Transitive marking in contact Englishes

Abstract 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...