusative and ergative constructions, following Silverstein’s
(1976) suggestion that nominative/absolutive and dative are the fundamental
cases of Universal grammar, the ‘minimal’ cases (Siverstein 1976: 161–162,
1993: 485–486), with dative being the ‘normal’ (in the mathematical sense)
case, the single form to which the array of case-forms may be reduced
(Silverstein 1993: 487, also Austin 1992: 9), the functionally marked member
of the opposition, subsuming a number of functions, occurring in ‘marked’
contexts such as antipassives (Silverstein 1993: 487ff). Nominative/accusative
and ergative/absolutive, instead, are the cases encoding Macrorole arguments,
respectively the Actor and the Undergoer, in accusative and ergative construc-
tions cross-linguistically (Van Valin and La Polla 1997: 352–370, Van Valin
2002: ch. 4).
9. Croft recognizes two types of obliques/adpositions (in the languages which
have a case/adposition system), antecedent obliques, like with in (i), which
causally antecede the participant linked to the object position (English with,
by, of) and subsequent obliques, like for in (ii), which causally follow the
participant linked to the object position (English to, for and the spatial prepo-
sitions) (see Croft 1991, 1998: 40, 2000: 52; 54):
(i) Bill broke the egg with a spoon (Croft 2000: 52)
(ii) Bill broke the egg for Greg (ibid.)
10. Croft (2000) distinguishes between aspectual types, the “combination of an
aspectual contour plus a profile on some phase of the aspectual contour”,
which are language-universal i.e., “applicable to the interpretation of aspec-
tual classes of predicates across languages” (Croft 2000: 5), and aspectual
classes, which reflect “the distribution of tense-aspect constructions in indi-
vidual languages”, and are therefore language-specific (Croft 2000: ibid)..
96 Michela Cennamo
11. For a discussion of an exception to this rule, the so-called ‘Missing person
construction’, see Sands and Campbell 2001: 302, note 22).
12. Although Levin’s theory only deals with O as a grammatical relation, and not
with the morphosyntactic encoding of O (B. Levin, p.c.), her approach offers
an interesting starting point for the study of the interface of the event structure
status of participants with their morphosyntactic realization.
References
Abbreviations
BLS Proceedings of the Nth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics

Society (Berkeley: University of California)
CLS Papers from the Nth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic So-
ciety (Chicago: University of Chicago)
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. et al. (eds.)

2001 Non-canonical Marking of Subjects and Objects. Amster-
dam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Andrews, Avery D.
1990 Case structures and control in Modern Icelandic. In: Joan Maling
and A. Zaenen (eds.), Syntax and Semantics 24. Modern Icelandic
Syntax, 187–234. London/New York: Academic Press.
Andrews, Avery D.
2001 Noncanonical A/S marking in Icelandic. In: Alexandra Y. Aikhen-
vald et al. (eds.), 85–111.
Austin, Peter
1982 Transitivity and cognate objects in Australian languages. In: Paul J.
Hopper and Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), 37–47.
Austin, Peter
1992 Cases and clauses in Jiwarli, Western Australia, MS, University of
Melbourne.
Austin, Peter
1998 Crow is sitting chasing them: grammaticalization and the verb ‘to
sit’ in the Mantharta languages, Western Australia. In: Anna Siew-
ierska and Jae J. Song (eds.), Case, Typology and Grammar, 19–36.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Austin, Peter
2002a Causative and applicative constructions in Australian Aboriginal

