1887
  1. Home
  2. Books
  3. The Ditransitive Alternation in Present-Day German

The Ditransitive Alternation in Present-Day German

A corpus-based analysis

image of The Ditransitive Alternation in Present-Day German
USD
Buy:$165.00 + Taxes

The ditransitive (or “dative”) alternation is a much-studied phenomenon in contemporary linguistics. This monograph is the first to address the alternation in present-day written German from both a quantitative and qualitative perspective. As well as providing a corpus-based analysis of extensively annotated data and detailed statistical information, the book also contributes to the theory of language by developing an alternative framework to existing investigations of the alternation. It is shown that the alternation can be accounted for in a comprehensive way by adopting a three-layer approach to meaning and sense based on the work of E. Coseriu and S. Levinson. In this approach, a construction’s language-specific encoded meaning is distinguished both from its conventional (“normal”) uses and its discourse-specific interpretations in particular contexts. The monograph is likely to attract attention from researchers in the fields of German and English linguistics, general and contrastive linguistics as well as linguistic theory.

References

  1. “grammis”, Grammatisches Informationssystem
    “grammis”, Grammatisches Informationssystem. Retrieved fromgrammis.ids-mannheim.de
  2. Adler, Julia
    2011 Dative alternations in German. The argument realization options of transfer verbs. Doctoral dissertation, Hebrew University: Jerusalem.
  3. Ágel, Vilmos
    2000 Valenztheorie. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. 2015 Brisante Gegenstände. Zur valenztheoretischen integrierbarkeit von Konstruktionen. In Stefan Engelberg , Meike Meliss , Kristel Proost and Edeltraud Winkler (Eds.), Argumentstruktur zwischen Valenz und Konstruktion, 61–87. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. 2017 Grammatische Textanalyse: Textglieder, Satzglieder, Wortgruppenglieder. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110409796
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110409796 [Google Scholar]
  6. Ágel, Vilmos and Eichinger, Ludwig
    2003 Dependenz und Valenz : Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110141900.1
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110141900.1 [Google Scholar]
  7. Ágel, Vilmos and Fischer, Klaus
    2010 Dependency Grammar and Valency Theory. In Bernd Heine and Heiko Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis, 223–255. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Agricola, Erhard
    1957 Fakultative sprachliche Formen. In Theodor Frings and Elisabeth Karg-Gasterstädt (Eds.), Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur, Vol.79 – Sonderband, 43–76. Halle/Saale: Max Niemeyer.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. 1962 Wörter und Wendungen. Wörterbuch zum deutschen Sprachgebrauch. Leipzig: VEB Bibliographisches Institut.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Aissen, Judith
    1999 Markedness and subject choice in Optimality Theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory17, 673–711. 10.1023/A:1006335629372
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006335629372 [Google Scholar]
  11. Ariel, Mira
    2008 Pragmatics and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511791314
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791314 [Google Scholar]
  12. 2010 Defining Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511777912
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511777912 [Google Scholar]
  13. Atlas, Jay David
    2005 Logic, Meaning, and Conversation: Semantical Underdeterminancy, Implicature, and their Interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195133004.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195133004.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  14. Bach, Kent
    2010 Impliciture vs Explicature: What’s the difference?In María Belén Soria Casaverde and Esther Romero (Eds.), Explicit Communication: Robyn Carston’s Pragmatics, 126–137. Basingstoke: Palgrave. 10.1057/9780230292352_8
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230292352_8 [Google Scholar]
  15. Baker, Mark
    1989 Object sharing and projection in serial verb constructions. Linguistic Inquiry20(4), 513–553.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Barðdal, Jóhanna
    2007 The Semantic and Lexical Range of the Ditransitive Construction in the History of (North) Germanic. Functions of Language14(1), 9–30. 10.1075/fol.14.1.03bar
     https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.14.1.03bar [Google Scholar]
  17. Bates, Douglas , Maechler, Martin , Bolker, Ben and Walker, Steve
    2015 Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software67(1), 1–48. 10.18637/jss.v067.i01
     https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 [Google Scholar]
  18. Beavers, John
    2011 An Aspectual Analysis of Ditransitive Verbs of Caused Possession in English. Journal of Semantics28, 1–54. 10.1093/jos/ffq014
     https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffq014 [Google Scholar]
  19. Behaghel, Otto
    1932 Deutsche Syntax. Eine geschichtliche Darstellung. Vol. IV: Wortstellung. Periodenbau. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Belligh, Thomas
    2018 The role of referential givenness in Dutch alternating presentational constructions. Belgian Journal of Linguistics32, 21–52. 10.1075/bjl.00015.bel
     https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.00015.bel [Google Scholar]
  21. Belligh, Thomas and Willems, Klaas
    2021 What’s in a code? The code-inference distinction in Neo-Gricean Pragmatics, Relevance Theory, and Integral Linguistics. Language Sciences83(1). 10.1016/j.langsci.2020.101310
