On the linear order of ditransitive objects

Word order is a fairly fundamental means for speakers to structure discourses, even – or perhaps specifically – in languages that are claimed to use a “free word order”. In a typological study of object affixes and clitics, Gensler [Gensler, Orin, 2003. Object ordering in verbs marking two pronominal objects: non-explanation and explanation. Linguistic Typology 7(2), 187–231] comes to the conclusion that the relative linear order of direct and indirect object markers in his sample of 31 languages exhibits a random distribution which excludes any attempt at explanation based on natural functional principles, suggesting that “any functionally motivated approach to object-morpheme ordering seems out of place” (Gensler, 2003, p. 217).While affixes and clitics for direct objects and indirect objects in ditransitive constructions do not show any crosslinguistically uniform ordering pattern, the situation is less discouraging when it comes to nominal participants. As the findings of Primus [Primus, Beatrice, 1998. The relative order of recipient and patient in the languages of Europe. In: Siewieraka (1998b), pp. 421–473] on European languages suggest, there appear to be significant constraints on the linear order of ditransitive objects. The present paper pursues this line of research further by drawing on a larger corpus of languages across the world: On the basis of data on 390 ditransitive constructions from 315 languages it is argued that there is a small set of principles underlying communicative strategies that can be held responsible for crosslinguistic regularities of ordering objects in ditransitive constructions.