Cover not available

In:Constructing Families of Constructions: Analytical perspectives and theoretical challenges
Edited by Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Alba Luzondo Oyón and Paula Pérez-Sobrino
[Human Cognitive Processing 58] 2017
► pp. 205–239

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Chapter 7
The family of German dative constructions

 | Université Saint-Louis, Brussels
 | University of Milan
Published online: 26 July 2017
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.58.08dek
Abstract
The chapter describes the variety of structures with datives in Valency Grammar and then in the framework of Goldberg’s Construction Grammar (1995; 2006). It addresses issues related to the semantic roles that can be expressed with dative objects, but also the difference between valency-dependent datives and free datives that appear in usage. The constructionist model offers new avenues for a unified description of constructions with datives, both for valency-dependent and free datives, and even for phraseologisms with a dative object. But German being a morphologically complex language, the constructionist model cannot do without describing the valency properties of the verbs in the constructions. Finally, the study provides evidence for the claim that constructions with a dative build a family.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Dative objects and free datives in Valency Grammar
    • 2.1Valency-dependent dative objects
    • 2.2Semantic roles
    • 2.3Free datives
      • 2.3.1Dativus commodi / dativus incommodi
      • 2.3.2Dativus possessivus
      • 2.3.3Dativus iudicantis
      • 2.3.4Dativus ethicus
  • 3.Construction-based description of datives
    • 3.1 beneficient- and recipient-constructions
      • 3.1.1 beneficient-construction
      • 3.1.2 recipient-construction: The ditransitive construction in German
    • 3.2 experiencer-constructions
      • 3.2.1 experiencer as argument
      • 3.2.2 experiencer as adjunct
  • 4.The family of datives
    • 4.1Family resemblance
    • 4.2Lexicon-grammar continuum: Phraseologisms with datives
  • 5.Conclusion and perspectives
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (57)
References
Boas, H. 2003. A constructional approach to resultatives. Standford: CSLI.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2011. Coercion and leaking argument structures in Construction Grammar. Linguistics, 49(6), 1271–1303. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Burger, H. 2010. Phraseologie. Eine Einführung am Beispiel des Deutschen, 4th edition. Berlin: Schmidt.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Knop, S., & Mollica, F. 2016. A construction-based study of German ditransitive phraseologisms for language pedagogy. In S. De Knop, & G. Gilquin (Eds.), Applied Construction Grammar. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W., & Aikhenvald, A. Y. (Eds.). 2000. Changing valency: Case studies in transitivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Donalies, E. 2009. Basiswissen Deutsche Phraseologie. Tübingen: Francke.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dowty, D. 1991. Thematic Proto-Roles and Argument Selection. Language, 67(3), 547–619. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Draye, L. 1996. The German dative. In W. Van Belle, & W. Van Langendonck (Eds.), The Dative: Volume 1: Descriptive studies (155–215). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Duden 2005. Duden Band 4. Die Grammatik. 7. neu bearbeitete Auflage. Mannheim: Duden.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Domínguez Vázquez, M. J. 2005. Die Präpositivergänzung im Deutschen und Spanischen. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ekberg, E. 2012. Aspekte des Dativs. Zur Relation zwischen der Dativ-DP und der Er-eignisstruktur der Verben in ditransitiven Konstruktionen im Deutschen. Lund: Media-Tryck.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Engel, U. 1996. Deutsche Grammatik. 3. korrigierte Auflage. Heidelberg. Julius Gross.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2004. Deutsche Grammatik. Neubearbeitung. München: Iudicium Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Engelberg, S. 2009. Blätter knistern über den Beton. Zwischenbericht aus einer korpuslinguistischen Studie zur Bewegungsinterpretation bei Geräuschverben. In E. Winker (Ed.), Konstruktionelle Varianz bei Verben. OPAL, 4 (75–97). Mannheim: Institut für Deutsche Sprache.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Engelberg, S., König, S., Proost, K., & Winkler, E. 2011. Argumentstrukturmuster als Konstruktionen? Identität – Verwandtschaft – Idiosynkrasien. In S. Engelberg, A. Holler, & K. Proost (Eds.), Sprachliches Wissen zwischen Lexikon und Grammatik (71–112). Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
E-Valbu: Das elektronische Valenzwörterbuch deutscher Verben. [URL]
Fleischer, W. 1997. Phraseologie der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fried, M. 2011. The notion of affectedness in expressing interpersonal functions. In M. Grygiel, & L. Janda (Eds.), Slavic linguistics in a cognitive framework (121–143). Frankfurt a M.: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2006. Constructions at work. The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gries, S. 2008. Phraseology and linguistic theory: A brief survey. In G. Sylviane, & F. Meunier (Eds.), Phraseology: An interdisciplinary perspective (3–25). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Helbig, G., & Buscha, J. 2001. Deutsche Grammatik. Ein Handbuch für den Ausländerunterricht. Neubearbeitung. Berlin: Langenscheidt.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Herbst, T. 2011. The Status of Generalizations. In T. Herbst, & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Argument Structure – Valency and/or constructions? ZAA: Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, LIX(4), 347–367.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2014. The valency approach to argument structure constructions. In T. Herbst, H.-J. Schmid, & S. Faulhaber (Eds.), Constructions – Collocations – Patterns (167–216). Berlin & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Herbst, T., Heath, D., Roe, I. F., & Götz, D. 2013. A valency dictionary of English. A corpus-based analysis of the complementation patterns of English verbs, nouns and adjectives. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hole, D. 2014. Dativ, Bindung und Diathese. Habilitationsschrift. Berlin & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jacobs, J. 2008. Wozu Konstruktionen? Linguistische Berichte, 213, 3– 44.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Keller, R. 1995. Zeichentheorie. Zu einer Theorie semiotischen Wissens. Tübingen: Francke.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levin, B. 1993. English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mellado, C. 2012. Zur syntaktisch-semantischen Charakterisierung des Pertinenzdativs im Deutschen und Spanischen. Eine vergleichende Studie. Sprachtheorie und Germanistische Linguistik, 22, 1–37.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mollica, F. 2014. Der Dativus ethicus im Deutschen aus konstruktionsgrammatischer Sicht. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik, 42(3), 349–378. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mollica, F., & Kuhn, J. 2013. Konstruktionen mit freiem Dativ in der Konstruktions- und Valenzgrammatik. In S. De Knop, F. Mollica, & J. Kuhn (Eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik in den romanischen Sprachen (227–259). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pittner, K., & Berman, J. 2007. Deutsche Syntax. Ein Arbeitsbuch. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Primus, B. 2012. Semantische Rollen. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Proost, K. 2014. Ditransitive transfer constructions and their prepositional variants in German and Romanian: An empirical survey. In R. Cosma, S. Engelberg, S. Schlotthauer, & G. Zifonun (Eds.), Komplexe Argumentstrukturen. Kontrastive Untersuchungen zum Deutschen, Rumänischen und Englischen (19–84). Boston & Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Proost, K., & Winkler, E. 2015. Familienähnlichkeiten deutscher Argumentstrukturmuster. Mannheim: Institut für Deutsche Sprache. OPAL – Online publizierte Arbeiten zur Linguistik 1.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rostila, J. 2007. Konstruktionsansätze zur Argumentmarkierung im Deutschen. Tampere: University of Tampere. [URL].
Schmid, J. 1988. Untersuchungen zum sogenannten freien Dativ in der Gegenwartssprache und auf Vorstufen des heutigen Deutsch. Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schöfer, G. 1992. Semantische Funktionen des deutschen Dativs. Vorschlag einer Alternative zur Diskussion um den homogenen/heterogenen Dativ der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Münster: Nodus.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. 2011. Argument structure: Idem-based or distributed? In T. Herbst, & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Argument Structure – Valency and/or constructions? ZAA: Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik LIX/4, 369–386.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thurmair, M. 1989. Modalpartikeln und ihre Kombinationen. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Verhoeven, E. 2010. Agentivity and stativity in experiencer verbs: Implications for a typology of verb classes. Linguistic Typology, 14(2–3), 213–251.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Voß, H. 2012. Grenzen grammatischer Willkür bei Wittgenstein. Frankfurt am Main: Ontos.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wegener, H. 1985. Der Dativ im heutigen Deutsch. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1989. Eine Modalpartikel besonderer Art: Der Dativus Ethicus. In H. Weydt, (Ed.), Sprechen mit Partikeln (56–73). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Welke, K. 1988. Einführung in die Valenz- und Kasustheorie. Leipzig: VEB Bibliographisches Institut.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2002. Deutsche Syntax funktional. Perspektivierheit syntaktischer Strukturen. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2009. Valenztheorie und Konstruktionsgrammatik. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik. 37(1): 81–124. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2011. Valenzgrammatik des Deutschen. Eine Einführung. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2012. Valenz und Konstruktion: das Passiv im Deutschen. In K. Fischer, & F. Mollica (Eds.), Valenz, Konstruktion und Deutsch als Fremdsprache (47–90). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2016. Attribution unter konstruktionsgrammatischem Aspekt. In M. Hennig (Ed.), Komplexe Attribution. Ein Nominalstilphänomen aus sprachhistorischer, grammatischer, typologischer und funktionalstilistischer Perspektive (57–95). Berlin & Boston: Walter de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(in prep.). Manuscript.
Wennerberg, H. 2011. Der Begriff der Familienähnlichkeit in Wittgensteins Spätphilosophie. In E. von Savigny (Ed.), Ludwig Wittgenstein. Philosophische Untersuchungen (33–54). Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Willems, K., & van Pottelberge, J. 1998. Geschichte und Systematik des adverbialen Dativs im Deutschen. Eine funktional-linguistische Analyse des morphologischen Kasus. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. 1984. Philosophische Untersuchungen. Werkausgabe in acht Bänden. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wulff, S. 2012. Idiomaticity. In P. Robinson (Ed.), The Routledge encyclopedia of second language acquisition (291–293). London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zifonun, G., Hoffmann, L., & Strecker, B. (Eds.) 1997. Grammatik der deutschen Sprache. Schriften des Instituts für Deutsche Sprache. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Knop, Sabine De
2020. Expressions of motion events in German: an integrative constructionist approach for FLT1. CogniTextes 20:Volume 20 DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2020. The Middle Voice in Baltic [Valency, Argument Realization and Grammatical Relations in Baltic, 5], DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2022. Bibliography. In A Cognitive Perspective on Spatial Prepositions [Human Cognitive Processing, 74], ► pp. 229 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 december 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue