Transitive marking in contact Englishes∗

Bibliographic Data

ID12059335
AuthorsMiriam Meyerhoff (0000-0002-2599-1870, corresponding author)
Year1996
Volume16
Issue1
Pages57-80
Publication date1996-03-01
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueAustralian Journal of Linguistics (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0726-8602 • E-ISSN: 1469-2996
PublisherTaylor & Francis (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/07268609608599531
OpenAlexW2085995619
LanguageEN
Citations received4
References cited12

The so‐called transitive suffix ‐IM in a sample of contact Englishes (CEs) occurs variably on main verbs in canonically transitive clauses. This paper considers whether ‐IM distribution can be accounted for if transitiveness is a range of syntactic‐semantic characteristics (Hopper & Thompson's (1980) ‘Transitivity'). This tests the universality of H&T's theory, and enriches our understanding of these CEs’ grammar. The interaction between ‐IM and complement form (NP, zero or PP) in five varieties of CEs is also investigated. A multivariate analysis establishes the significance of ten Transitivity factors, form of the complement, and variety of CE for presence of ‐IM. ‐IM marking correlates with four of H&T's factors, including the (canonical) existence of a complement, but it also correlates with irrealis mood ‐ a factor that H&T argue is low in Transitivity. A language‐specific feature, form of the complement, is also a constraint on ‐IM. Potential substrate models for a correlation with irrealis are considered and rejected

Combinatorics · Complement (music · Linguistics · Transitive relation · Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies · Linguistic Variation and Morphology · Mathematics · Multilingual Education and Policy · Philosophy

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub