In:Diachronic Construction Grammar
Edited by Jóhanna Barðdal, Elena Smirnova, Lotte Sommerer and Spike Gildea
[Constructional Approaches to Language 18] 2015
► pp. 213–256
Constructionalization and post-constructionalization
The constructional semantics of the Dutch krijgen-passive from a diachronic perspective
Published online: 30 July 2015
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.18.07col
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.18.07col
The grammatical literature on Dutch generally distinguishes two “passive” alternatives to the active double object construction, one of which, the so-called krijgen-passive is a fairly recent addition to the grammar, the earliest reported examples dating from around 1900. The present chapter addresses the early and subsequent history of this construction from a diachronic constructionist perspective. The first part of the chapter uses data from the 1900–1935 volumes of the Dutch periodical De Gids to reconstruct the lexical and semantic range of the krijgen-passive in its very first decades of life, in order to investigate which (semantic and/or morphological) subclasses of ditransitive verbs played a pathbreaking role in the development of this new construction from other krijgen + participle constructions, i.e. in the constructionalization of the krijgen-passive. The second part of the chapter looks into post-constructionalization semantic change, i.e. into the subsequent expansion of the newly emerged construction towards more sub-classes of ditransitive verbs, on the basis of data from the diachronic CONDIV-corpus (1950s to 1990s). Contra recent non-constructionist proposals, it will be argued that the krijgen-passive is an argument structure construction in its own right, with a semantic dynamics of its own, and that the apparently random constraints on its present-day distribution are less puzzling when viewed against the background of the construction’s genesis and subsequent semantic expansion.
References (36)
Askedal, J.O. (2005). Grammatikalisierung und Persistenz im deutschen “Rezipienten-Passiv” mit bekommen/kriegen/erhalten
. In T. Leuschner, T. Mortelmans, & S. De Groodt (Eds.), Grammatikalisierung im Deutschen (pp. 211–228). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
. (2009). Some general evolutionary and typological characteristics of the Germanic languages. In J.O. Askedal, I. Roberts, T. Matsushita, & H. Hasegawa (Eds.), Germanic languages and linguistic universals (pp. 7–56). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Barðdal, J. (2008). Productivity: Evidence from case and argument structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Barðdal, J., Kristoffersen, K.E., & Sveen, A. (2011). West Scandinavian ditransitives as a family of constructions: With a special attention to the Norwegian ‘V-REFL-NP’ construction. Linguistics, 49, 53–104.
Colleman, T. (2006). De Nederlandse datiefalternantie: Een constructioneel en corpusgebaseerd onderzoek. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Ghent University.
. (2009a). The semantic range of the Dutch double object construction: A collostructional perspective. Constructions and Frames, 1, 190–220.
. (2009b). Verb disposition in argument structure alternations: A corpus study of the Dutch dative alternation. Language Sciences, 31, 593–611.
. (2011). Ditransitive verbs and the ditransitive construction: A diachronic perspective. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 59, 387–410.
Colleman, T., & De Clerck, B. (2011). Constructional semantics on the move: On semantic specialization in the English double object construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 22, 183–210.
Colleman, T., & Noël, D. (2012). The Dutch evidential NCI: A case of constructional attrition. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 13, 1–28.
Croft, W. (2003). Lexical rules vs. constructions: A false dichotomy. In H. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven, & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Motivation in language: Studies in honour of Günter Radden (pp. 49–68). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Diedrichsen, E. (2012). What you give is what you GET? On reanalysis, semantic extension and functional motivation with the German bekommen-passive construction. Linguistics, 50, 1163–1204.
Diewald, G. (1997). Grammatikalisierung. Eine Einführung in Sein und Werden grammatischer Formen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
. (2006). Context types in grammaticalization as constructions. In D. Schönefeld (Ed.), Constructions. Special Volume 1: Constructions all over - case studies and theoretical implications. [URL]
Glaser, E. (2005).
Krieg und kriegen: Zur Arealität der BEKOMMEN-Periphrasen. In U.K. Günther, A.H. Buhofer, & E. Piirainen (Eds.), “Krieg und Frieden” – Auseinandersetzung und Versöhnung in Diskursen (pp. 43–64). Tübingen: Francke.
Goldberg, A.E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
. (2002). Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics, 13, 327–356.
Haeseryn, W., Romijn, K., Geerts, G., de Rooij, J., & Toorn, M.C. van den. (1997). Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunst. Tweede, geheel herziene druk. Groningen: Martinus Nijhoff & Deurne: Wolters Plantyn.
Hopper, P. (1991). On some principles of grammaticalization. In E.C. Traugott, & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization (pp. 17–35). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Israel, M. (1996). The way constructions grow. In A.E. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language (pp. 217–230). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Landsbergen, F. (2006).
Krijgen, kriegen en get: een vergelijkend onderzoek naar betekenisverandering en grammaticalisatie. In M. Huening, A. Verhagen, U. Vogl, & T. van der Wouden (Eds.), Nederlands tussen Duits en Engels (pp. 259–272). Leiden: Stichting Neerlandistiek Leiden.
. (2009). Cultural evolutionary modeling of patterns in language change: Exercises in evolutionary linguistics. Utrecht: LOT publications.
Lenz, A.N. (2012). On the genesis of the German recipient passive – Two competing hypotheses in the light of current dialect data. In G. de Vogelaer, & G. Seiler (Eds.), The dialect laboratory: Dialects as a testing ground for theories of language change (pp. 121–138). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Leeuwen, M. van. (2006). Een baan aangeboden krijgen? Dat krijg ik nooit gedaan! Een synchroon en diachroon onderzoek naar de gebruiksmogelijkheden van krijgen + participium in het kader van de constructiegrammatica. Unpublished MA dissertation, University of Leiden.
Schermer-Vermeer, I. (1991). Substantiële versus formele taalbeschrijving: het indirect object in het Nederlands. Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam.
Schutter, G. de. (1989). Casussen, syntactische functietoekenning en gemarkeerdheid. Antwerp Papers in Linguistics 63.Antwerpen: Universiteit Antwerpen.
Cited by (11)
Cited by 11 other publications
Delaby, Gauthier & Timothy Colleman
2025. Constructional contamination between two constructions with krijgen ‘to get’ in Dutch. Constructions and Frames
Delaby, Gauthier, Timothy Colleman & Marithé Buysse
Feltgen, Quentin
Nielsen, Peter Juul
Budts, Sara & Peter Petré
2020. Putting connections centre stage in diachronic Construction
Grammar. In Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 27], ► pp. 317 ff.
Gyselinck, Emmeline
2020. (Re)shaping the constructional network. In Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 27], ► pp. 107 ff.
Höder, Steffen
Colleman, Timothy
2018. Distributional assimilation in constructional semantics. In Constructions in Contact [Constructional Approaches to Language, 24], ► pp. 143 ff.
Hilpert, Martin
2018. Three open questions in Diachronic Construction Grammar. In Grammaticalization Meets Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 21], ► pp. 21 ff.
Fanego, Teresa
Gyselinck, Emmeline & Timothy Colleman
2016. Tracking shifts in the literal versus the intensifying fake reflexive resultative construction. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 30 ► pp. 55 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
