Table Of ContentSTUF,Akademie Verlag,64(2011) 3,237–255
Anna Bugaeva (Tokyo)
Ditransitive constructions in Ainu*
Abstract
This paper shows that there are two ditransitive alignment types in Ainu, viz. a frequently-used
double-object construction (doc) and infrequently-used indirective object construction (ioc). Ainu
ditransitives encoded by the docare unusual cross-linguistically because all of them,including the verb
kor-e[have-caus] ‘give’,are derived by causative,applicative or applicative-causative derivations.I argue
that the iocis possible in Ainu only either with those verbs which have no applicative (three-argument)
counterparts or with ditransitive verbs of a slightly extended ditransitive case frame including
Source/inanimate Goal instead of Recipient proper. Comparing the formal properties of the doc-
encoded ditransitives and those of other three-argument constructions,I claim that Ainu presents a
counterexample to Kittilä’s (2006) Universal 1,since the so-called most typical ditransitive verb ‘give’,
viz.the derived verb kor-elit.‘make/let sb have sth’ in Ainu,is outranked in formal transitivity by the
underived three-argument verb o‘put/place sth (pl) on sth’ of a non-ditransitive case frame.
Keywords:ditransitives, double-object construction, indirective construction, derived ‘give’
1. Genetic,dialectal,and typological profile of Ainu
A genetic isolate,Ainu shows considerable dialectal variation:Hokkaido (Northeastern
and Southwestern),Sakhalin,and Kurile groups.Ainu is agglutinating,polysynthetic and
incorporating,with SV/AOV1constituent order.It is predominantly head-marking.
There is no flagging (=case marking) on arguments (S/A/O),neither on pronouns nor on
nouns,i.e.with respect to flagging,Ainu shows neutral alignment.Obliques are marked
by the following postpositions:locative ta,allative un (for inanimate Goal),dative e-un
(< head.pf-all) (for animate Goal),ablative wa,instrumental ani,comitative tura/tura-no,
* Early versions of this paper were presented at the poster session of ALT8 conference.Berkeley Uni-
versity,July 2009 and at the 9thmeeting of the project “Typological study of voice phenomena in the
world’s languages”,National Museum of Ethnology,Osaka,February 2009.This was supported by the
Japanese Ministry of Education,Science and Culture,International Scientific Grant-in-Aid Research
Program (grant #22720169),by Endangered Languages Documentation Programme IPF128 (SOAS,
University of London),and Waseda University.I would like to thank Emma Geniusˇiene˙,Bernd
Heine,Andrej Malchukov,Heiko Narrog,two anonymous referees and the editor for valuable
comments on the earlier versions of this paper.Special thanks to Hiroshi Nakagawa who kindly
shared with me his fieldnotes of the Chitose dialect of Ainu.My deepest heartfelt thanks got to the
late Vladimir Nedjalkov(1928–2009),who was my mentor,and to the late Ainu language consultant
Mrs.Ito Oda(1908–2000).None of the above-mentioned researchers necessarily shares my views
expressed here or is responsible for any errors.
1 The abbreviation S stands for intransitive subject,A for transitive subject,and O for object of transi-
tives;none of them indicate any particular semantic role (Dixon &Aikhenvald1997:72).
238 Anna Bugaeva, Ditransitive constructions in Ainu
traversal peka(‘over’),mutative ne (‘as’).Personal pronouns are uninflected and are often
omitted in the subject (A/S) and object (O) position;Ainu is a so-called pro-drop language
but indexing (=verbal cross-reference marking) is obligatory.
With respect to indexing,Ainu shows mixed alignment,see Table 1.There is a neutral
alignment in the second and third person indexing,viz.A,S,and O are marked by e=in 2sg
and by eci=in 2pl,and the third person is always zero-marked.There is a nominative/accu-
sative alignment in the first person singular indexing,viz.1sgku=marks A,S,and en= O.
And finally,one finds a tripartite alignment (distinct marking for S,A,and O) in the first
person plural exclusive indexing,viz.1pl.exc ci= marks A,=as S,and un= O,and in the
so-called “indefinite person”indexing,viz.inda=marks A,=anS,and i= O.
