Object (grammar)

In linguistics, an '''object''' is any of several types of arguments.<ref>For descriptions of the traditional distinction between subject and object, see for instance Freeborn (1995:31) and Kesner Bland (1996:415).</ref> In subject-prominent, nominative-accusative languages such as English, a transitive verb typically distinguishes between its subject and any of its objects, which can include but are not limited to direct objects,<ref>{{cite news |title=What is a Direct Object? |newspaper=Glossary of Linguistic Terms |date=3 December 2015 |url=https://glossary.sil.org/term/direct-object |publisher=Summer Institute of Linguistics |access-date=14 March 2020}}</ref> indirect objects,<ref>{{cite web |title=What is an Indirect Object? |date=3 December 2015 |url=https://glossary.sil.org/term/indirect-object |publisher=Summer Institute of Linguistics |access-date=14 March 2020}}</ref> and arguments of adpositions (prepositions or postpositions); the latter are more accurately termed ''oblique arguments'', thus including other arguments not covered by core grammatical roles, such as those governed by case morphology (as in languages such as Latin) or relational nouns (as is typical for members of the Mesoamerican Linguistic Area). In ergative-absolutive languages, for example most Australian Aboriginal languages, the term "subject" is ambiguous, and thus the term "agent" is often used instead to contrast with "object", such that basic word order is described as agent–object–verb (AOV) instead of subject–object–verb (SOV).<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Deal |first1=Amy Rose |title=Syntactic Ergativity: Analysis and Identification |journal=Annual Review of Linguistics |date=2016 |volume=2 |pages=165–185 |doi=10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011415-040642|doi-access=free }}</ref> Topic-prominent languages, such as Mandarin, focus their grammars less on the subject-object or agent-object dichotomies but rather on the pragmatic dichotomy of topic and comment.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Dikken |first1=Marcel den |title=A comment on the topic of topic–comment |journal=Lingua |date=2003-12-29 |volume=115 |issue=5 |pages=691–710 |doi=10.1016/j.lingua.2003.11.005}}</ref>

==Types== ===English=== In English traditional grammar types, three types of object are acknowledged: ''direct objects'', ''indirect objects'', and ''objects of prepositions''. These object types are illustrated in the following table:

{| class="wikitable" |- ! Type !! Example |- | Direct object || She sees ''the dog'' |- | Indirect object || I gave ''the man'' salt |- | Object of preposition || You fish ''for salmon'' |}

Indirect objects are frequently expressed as objects of prepositions, complicating the traditional typology; e.g. "I gave salt ''to the man''."

===Other languages=== Some Chinese verbs can have two direct objects, one being more closely bound to the verb than the other; these may be called "inner" and "outer" objects.

Secundative languages lack a distinction between direct and indirect objects, but rather distinguish primary and secondary objects.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Klamer |first1=Marian |last2=Schapper |first2=Antoinette |date=2012 |title='Give' Constructions in the Papuan Languages of Timor -Alor-Pantar |journal=Linguistic Discovery |volume=10 |issue=3 |doi=10.1349/PS1.1537-0852.A.421 |doi-access=free}}</ref> Many African languages fall into this typological category.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Dryer |first=Matthew S. |date=December 1986 |title=Primary Objects, Secondary Objects, and Antidative |journal=Language |volume=62 |issue=4 |pages=808–845 |doi=10.2307/415173 |jstor=415173 }}</ref>

Several Slavic<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Janda |first=Laura A. |date=1993 |title=The Shape of the Indirect Object in Central and Eastern Europe |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/308461 |journal=The Slavic and East European Journal |volume=37 |issue=4 |pages=533–563 |doi=10.2307/308461 |jstor=308461 |issn=0037-6752|url-access=subscription }}</ref> and agglutinating languages (e.g. Turkish,<ref>{{Cite thesis |last=Knecht |first=Laura Ellen |title=Subject and object in Turkish |date=1985 |degree=Thesis |publisher=Massachusetts Institute of Technology |hdl=1721.1/15201 |url=https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/15201}}</ref> Hungarian, Finnish<ref>{{Citation |last=Hurskainen |first=Arvi |title=Subject and object case in English to Finnish Machine Translation |date=2018 |work=SALAMA - Swahili Language Manager |url=https://researchportal.helsinki.fi/en/publications/subject-and-object-case-in-english-to-finnish-machine-translation |access-date=2025-08-15 |series=Technical reports on language technology |place=Helsinki }}</ref>) 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.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Dalmi |first=Gréte |date=2011 |title=Dative Causatives in Hungarian |url=https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=107144 |journal=Roczniki Humanistyczne |language=English |volume=59 |issue=5 |pages=55–78 |issn=0035-7707}}</ref>

==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:

:::::{| class="wikitable" |- ! Category !! Example |- | Noun (phrase) or pronoun || The girl ate '''fruit'''. |- | ''that''-clause || We remembered '''that we had to bring something'''. |- | Bare clause || We remembered '''we had to bring something'''. |- | ''for''-clause || We were waiting '''for him to explain'''. |- | Interrogative clause || They asked '''what had happened'''. |- | Free relative clause || I heard '''what you heard'''. |- | Gerund (phrase or clause) || He stopped '''asking questions'''. |- | ''to''-infinitive || Sam attempted '''to leave'''. |- | Cataphoric ''it'' || I believe '''it''' that she said that. |- | Prepositional phrase || The student submitted his homework '''to the teacher'''. |}

==Identification== A number of criteria can be employed for identifying objects, e.g.:<ref>See Biber et al. (1999:126) for a similar list of characteristics that identify (direct) objects.</ref>

# Subject of passive sentence: Most objects in active sentences can become the subject in the corresponding passive sentences.<ref>Concerning the passive as a diagnostic for identifying objects, see for instance Freeborn (1995:175) and Biber et al. (1999:126).</ref> # 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.

* Fred gave me a book. * A book was given (to) me.<small>—Passive sentence identifies ''a book'' as an object in the starting sentence.</small> * I was given a book.<small>—Passive sentence identifies ''me'' as an object in the starting sentence.</small>

The second criterion is also a reliable criterion for analytic languages such as English, since the relatively strict word order of English usually positions the object after the verb(s) in declarative sentences. In the majority of languages with fixed word order, the subject precedes the object. However, the opposite is true for the very small proportion (approximately 2.9%) of the world's languages that utilize object–subject word order by default.<ref name=Dryer2013Chap81>{{cite book |last1=Dryer |first1=Matthew S.|author-link=Matthew Dryer |year=2013 |chapter=Order of Subject, Object and Verb |editor1-last=Dryer |editor1-first=Matthew S. |editor2-last=Haspelmath |editor2-first=Martin |title=The World Atlas of Language Structures Online |location=Leipzig |publisher=Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology |chapter-url=http://wals.info/chapter/81 }}</ref>

==Verb classes== Verbs can be classified according to the number and/or type of objects that they do or do not take. The following table provides an overview of some of the various verb classes:<ref>For a classification of transitive verbs along the lines used here but using different terminology, see for instance Conner (1968:103ff.).</ref>

:::::{| class="wikitable" |- ! Transitive verbs !! Number of objects !! Examples |- | Monotransitive || One object || I '''fed''' the dog. |- | Ditransitive || Two objects || You '''lent''' me a lawnmower. |- | Tritransitive || Three objects || I'll '''trade''' you this bicycle for your binoculars.<ref name="Askedal-2009">{{cite book |last=Mita |first=Ryohei |editor=John Ole Askedal |title=Germanic Languages and Linguistic Universals |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=WuD2Szy3TG4C&pg=PA121 |series=The development of the Anglo-Saxon language and linguistic universals, 1 |year=2009 |publisher=John Benjamins Publishing |isbn=978-90-272-1068-5 |pages=121– |chapter=On Tritransitive Verbs |oclc=901653606 |access-date=22 July 2019}} quoting {{cite book |last1=Huddleston |first1=Rodney |last2=Pullum |first2=Geoffrey K.  |title=The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=2yoQhHikxE8C |date=15 April 2002 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |page=219 |isbn=978-0-521-43146-0 |oclc=1109226511 |access-date=22 July 2019}}</ref> |- ! Intransitive verbs !! Semantic role of subject !! Examples |- | Unaccusative || Patient || The man '''stumbled''' twice, The roof '''collapsed'''. |- | Unergative || Agent || He '''works''' in the morning, They '''lie''' often. |}

Ergative<ref>Concerning ergative verbs, see for instance the Collins Cobuild English Grammar (1995:155f.) and Biber et al. (1999:155f.).</ref> and object-deletion verbs<ref>The term ''object-deletion verb'' is adopted from Biber et al. (1999:147). Such verbs are also called ''ambitransitive''.</ref> can be transitive or intransitive, as indicated in the following table:

::::::::::{| class="wikitable" |- ! Transitive !! Example |- | Ergative || The submarine '''sank''' the freighter. |- | Object deletion || We have already '''eaten''' dinner. |- ! Intransitive !! Example |- | Ergative || The freighter '''sank'''. |- | Object deletion || We have already '''eaten'''. |}

The distinction drawn here between ergative and object-deletion verbs is based on the role of the subject. The object of a transitive ergative verb is the subject of the corresponding intransitive ergative verb. With object-deletion verbs, in contrast, the subject is consistent regardless of whether an object is or is not present.

==In sentence structure== Objects are distinguished from subjects in the syntactic trees that represent sentence structure. The subject appears (as high or) higher in the syntactic structure than the object. The following trees of a dependency grammar illustrate the hierarchical positions of subjects and objects:<ref>Dependency trees similar to the ones produced here can be found in Ágel et al. (2003/6).</ref>

::Grammatical objects

The subject is in blue, and the object in orange. The subject is consistently a dependent of the finite verb, whereas the object is a dependent of the lowest non-finite verb if such a verb is present.

==Notes== {{reflist|2}}

==Literature== {{div col|colwidth=30em}} *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. et al. 1999. Longman Grammar of spoken and written English. Essex, England: Pearson Education limited. *Carnie, A. 2013. Syntax: A generative introduction, 3rd edition. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. *Collins Cobuild English Grammar 1995. London: HarperCollins Publishers. *Conner, J. 1968. A grammar of standard English. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. *Freeborn, D. 1995. A course book in English grammar: Standard English and the dialects, 2nd edition. London: MacMillan Press LTD. *Keenan, E. and B. Comrie 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8. 63–99. *Kesner Bland, S. Intermediate grammar: From form to meaning and use. New York: Oxford University Press. {{div col end}}

==External links== *[http://www.chompchomp.com/terms/directobject.htm Direct Objects] at [http://www.chompchomp.com chompchomp.com]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Object (grammar)}} Category:Syntactic entities