languages. MS, University of Melbourne.
Austin, Peter
2002b Clitics in Sasak, eastern Indonesia. MS, University of Melbourne.
Barðdal, Jóhanna
1993 Accusative and dative case of objects of some transitive verbs in Ice-
landic and the semantic distinction between them. In: Flyktförsök.
Kalasbok till Christer Platzack på femtioårsdagen 18 november
1993, från doktorander och dylika, 1–13, Lund: Lund University.
Barðdal, Jóhanna
1999 Case in Icelandic – A construction grammar approach. TijdSchrift
voor Skandinavistiek 20: 65–100.
Barðdal, Jóhanna
2001a Case in Icelandic. A Synchronic, Diachronic and Comparative Ap-
proach. [Doctoral Dissertation], Lundastudier i Nordisk sprakveten-
skap A57. Lund: Department of Scandinavian Languages.
Barðdal, Jóhanna
2001b The Perplexity of Dat-Nom verbs in Icelandic. Nordic Journal of
Linguistics 24: 47–70.
Barðdal, Jóhanna
forthc. The semantics of the impersonal construction in Icelandic, German
and Faroese: beyond thematic roles. Sprachtypologie und Universa-
lienforschung 57 (2004).
Bertinetto, Piermarco and Mario Squartini
1995 An attempt at defining the class of ‘gradual completion verbs’. In:
Piermarco Bertinetto et al. (eds.), Temporal reference, aspect and
actionality, vol. 1: Semantic syntactic perspectives, 11–26. Torino:
Rosenberg & Sellier.
Bhat, D.N.S.
1991 Grammatical Relations. The evidence against their Necessity and
Universality. London: Routledge.
Blake, Barry J.
2001 Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2nd edition).
Blume, Kerstin
1998 A contrastive analysis of interaction verbs with dative complements.
Bossong, Georg
1985 Empirische Universalienforschung. Differentielle Objektmarkierung
in den neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Bossong, Georg
98 Michela Cennamo
1991 Differential object marking in Romance and beyond. In: Douglas

Kibbee and Dieter Wanner (eds.), New Analyses in Romance Lin-
guistics, 143–70. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Bossong, Georg
1998 Le marquage différentiel de l’objet dans les langues d’Europe. In:
Jack Feuillet (ed.), 259–95.
Börjas, Kersti and Nigel Vincent
2000 Multiple case and the ‘wimpiness’ of morphology. In: Miriam. Butt
and Tracy H. King (eds.), Argument Realization, 15–40. Stanford:
CSLI.
Brecht, Richard D. and James S. Levine
1985 Conditions on voice marking in Russian. In: Michael S. Flier and
Richard D. Brecht (eds.), Issues in Russian Morphosyntax, 118–137.
Columbus: Slavica.
Butt, Miriam and Wilhelm Geuder (eds.)
1998 The Projection of Arguments. Stanford: CSLI.
Cennamo, Michela
1984 Transitivity in Italian: the si-constructions. M.Phil. Thesis, Univer-
sity of Manchester.
Cennamo, Michela
1993 The Reanalysis of Reflexives: a Diachronic Perspective. Naples:
Liguori.
Cennamo, Michela
1995 Transitivity and VS order in Italian reflexives. Sprachtypologie und
Universalienforschung 48: 84–105.
Cennamo, Michela
1997 Passive and impersonal constructions. In: Martin Maiden and Mair
Parry (eds.), Dialects of Italy, 145–161. London: Routledge.
Cennamo, Michela
1998 Transitivity in the Italian dialects: synchronic aspects and diachronic
implications. In: Hans Geisler and Daniel Jacob (eds.), Transitivität
und Diathese in romanischen Sprachen, 73–87. Tübingen: Nie-
meyer.
Comrie, Bernard
1975 Subjects and direct objects in Uralic languages: a functional expla-
nation of case-marking systems. Études Finno-Ougrienne 12: 5–17.
Comrie, Bernard
1978 Ergativity. In: Winfred Lehmann (ed.), Syntactic Typology: Studies
in the Phenomenology of Language, 329–394. Austin: University of
Texas Press.
Comrie, Bernard
1979 Degrees of ergativity: some Chukchee evidence. In: Frans Plank
(ed.), 219–240.
Comrie, Bernard
1989 Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. London: Blackwell.
Cooreman, Ann
1994 A functional typology of antipassives. In: Barbara Fox and Paul J.
Hopper (eds.), Voice in Form and Function, 49–87. Amster-
Croft, William
1991 Syntactic Categories and grammatical Relations: The Cognitive Or-
ganization of Information. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Croft, William
1998 Event structure and argument linking. In: Miriam Butt and Wilhelm
Geuder (eds.), 21–63.
Croft, William
2000 Verbs and Argument Structure. MS: University of Manchester.
Dixon, Robert M.W.
1979 Ergativity. Language 55: 59–138.
Dixon, Robert M.W.
1994 Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Feuillet, Jack (ed.)
1998 Actance et Valence dans les Langues de l’Europe. Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Fici Giusti, Francesca
1994 Il Passivo nelle Lingue Slave. Roma: Franco Angeli.
Fici Giusti, Francesca
1998 Diathèse et voix marquée. In: Jack Feuillet (ed.), 347–389.
Foley, William A. and Robert D. Van Valin Jr.
1985 Information packaging in the clause. In: Timothy Shopen (ed.), vol.
1, 282–364.
Givón, Talmy
1984 Syntax: a Functional-Typological Introduction, vol. 1. Amster-
Givón, Talmy
1990 Syntax: a Functional-Typological Introduction, vol. 2. Amster-
Grimshaw, Jane and Sten Vikner

