Universal 1209: incorporation of indirect objects ⇒ incorporation of non-agental subjects ⇒ incorporation of direct objects
Original
If a language incorporates indirect objects, then it also incorporates non-agental subjects and direct objects, and if a language incorporates non-agental subjects, then it also incorporates direct objects.
Standardized
IF indirect objects can be incorporated, THEN non-agental subjects and direct objects can also be incorporated; IF non-agental subjects can be incorporated, THEN direct objects can also be incorporated.
Keywords
incorporation, indirect object, direct object, non-agental subject
Domain
morphology, syntax
Type
implication
Status
achronic
Quality
absolute?
Basis
languages with object-incorporation, including Chukchi (Chukchi-Kamchatkan), Yana (Hokan), Kitonemuk (Uto-Aztecan), Gunbalang (Gunwingguan, Australian), Onondaga (Iroquoian), Aztec (Uto-Aztecan), Tongan, Fijian (both Oceanic, Eastern Malayo-Polynesian), Malagasy (Barito, Western Malayo-Polynesian), Turkish (Turkish, Altaic), and others
1. Mardirussian suggests that the three functional categories for nouns may be subsumed under an extension of the purely semantic notion “logical object”.2. Cf. a similar statement by Mithun, #1212. Mithun calls non-agental subjects patients of intransitive verbs. Cf. also Kozinsky’s claim (#188). 3. According to Baker (#1492) indirect objects cannot be incorporated.
1. Mardirussian suggests that the three functional categories for nouns may be subsumed under an extension of the purely semantic notion “logical object”.2. Cf. a similar statement by Mithun, #1212. Mithun calls non-agental subjects patients of intransitive verbs. Cf. also Kozinsky’s claim (#188). 3. According to Baker (#1492) indirect objects cannot be incorporated.