The indefinite person is worth a special note as it is a cover term for a number of func-
tions expressed by the same marking.Thus the indefinite person is not only used to refer to
the indefinite speaker or addressee, but also as the first person plural inclusive, second
person singular/plural honorific,and logophoric.The logophoric function is of great impor-
tance,because it is commonly used in folktales2to refer to the person of the protagonist in
the quote,since folktales have the structure of reported discourse with the whole story
being a quote, for details see (Bugaeva 2008). Note that the logophoric is consistently
glossed as ind in order to emphasize its diachronic relatedness to other functions of the
indefinite person but is translated as ‘I’ for the sake of convenience,as in (13e).
person-number A/S/O A S O
pronouns markers markers markers
1sg kani ‘I’ ku= ku= en=
1pl.exc cóka
‘we (I and he/she/them)’ ci= =as un=
2sg eani‘you.sg’ e= e= e=
2pl ecioká ‘you.pl’ eci= eci= eci=
3sg sinuma ‘he/she’ Ø Ø Ø
3pl oka ‘they’ Ø Ø Ø
Indefinite (ind) also
has the functions of:
1. 1pl.inc
‘we (I and you)’ aoka a= =an i=
2. 2sg/plhonorific
3. logophoric
Table 1: Person marking in the Saru dialectof Ainu(Southern Hokkaido,Southwestern group)
Theoretically,A markers are placed before O markers but in practice the examples with
overtly expressed A and O,as in (8c),(12b),and (22),are scarce because the third person
S/A/Ois zero-marked3,as in (7) and (15)–(18),and also because a combination of 1sg/pl.a
and 2sg/pl.Otriggers a fusional markereci=which materially coincides with 2pl,see (9c)
and (13c),cf.Table 1.
2 Most examples in this paper are from folktales,hence a high frequency in the use of the indefinite
person.
3 There is no overt indication in glosses for the zero-marked third person.
STUF 64 (2011) 3 239
The difference between intransitive and (two/three-argument) transitive verbs is clear-
cut since they employ different indexing in 1pl.exc and indefinite. Some verbs employ
different stems/suffixes for singular and plural.In the case of intransitive verbs,plurality
refers to the number of Sreferents,while in the case of transitive verbs plurality refers to
the number of Oor patientive A referents.
Ainu possesses a number of valency-changing devices which are characterized by very
high combinability and therefore are of special interest in linguistic typology.There are two
devices for increasing valency,viz.applicatives e-, ko-, o- and causatives -e/-te/-re, -ka,
-ke, and five for decreasing valency, viz. reflexive yay-, reciprocal u-, antipassive i-,
anticausatives si-, ke-, and noun incorporation (of O,S and patientive A).Although no
o
verb has been found to contain all of the six kind of affixes and noun incorporation,there
are many possibilities for multiple derivational processes on a single verb; cf. a list of
possible derivations from the verbruska‘be angry because of sth’ (vt).
(1a) ruska ‘be angry because of sth’ (vt)
(1b) ko-ruska <appl-be.angry.because.of>
‘be angry with sbbecause of sth’ (OI) (vd)
(1c) yay-ko-ruska <refl-appl-be.angry.because.of>
‘be angry with oneself because of sth’(OI) (vt)
(1d) i-ruska <apass-be.angry.because.of>
‘be angry’ (OI) (vi)
(1e) ko-i-ruska <appl-apass-be.angry.because.of>
‘be angry with sb’ (OI) (vt)
(1f) si-ko-i-ruska <acaus-appl-apass-be.angry.because.of>
‘get angry’,cf.‘get angry with another’ (BAT 453) (vi)
(1g) i-ruska-re <apass-be.angry.because.of-caus>
‘make sbangry’ (OI) (vt)
(1h) ko-i-ruska-re <appl-apass-be.angry.because.of-caus>
‘make sb angry with sb’ (OI) (vd)
(1i) si-ko-i-ruska-re <acaus-appl-apass-be.angry.because.of-caus>
‘make sb angry with oneself’ (KI1 243) (vt)
(1j) u-ko-i-ruska <rec-appl-apass-be.angry.because.of>
‘be angry with one another’ (OI) (vi)
(1k) u-ko-i-ruska-re <rec-appl-apass-be.angry.because.of-caus>
‘make sbangry with each other’ (OI) (vt)
(1l) *u-ruska <rec-be.angry.because.of>
‘be angry with one another’
(ungrammatical because (a) has no personal O) (OI) (vi)
I will offer a preliminary analysis of ditransitive constructions in Southern Hokkaido
dialects of Ainu (Southwestern group),viz.Saru and Chitose (see Sources),and discuss
their typological implications.In a few cases,I will also use data from the Ishikari dialect
(Central Hokkaido;SK).