1993 Obligatory adjuncts and the structure of events. In: Eric Reuland and
Werner Abraham (eds.), Knowledge and Language II: Lexical and
Conceptual Structure, 143–155. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
100 Michela Cennamo
Guerssel, Mohamed et al.

1985 A cross-linguistic study of transitivity alternations. CLS 21: 48–63.
Hale, Kenneth and Samuel J. Keyser
1987 A view from the middle. Lexicon Project Working Papers 10, Cen-
ter for Cognitive Science. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT.
Haspelmath, Martin
2001 Non-canonical marking of core arguments in European languages.
In: Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald et al. (eds.), 53–83.
Holisky, Dee A.
1987 The case of the intransitive subject in Tsova-Tush (Batsbi). In:
Robert M.W. Dixon (ed.), Studies in Ergativity. Lingua 71: 103–
132.
Hopper, Paul J. and Sandra A. Thompson
1980 Transitivity in grammar and discourse, Language 56: 251–99.
Hopper, Paul J. and Sandra A. Thompson
1982 Syntax and Semantics 15: Studies in Transitivity. London/New
York: Academic Press.
Keenan, Edward L.
1985 Passive in the world’s languages. In: Timothy Shopen (ed.), vol. 1:
243–281.
Kiparsky, Paul
1998 Partitive case and aspect. In: Miriam Butt and Wilhelm Geuder
(eds.), 266–307.
Klaiman, M.H.
1980 Bengali dative subjects. Lingua 51: 275–95.
Klaiman, M.H.
1991 Grammatical Voice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lazard, Gilbert
1984 Actance variations and categories of the object. In: Frans Plank
(ed.), 269–92.
Lazard, Gilbert
1994 L'Actance. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France
Lazard, Gilbert
1997 Ergativity. Linguistic Typology 1/2: 243–68.
Lazard, Gilbert
1998a De la Transitivité restreinte à la transitivité generaliséé. In: André
Rousseau (ed.), 55–84.
Lazard, Gilbert
1998b Définition des actants dans les langues européennes. In: Jack
Feuillet (ed.), 11–146.
Lazard, Gilbert
2002 Transitivity revisited as an example of a more strict approach in ty-

pological research. Folia Linguistica 36: 140–190.
Lehmann, Christian
1988 Predicate classes and participation. In: Studies in General Compara-
tive Linguistics, 33–77. Köln: AKUP.
Levin, Beth
1993 English Verb Classes and Alternations. A Preliminary Investigation.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Levin, Beth
1999 Objecthood: an event structure perspective. CLS 35: 222–247.
Levin, Beth
2000 Aspect, Lexical Semantic representation, and argument expression.
BLS 26: 413–429.
Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport Hovav
1989 An approach to unaccusative mismatches. Proceedings of the North-
East Linguistic Society 19: 314–328.
1995 Unaccusativity. At the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface. Cam-
bridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
1996 From lexical semantics to argument realization. MS, Northwestern
University and Bar Ilan University.
Magier, David
1987 The transitivity prototype: evidence from Hindi. Word 38: 187–199.
Maling, Joan
2001 Dative: the heterogeneity of the mapping among morphological
case, grammatical functions, and thematic roles. Lingua 111: 419–
464.
Maling, Joan
2002 Icelandic verbs with dative objects. Working Papers in Scandina-
vian Syntax 70: 1–60.
Minger, David L.
2002 An Analysis of Grammatical Relations and Case Marking in Ice-
landic. MA thesis, University of California, Davis.
Moravcsik, Edith
1978 On the case marking of objects. In: Joseph Greeberg et al. (eds.),
Universals of Human Language, vol. 4, Syntax, 249–289. Stanford:
Stanford University Press.
Mithun, Marianne
1984 The evolution of noun incorporation. Language 60: 847–895.
Mithun, Marianne
102 Michela Cennamo
1991 Active/Agentive case marking and its motivations. Language 67:

511–546.
Mithun, Marianne and Wallace Chafe
1999 What are S, A and O? Studies in Language 23: 569–596.
Mithun, Marianne and Grenville Corbett
1999 The effect of noun incorporation on argument structure. In: Lunella
Mereu (ed.), Boundaries of Morphology and Syntax, 49–71. Am-
sterdam: Benjamins.
Musgrave, Simon
2000 A note on animacy hierarchy effects in Sasak and Sumbawan. Sasak,
Working Papers in Sasak, vol. 2: 49–56.
Nocentini, Alberto
1992a Diathèse et degré de controle dans une langue exotique: l'italien par-
lé. In: W. Banys, et al. (eds.), Etudes de Linguistique romane et
slave, 421–35. Krakow: Universitas.
Nocentini, Alberto
1992b Oggetto marcato vs. oggetto non-marcato: stato ed evoluzione di
una categoria nell'area euro-asiatica. In: L'Europa Linguistica:
Contatti, Contrasti, Affinità di Lingue, 227–246. Roma: Bulzoni.
Perlmutter, David
1978 Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesys. BLS 4: 157–
189.
Perlmutter, David
1989 Multiattachment and the unaccusative hypothesis: the perfect auxil-
iary in Italian. Probus 1: 63–119.
Plank, Frans (ed.)
1984 Objects, Towards a Theory of Grammatical Relations London/New
York: Academic Press.
Rappaport Hovav, Malka and Beth Levin
1998 Building verb meanings. In: Miriam Butt and Wilhelm Geuder
(eds.), 97–134.
Renault, Richard
1998 La transitivité en finnois: le cas morphologique de l’objet. In: André
Rousseau (ed.), 313–332.
Rousseau, André
1998 La Transitivité. Villeneuve-d’Ascq: Presses Universitaires du Sep-
tentrion.
Sands, Kristina and Lyle Campbell

2001 Non-canonical subjects and objects in Finnish. In: Alexandra Y. Ai-
khenvald et al. (eds.), 251–305.
Shibatani, M. Masayoshi
2001 Non-canonical constructions in Japanese. In: Alexandra Y. Aikhen-
vald et al. (eds.), 307–354.
Shopen, Timothy (ed.)
1985 Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol. 1, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Silverstein, Michael
1976 Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In: Robert M.W. Dixon (ed.),
Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages, 112–171. Can-
berra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.
1981 Case marking and the nature of language. Australian Journal of Lin-
guistics 1: 227–246.
1993 Of nominatives and datives: universal grammar from the bottom up.
In: Robert D. Van Valin (ed.), 465–498.
Simpson, Jane
1991 Warlpiri Morphosyntax. A Lexicalist Approach. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Smith, Henry
1996 Restrictiveness in Case Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Sorace, Antonella
2000 Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs. Language
76: 859–890.
Stassen, Leon
1997 Intransitive Predication. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Svenonius, Peter
2001 Case and event structure. In: Niina Zhang (ed.), Syntax of Predica-
tion, ZASPIL (Zentrum für allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft Papers
in Linguistics) 26: 1–21 [available at http://www.zas.gwz-
berlin.de/papers/zaspil/infos/].
Talmy, Leonard
1985a Lexicalization patterns: semantic structure in lexical forms. In:
Timothy Shopen (ed.), vol. 3, 57–149.
Talmy, Leonard
1985b Force dynamics in language and thought. CLS 21: 293–337.
Timberlake, Alan
104 Michela Cennamo
1977 Reanalysis and actualization in syntactic change. In: Charles N. Li

(ed.), Mechanisms of Syntactic Change. 140–177. Austin/London:
University of Texas Press.
Tsunoda, Tasaku
1981 Split case-marking patterns in verb-types and tense/aspect/mood.
Tsunoda, Tasaku
1985 Remarks on transitivity. Journal of Linguistics 21: 385–96.
Tsunoda, Tasaku
1994 Transitivity. In: Asher, R.E. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and
Linguistics, vol. 7: 4670–77. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
van Hout, Angeliek
1996 Event Semantics and Verb Frame Alternations: a Case of Study of
Dutch and its Acquisition. Doctoral dissertation, Katholieke Univer-
siteit Brabant, Tilburg.
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr.
1990 Semantic parameters of split intransitivity. Language 66: 221–260.
1991 Another look at Icelandic case-marking and grammatical relations.
Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9: 145–194.
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. (ed.)
1993 Advances in Role and Reference Grammar. Amster-
2002 The Syntax-Semantics-Pragmatics Interface: an Introduction to Role
and Reference Grammar. MS. University of Buffalo.
Van Valin, Robert D.Jr. and Randy J. La Polla
1997 Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Function. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Zaenen, Annie and Joan Maling
1991 Unaccusative, passive and quirky case. In: Joan Maling and Annie
Zaenen (eds.), Syntax and Semantics 24. Modern Icelandic Syntax,
137–152 London/New York: Academic Press.
Yip, Moira and Joan Maling and Ray Jackendoff
1987 Case in tiers. Language 62: 217–250.

