Secundative languages lack a distinction between direct and indirect objects, but rather distinguish primary and secondary objects.[6] Many African languages fall into this typological category.[7]
Several Slavic[8] and agglutinating languages (e.g. Turkish,[9] Hungarian, Finnish[10]) use their case systems to differentiate between direct and indirect objects. The former is usually expressed in the accusative case, while the latter in the dative or allative case. Because of the structure of dative words in Hungarian, indirect objects are rather categorised as adjuncts, not objects.[11]
Syntactic category
While the typical object is a pronoun, noun, or noun phrase, objects can also appear as other syntactic categories, as illustrated in the following table for the English language:
Identification
A number of criteria can be employed for identifying objects, e.g.:[12]
Subject of passive sentence: Most objects in active sentences can become the subject in the corresponding passive sentences.[13]
Position occupied: In languages with strict word order, the subject and the object tend to occupy set positions in unmarked declarative clauses.
Morphological case: In languages that have case systems, objects are marked by certain cases (accusative, dative, genitive, instrumental, etc.).
Languages vary significantly with respect to these criteria. The first criterion identifies objects reliably most of the time in English, e.g.
↑クラマー、マリアン。シャッパー、アントワネット (2012)。」ティモール・アロール・パンタールのパプア諸語における「与える」構文」 . Linguistic Discovery . 10 (3). doi : 10.1349/PS1.1537-0852.A.421 .
↑ Dryer, Matthew S. (1986 年 12 月). 「主要目的語、二次目的語、および反格」. Language . 62 (4): 808–845 . doi : 10.2307/415173 . JSTOR 415173 .
↑ Janda, Laura A. (1993). "中央および東ヨーロッパにおける間接目的語の形状" . The Slavic and East European Journal . 37 (4): 533– 563. doi : 10.2307/308461 . ISSN 0037-6752 . JSTOR 308461 .
↑Knecht, Laura Ellen (1985). Subject and object in Turkish (Thesis thesis). Massachusetts Institute of Technology. hdl:1721.1/15201.
↑Hurskainen, Arvi (2018), "Subject and object case in English to Finnish Machine Translation", SALAMA - Swahili Language Manager, Technical reports on language technology, Helsinki, retrieved 2025-08-15
↑See Biber et al. (1999:126) for a similar list of characteristics that identify (direct) objects.
↑Concerning the passive as a diagnostic for identifying objects, see for instance Freeborn (1995:175) and Biber et al. (1999:126).
↑Dryer, Matthew S. (2013). "Order of Subject, Object and Verb". In Dryer, Matthew S.; Haspelmath, Martin (eds.). The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.
↑For a classification of transitive verbs along the lines used here but using different terminology, see for instance Conner (1968:103ff.).
↑Mita, Ryohei (2009). "On Tritransitive Verbs". In John Ole Askedal (ed.). Germanic Languages and Linguistic Universals. The development of the Anglo-Saxon language and linguistic universals, 1. John Benjamins Publishing. pp.121–. ISBN978-90-272-1068-5. OCLC901653606. Retrieved 22 July 2019. quoting Huddleston, Rodney; Pullum, Geoffrey K. (15 April 2002). The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge University Press. p.219. ISBN978-0-521-43146-0. OCLC1109226511. Retrieved 22 July 2019.
↑Concerning ergative verbs, see for instance the Collins Cobuild English Grammar (1995:155f.) and Biber et al. (1999:155f.).
↑The term object-deletion verb is adopted from Biber et al. (1999:147). Such verbs are also called ambitransitive.
↑Dependency trees similar to the ones produced here can be found in Ágel et al. (2003/6).
Literature
Ágel, V., L. Eichinger, H.-W. Eroms, P. Hellwig, H. Heringer, and H. Lobin (eds.) 2003/6. Dependency and valency: An international handbook of contemporary research. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Biber, D. 他 1999. Longman Grammar of spoken and written English. エセックス、イングランド:Pearson Education limited.
Carnie, A. 2013. Syntax: A generative introduction, 3rd edition. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.