240 Anna Bugaeva, Ditransitive constructions in Ainu
2. Defining ditransitive constructions
Ditransitive constructions are defined here as those derived from transitive verbs which
have two arguments in addition to the subject:a “recipient”or “addressee”argument (R),
and a “theme”argument (t) (Malchukov et al.2010:1).Ditransitive verbs are typically
physical transfer verbs such as ‘give’,‘send’,‘sell’,‘borrow’,or ‘bring’,or mental transfer
verbs like ‘say’,‘tell’,‘show’,or ‘explain’ (Heine &König2010:88).Much of the research
on ditransitive constructions has focused on the properties of the verb ‘give’ which is often
regarded as by far the most typical ditransitive verb (e.g.Haspelmath2005).
The above-mentioned definition of ditransitives makes crucial reference to the meaning
of the construction, while the formal manifestation of the arguments is irrelevant.The
authors claim that this is the only way to formulate a cross-linguistically applicable defini-
tion,because formal properties of languages are too heterogeneous to serve as a basis for a
definition (Malchukovet al.2010:1).Importantly,ditransitive constructions are the most
typical three-argument constructions but they do not necessarily need to be encoded as
three-argument constructions.It is also worth noting that the discussion of ditransitives in
Malchukov et al. (2010) is confined to constructions with underived ditransitive verbs.
However,it appears that some languages may lack underived three-argument ditransitives
as all such verbs in them are derived either by causative or applicative derivations;and that
is exactly the case in Ainu.
3. An overview of ditransitive constructions in Ainu
There are various alignment types of ditransitives in Ainu,viz.a frequently-used double-
object construction (doc) and infrequently-used indirective object construction (ioc)
(for the definitions see section 4).This paper focuses on the description of doc,which is
regarded as a major alignment type in Ainu (section 5),while iocis only mentioned as an
additional alignment type with certain usage restrictions (section 6).
The analysis of docpresented here is based on a sample that included 61 three-argument
ditransitive4verbs from the authoritative dictionary of the Saru dialect of Ainu (t:Tamura
1996)5 and 8 additional verbs which I found in texts (k: Nakagawa & Bugaeva forth-
coming,44,717 words).As mentioned,it is fairly common cross-linguistically that ditransi-
tive verbs follow the double-object pattern (doc).What appears to be rather uncommon is
that there was no single underived (“genuine”) ditransitive attested in my 69 verb sample:
(a) 30 verbs are derived from monotransitives by an applicative derivation with the pre-
fixes e-,ko-,or rarely o-,(b) 26 verbs are derived from intransitives by a double applicative
derivation with the prefixes e-ko-or ko-e-,(c) 7 verbs are derived from monotransitives by
a causative derivation with the allomorphic suffix -e/-te/-re,and (d) 6 verbs are derived
from intransitives by an applicative derivation with the prefixes e- or ko- and causative
derivation with the allomorphicsuffix-e/-te/-re.
4 Here ditransitives are conceived of as verbs with a case frame including Agent,Theme,and Recipient
participants,in accordance with the above definition,see § 2.