003 - Cennamo (2003)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

003 - Cennamo (2003)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

(In)transitivity and object marking: some current

In this paper we discuss the relationship between the degree of

2. The (In)transitivity continuum and event structure

2.1. Transitivity/Intransitivity as gradients

The notions of Transitivity/Intransitivity are strongly intertwined, and rep-

Table 1. The Transitivity continuum - Hopper and Thompson (1980: 252)

Table 2. The Individuation Hierarchy -Timberlake (1977: 162)

passivization as well as passivization may act as morphosyntactic tests to

(1) a. ngay gala juuma-le-ela

In Russian the passive is possible with resultatives (i.e., (causative/active)

(2) Ivana videli včera v kino

(3) a. Mašu ubila Tanja

b. Maša byla ubita

(4) a. *spaghetti was eaten by Anna for five minutes

Transitivity and Intransitivity therefore are gradients, determined by the in-

Table 3. Transitivity continuum- Lazard (1997: 260, 1998: 75)

semantics: prototypical non-prototypical action one participant

grammar: active passive or equivalent uniactant

At one pole of the transitivity gradient there occur prototypical transitive

(5) a. the hunter killed the deer/Mark opened the door

Prototypical transitive clauses, therefore, involve a highly Agentive, ani-

(6) a. jĩ: shrestha-yātā dā—yā

b. ngarrka-ngku ka-rla karli-ki warri-rni

In Warlpiri verbs of impact/concussion/contact may occur in either the Er-

(7) a. ngarra-ngku ka marlu luwa-rni

b. ngarrka-ngku ka-rla-jinta marluku luwa-rni

This alternation resembles in meaning the ‘conative’ alternation in English

(8) a. I hit John

(9) x-ø-mak-wi (Jacaltek; Foley and Van Valin 1985: 341)

In Croft’s (1991) terms, these verbs involve only an asymmetric transmis-

In some languages intransitives show ‘variable marking’(so-called fluid-S

2.2. (In)transitivity and event structure

may be interpreted as reflecting differences in the nature of the event de-

2.2.1. Structure vs. constant participants

Levin (1999), building up on the theory of event structure developed in

(10) a. [[x ACT ] CAUSE [BECOME [y <STATE>]]]

Arguments therefore are regarded as belonging to two types. They may

(11) a. John killed the beetle

(12) a. John swept the floor

(13) a. Mary ate buns

(14) Simple event structure templates:

Complex event structure template:

constant participants vary in their encoding in that they originate in the

2.2.2. Macrorole Intransitivity and event structure

In Role and Reference Grammar, a monostratal theory of grammar which

(15) a. er hat seinem Freund geholfen (German)

The morphosyntactic behaviour of verbs such as helfen is regarded as re-

(16) a. the buns were eaten by John

(17) a. wičháša ki čhá ki kaksá-he (Lakhota)

With resultatives which take both Macroroles (causative/active accom-

2.2.3. A three-dimensional model of causal/aspectual structures in argu-

In more recent work (Croft 2000) the notions of force-dynamic relations

(19) Jane broke the vase

Figure 1. Three-dimensional representation of the event structure of break (Croft

A complex predicate such as break is decomposed into its subevents, each

(20) Jack ate the lasagne

Figure 2. Accomplishment use of eat (extended causation) (Croft 2000: 61).

(21) Jack ate

Figure 3. Intransitive activity reading of eat (Croft 2000: 61)

the t dimension” (represented by the zig-zag line) (figure 3) (see discussion

(22) a. Tommy chewed up the bone

Figure 4. Highly affected O (Croft 2000: 70) (accomplishment use of chew)

(22) b. Tommy chewed the bone