5 The total number of lexemes in Tamura(1996) is 9,356 with 4,546 verbs.
STUF 64 (2011) 3 241
(a) Applicatives of vt
(2a) ani‘bring sth (sg)’ →ko-ani‘bring sth (sg) to sb’ (vd)
(2b) pakasnu ‘teach sb’ →e-pakasnu ‘teach sthto sb’ (vd)
(2c) uk‘take sth (sg)’ →ko-uk‘take sth (sg) from sb’ (vd)
(b) Double applicative of vi
(3a) ikka ‘steal’ →e-ikka ‘steal sth/sb’ (vt) →ko-e-ikka‘steal sth/sb from sb’ (vd)
(3b) isoytak ‘tell stories’ →ko-isoytak ‘tell stories to sb’ (vd) →e-ko-isoytak ‘tell stories
to sb about sth’ (vd)
(3c) yapkir‘throw’ →e-yapkir ‘throw sth’ →ko-e-yapkir ‘throw sth to sb/to some place’
(vd)
(c) Causatives of vt
(4a) kor‘have sth/sb’ →kor-e‘give sth/sb to sb’ (lit.‘make/let sbhave sth/sb’)
(4b) nukar‘see sth/sb’ →nukar-e‘show sthto sb’ (lit.‘make/let sbsee sth/sb’)
(4c) nu ‘hear sth’ →nu-re ‘tell sth to sb’ (lit.‘make/letsbhear sth’)
(d) Causative-applicative of vi
(5a) arpa‘go (sg)’ → ko-arpa‘go (sg) to sb /some place’ → ko-arpa-re ‘send sth/sb to
sb/some place’ (lit.‘make sth/sb go to sb/some place’) (vd)
(5b) so-uk‘borrow’ (lit.‘take a debt’) →e-so-uk‘borrow sth’ (vt) →e-so-uk-te‘lend sth
to sb’(lit.‘make/let sb borrow sth’;lexicalized) (vd) (T)
As we can see,there is even no underived (“genuine”) verb ‘give’ in Ainu,as the respec-
tive meaning is rendered by a (lexicalized) causative form of the verb kor‘have sth/sb’ (4a),
see the sentential example in (6b),cf.the base construction in (6a).
(6a) [inan pe] ku=kor kor pirka hawe an?
P
which thing 1sg.a=have and be.good rep.ev exist.sg
‘Which one should I choose?’ (T 333)
(6b) [Anna] [ninup] [kani] en=kor-e
A T R
Anna sewing 1sg 1sg.o=have-caus
‘Anna gave me a sewing.’ (lit.‘let me have a sewing’) (OI)
Both causatives and applicatives are regarded here as valency-increasing syntactic
operations,which differ in that the former add an Agent argument to the native case frame,
as in (4),(5),(6b),and (9d),and the latter a non-Agent argument,as in (2),(3),(5),(7b),
(8b),and (9b,c).
As mentioned, there are three applicative prefixes in Ainu, which can generally be
defined as instrumental e-, dative ko-, and locative o-, but the actual referential range
of the respective constructions stretches over several semantic roles and the exact role is
attributed to the interaction between the semantics of the prefix and the verb.Thus appli-
cative prefixes are polyfunctional and their important functions are as follows:
242 Anna Bugaeva, Ditransitive constructions in Ainu
e- 1.Content,2.Location,3.Instrument,4.Theme,5.Cause/Purpose,6.Other (Comita-
tive:Co-agent,Manner,Beneficiary,Path);
ko- 1.Addressee,2.Goal,3.Recipient/Beneficiary,4.Comitative:Co-patient,5.Male-
factive Source,6.Other (Cause/Purpose);
o-1.Goal,2.Location (Bugaeva2010:760).
When used in ditransitive constructions,the applicative prefix e-may add Theme,as in
(3a), (5b), (8b,c), and (9b,c,d), and Content, as in (2b) and (3b), the applicative prefix
ko-may add Addressee (3b),Goal and/or Recipient/Beneficiary,as in (3c),(5a) and (2a),
(7b), and Malefactive Source object, as in (2c), (3a), and (8c), cf. the respective base
constructions in (7a), (8a,b), and (9a,b).The applicative prefix o- may add Goal object
but it seldom occurs in ditransitive constructions as it is commonly used to derive mono-
transitives from intransitives.
(7a) [poro aynu] [yuk tapkir sine-p]
A P
be.big/old man deer animal.fore.leg one-thing.cl
ani kane wa, ek wa
hold/carry.in.hands.sg suddenly and come.sg and
‘Suddenly an old man brought a single deer foreleg.’ (AB 122–123)
(7b) pon cep ne korka [arturere] poka
T
little fish cop but half.poss only
[e=kor unarpe] ko-ani wa ek
R
2sg.a=have aunt to.appl-hold/carry.in.hands.sg and come.sg
‘It is a little fish but bring at least half of itto your grandmother.’ (KAY248)
When a valency-increasing (applicative or causative) marker is added to an intransitive
verb,the verb changes its paradigm and thus becomes monotransitive,cf.(8a) and (8b)
which show that the intransitive personal affix ind.S =an is replaced by its transitive
counterpart ind.A a=.When a valency-increacing marker is added to a monotransitive
verb as in (8c),it licenses the presence of an additional argument which may potentially be
encoded by an unflagged NP and indexed on the verb (similar to the case of derivations
from intransitives (8b)),but there is no change in the paradigm.
(8a) ainu or un ikka=an wa a=e wa kusu
Ainu place all/loc steal=ind.S and ind.A=eat and because
‘When I stole in the land of the Ainu and ate (it)…’ (KI 117)
(8b) a=e =e-ikka hene a=e=ray-ke yak-ka
T
ind.A=2sg.O=appl-steal and ind.A=2sg.O=die-caus if-even
‘Even if youwere stolen and killed,(you were still young,so they may have dumped
you off somewhere.)’ (K7908032UP)
(8c) sonno sunke sak no [isepo] a=en =ko-e-ikka
T R
really lie lack adv hare ind.A=1sg.O=from.appl-appl-steal
ka ki p ne a wa
even do nmlz cop perf and
‘Seriously,a hare has been stolen from me.’ (N 180)
In (9c) and (9d), we have two three-argument ditransitives with different meanings
derived from the same base verb so-uk‘have a debt’ (9a),viz.e-ko-so-uk ‘borrow sth from
STUF 64 (2011) 3 243
sb’ (9c) derived by the double applicative and e-so-uk-te ‘lend sth to sb’ (9d) derived by the
applicative and causative derivations;the latter verb is considerably lexicalized.
(9a) poro so-uk=an
be.big debt-take=ind.S
‘They have a large debt.’ (T 678)
(9b) [Ito Anna or-o] wa [amip] e-so-uk wa an
R T
Ito Anna place-poss abl dress appl-debt-take.sg and exist.sg
‘Anna has borroweda dressfrom Ito.’ (OI)
(9c) [(icen)] eci =e-ko-so-uk
T R
money 1sg.A+2sg.O=appl-to.appl-debt-take.sg
‘I borrowed money from you.’ (T 92)
(9d) [amam sine conpa] en =e-so-uk-te
T R
rice one one.sho(1800.c.c) 1sg.O=appl-debt-take.sg-caus
‘Lend meone one sho (1800c.c.) of rice.’ (T 129)
To summarize, both applicativized and causativized monotransitives turn into three-
argument ditransitives with two unmarked objects,as in (6b),(7b),(8c),and (9c,d),which
will be discussed in detail in the next section.
4. Alignment types of ditransitive constructions cross-linguistically
According to Malchukovet al.(2010:5),basic alignment types of ditransitive construc-
tions are distinguished in terms of the encoding of T(theme) and R(recipient) compared
to the monotransitive P(patient).Thus,the three logical possibilities are as follows:indirec-
tive (T = P ≠R;abb.ioc),secundative6(T ≠P = R;abb.soc) and neutral7(T = P = R;abb.
doc);all of them are actually attested and are rather common cross-linguistically.
(10) John broke a glass. (monotransitive construction)
A P
(11a) John gave the book toMary. (ioc) T = P ≠R
A T R
(11b) John provided Mary withbooks. (soc) T ≠P = R
A R T
(11c) John gave Mary the book. (doc) T = P = R
A R T
As we can see,these alignment types apply to particular constructions,but they may also
be associated with entire languages,if a language possesses only one ditransitive construc-
tion type or shows a strong preference for one of these types (Malchukovet al.2010:8).
Thus Russian and Japanese are usually characterized as indirective languages,Huichol and
West Greenlandic Eskimo as secundative languages,Shipibo-Konibo (Panoan;Peru) and
Dagbani (Gur, Niger-Congo) as neutral languages, while English is characterized as a
mixed language showing no preference for any of the above-mentioned types (see Haspel-
math 2005:428).
6 Also referred to as a secondary-object construction (Haspelmath2005:427).
7 Also referred to as a double-object construction (Haspelmath2005:427).
244 Anna Bugaeva, Ditransitive constructions in Ainu
The above-mentioned ditransitive alignment types are distinguished on the basis of the
following argument encoding properties:
(a) flagging (case affixes,adpositions),
(b) indexing (cross-referencing/agreement on the verb),
(c) word order.
5. Double-object construction as a major alignment type of ditransitives in Ainu
5.1. Coding properties
In previous studies,such as Haspelmath(2005:428) with reference to Shibatani(1990:
29,34) and Refsing(1986:164,166),Ainu was classified as a secundative language.How-
ever,in this section,I will show that ditransitives in Ainu are most commonly encoded by a
double-object construction (=neutral alignment) since there is no major difference
in the alignment of R and T with respect to flagging,indexing,and word order.These are
the three-argument applicative/causative/causative-applicative constructions outlined in
section 3.
• Flagging (case affixes,adpositions)
Arguments in Ainu do not inflect for case,as in (12b).In ditransitive construction,both
R and T are unmarked,i.e.with respect to flagging,Ainu shows a docalignment:T=P=R.
(12a) sinrit oruspe e=nu rusuy kusu
ancestor story 2sg.A=hear desid because
‘Since you want to hear the story of the ancestors…’ (KI 432)
(12b) (eani)] [sinrit oruspe] an=e=nu-re na
R T
2sg ancestor story ind.A=2sg.O=hear-caus fin
‘I will tell you the story of the ancestors.’ (O3 207)
As mentioned,personal pronouns in the subject (A/S) and object (O) position are often
omitted but pronominal verbal markers are obligatory.
• Indexing (cross-referencing/agreement on the verb)
Arguments in Ainu are distinguished by obligatory indexing for A/S and O.There is only
one slot for marking the object on the verb and it is generally accepted in Ainu studies that
only the Recipient object can be cross-referenced (Satoo 2008: 147), as in (13c), which
should be regarded as a property of the secundative alignment.However,I would like to
argue here that in principle both objects can be cross-referenced on the verb (one at a
time) but in practice it is usually the Recipient object that is cross-referenced because
Recipients are typically animate and therefore may have first/second person referents,as
eci= [1sg.A+2sg.O] in (13c),while Theme objects are typically inanimate,so they auto-
matically fall under the third person with no overt marking,as in (13c) and (13d).In fact,
in texts I found one actual example of the Theme object cross-referencing in the ditran-
sitive construction which is used for an animate non-third person Theme,as in (13e).Note
that,in (13e),ind.A a= is used in the logophoric function,which is conventionally trans-
lated as ‘I’,and ind.Oi=is used in the second person honorific function,see Table 1.
STUF 64 (2011) 3 245
(13a) [ekasi] [húci]o nukar
A
grandfather grandmother see
‘Grandfather saw grandmother.’ (T1 26)
(13b) en=nukar
1sg.O=see
‘he/she/it sees me’ (T1 52)
(13c) [mokor usi-ke] eci =nukar-e kusu-ne na.
T R
sleep place/time-place 1sg.A+2sg.O=see-caus going.to-cop sgst
‘I will show you the bed.’ (KS#3058)
(13d) [a=po-utar-i] [a=aca-utar-i] a=nukar-e
T R
ind.A=child-pl-poss ind.A=uncle-pl-poss ind.A=see-caus
somo ki yak wen
neg do.aux if be.bad
‘We had to show our children to uncles.’ (K8010291UP.477)
(13e) [kamuy] ka neno a=i =nukar-e,
R T
god also like.this ind.A=ind.O=see-caus
[eani] ka neno a=i =nukar-e ruwe ne na.
R T
2sg also like.this ind.A=ind.O=see-caus inf.ev cop fin
‘(I did not swallow snakes.) I have just shown myself like this to the gods,I have
shown myself like this to you.’ (ST1 58)
According to Malchukovet al.(2010:54),“in Malayalam,as well as in a number of other
languages,only derived ditransitives (causatives and/or applicatives) appear in a double
object construction”, which probably means that derived ditransitives have a general
predilection for a double object construction.This claim is fully supported by the data of
Ainu,which has only derived ditransitives:I suggest that if a Theme object can be cross-
referenced on the base monotransitive, as in (13b), nothing would go against its cross-
referencing on the derived ditransitive,as in (13e).I would like to argue that examples like
(13e) are not ungrammatical8,they are just uncommon for pragmatic reasons.Although
with respect to indexing,Ainu most frequently shows a socalignment,as in (13d),it cannot
be ignored that a docalignment,as in (13e) is also possible in certain contexts.
• Word order
The ordering of the T and R with respect to each other is far from being random,too,and
interestingly,it seems to depend on the flagging of the two nominal arguments(Malchukov
et al.2010:17);it should be noted that pronominal arguments are usually not included in
the same discussions of word order because they surpass nominal arguments in topicality
and for this reason may cause a pragmatically determined change of the basic word order.
Cross-linguistically,non-pronominal arguments show the following tendencies:
• T-Rorder is the overwhelmingly dominant order in indirective constructionswhen R
is flagged by an adposition (Malchukovet al.2010:17).
8 The example in question occurred in a folktale narrated by one of the last fluent speakers of Ainu,
Mrs.Toshi Ueda (1912–2005),so one may possibly cast a doubt on its grammaticality.It is important
to find out whether similar examples occurred in the speech of earlier generations of Ainu speakers.
246 Anna Bugaeva, Ditransitive constructions in Ainu
• In secundative constructionsin SVO/VSO languages where T is flagged by a preposi-
tion,the order is invariably R-T(Heine &König2010).
• If both T and R are unflagged (neutral constructions),R generally precedes T (R-T)
because R is generally human (and often definite) and tends to be more topical than
the typically inanimate T (Malchukovet al.2010:18).
Tamura (1988/2000:181) mentions the R-T order as basic for the constructions encoded
by three-argument ditransitive verbs in Ainu,which complies with the above-mentioned
tendency.
(14) [poyson] [icen] kor-e (A)-R-T
R T
child money have-caus
‘(He) gave money to the child.’ (the glossing is mine) (T1 181)
However,one finds numerous word order variations in actual text.See the following
sentences with the predicate e-pakasnu<about.appl-teach.to> ‘teach sth to sb’ (vd):R-A-T
(3 occurrences), R-T-A (3 occurrences),A-R-T9 (1 occurrence),T-A-R (1 occurrence);
note that in most cases R precedes T even if the word order is not purely A-R-T.
(15) [menoko ne hike] [a=mac-ihi]
R A
woman cop person ind.A=wife-poss
[menoko monrayke] e-pakasnu
T
woman work about.appl-teach.to
‘To (our) daughters my wife taught women’s work.’ (SN.N) R-A-T
(16) [menoko ne hike] [menoko monrayke]
R T
woman cop person woman work
[a=mac-ihi] e-pakasnu
A
ind.A=wife-poss about.appl-teach.to
lit.‘To (our) daughters women’s work my wife taught.’ (SN.N) R-T-A
(17) [a=mac-ihi anak-ne] [menoko-po]
A R
ind.A=wife-poss top-cop woman-dim
[menoko monrayke] e-pakasnu
T
woman work about.appl-teach.to
‘As to my wife,she taught to the girls women’s work.’ (SN.N) A-R-T
(18) [kasi e-hanke uske ka] sorekus [a=ona-ha]
T A
top-poss appl-be.close place even especially ind.A=father-poss
[a=yup-utar-i] e-pakasnu-pa p ne kusu
R
ind.A=elder.brother-pl-poss about.appl-teach.to-pl nmlz cop because
‘Which area was closest to the village,all these things father had taught to older
brothers’ (K8007292UP.166) T-A-R
I suggest that these variations in the word order are pragmatically determined,while the
basic word order is R-T,as noted by Tamura(1988/2000:181);this issue requires extensive
corpus based research in the future.
9 Strictly speaking,(17) is not A-R-T proper but a topic construction with its special word-order prop-
erties.Three overt NPs in the order A-R-T can hardly appear in texts because A,which is typically the
most topical argument,is either omitted,as in (14),or topicalized,as in (17).