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2020.101310 [Google Scholar]
  22. Bernaisch, Tobias , Gries, Stefan Th. and Mukherjee, Joybrato
    2014 The dative alternation in South Asian English(es). English World-Wide35(1), 7–31. 10.1075/eww.35.1.02ber
     https://doi.org/10.1075/eww.35.1.02ber [Google Scholar]
  23. Bickel, Balthasar
    2011 Grammatical Relations Typology. In Jae Jung Song (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology, 399–444. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Boas, Hans C. and Ziem, Alexander
    2018a Approaching German syntax from a constructionist perspective. In Hans C. Boas and Alexander Ziem (Eds.), Constructional Approaches to Syntactic Structures in German, 1–44. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110457155‑001
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110457155-001 [Google Scholar]
  25. 2018b Constructional Approaches to Syntactic Structures in German. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110457155
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110457155 [Google Scholar]
  26. Bock, Kathryn J.
    1986 Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology18, 355–387. 10.1016/0010‑0285(86)90004‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(86)90004-6 [Google Scholar]
  27. Bolinger, Dwight L.
    1968 Entailment and the Meaning of Structures. Glossa2, 119–127.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Bresnan, Joan
    2007 Is syntactic knowledge probabilistic? Experiments with the English dative alternation. In Sam Featherston and Wolfgang Sternefeld (Eds.), Roots: Linguistics in search of its evidential base77–96. Berlin: De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Bresnan, Joan , Cueni, Anna , Nikitina, Tatiana and Baayen, Harald
    2007 Predicting the Dative Alternation. Paper presented at theCognitive Foundations of Interpretation Colloquium, Amsterdam.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Bresnan, Joan and Ford, Marilyn
    2010 Predicting Syntax: Processing Dative Constructions in American and Australian Varieties of English. Language86(1), 168–213. 10.1353/lan.0.0189
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.0.0189 [Google Scholar]
  31. Bresnan, Joan and Nikitina, Tatiana
    2003 On the Gradience of the Dative Alternation. Paper presented at theMIT Linguistics Department Colloquium, Cambridge MASS. Retrieved fromweb.stanford.edu/~bresnan/new-dative.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Bybee, Joan
    2006 From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language82(4), 711–733. 10.1353/lan.2006.0186
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2006.0186 [Google Scholar]
  33. 2013 Usage-based Theory and Exemplar Representations of Constructions. In Thomas Hoffmann and Graeme Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, 49–69. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Cappelle, Bert
    2006 Particle placement and the case for “allostructions”. In Doris Schönefeld (Ed.), Constructions All Over: Case Studies and Theoretical Implications. Special volume1, Constructions. 10.24338/cons‑381
     https://doi.org/10.24338/cons-381 [Google Scholar]
  35. Carston, Robyn
    2002a Linguistic meaning, Communicated Meaning and Cognitive Pragmatics. Mind & language17(1–2), 127–148. 10.1111/1468‑0017.00192
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0017.00192 [Google Scholar]
  36. 2002b Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of explicit Communication. Malden, MA: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470754603
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470754603 [Google Scholar]
  37. 2008 Linguistic Communication and the Semantics/Pragmatics Distinction. Synthese165, 321–345. 10.1007/s11229‑007‑9191‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-007-9191-8 [Google Scholar]
  38. Carston, Robyn
    2012 Word Meaning and Concept Expressed. The Linguistic Review29(4), 607–623. 10.1515/tlr‑2012‑0022
     https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2012-0022 [Google Scholar]
  39. Chomsky, Noam
    2002 [1957] Syntactic Structures. Berlin: De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Coene, Ann
    2006 Lexikalische Bedeutung, Valenz und Koerzion. Hildesheim: Georg Olms.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Coene, Ann and Willems, Klaas
    2006 Konstruktionelle Bedeutungen. Kritische Anmerkungen zu Adele Goldbergs konstruktiongrammatischer Bedeutungstheorie. Sprachtheorie und germanistische Linguistik16(1), 1–35.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Colleman, Timothy
    2006 De Nederlandse datiefalternantie: een constructioneel en corpusgebaseerd onderzoek. Doctoral dissertation, UGent: Gent.
  43. 2009 Verb disposition in argument structure alternations. A corpus study of the Dutch dative alternation. Language Sciences31, 593–611. 10.1016/j.langsci.2008.01.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2008.01.001 [Google Scholar]
  44. Collins, Peter
    1995 The indirect object construction in English: an informational approach. Linguistics33, 35–49. 10.1515/ling.1995.33.1.35
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1995.33.1.35 [Google Scholar]
  45. Coseriu, Eugenio
    1970 Bedeutung und Bezeichnung im Lichte der strukturellen Semantik. In Peter Hartmann and Henri Vernay (Eds.), Sprachwissenschaft und Übersetzen, 104–124. München: Max Hueber.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. 1972 Semantik und Grammatik. In Hugo Moser (Ed.), Neue Grammatiktheorien und ihre Anwendung auf das heutige Deutsch, 77–89. Düsseldorf: Schwan.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. 1975 [1962] Sprachtheorie und allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft. München: Wilhelm Fink.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. 1978a Die lexematischen Strukturen. In Horst Geckeler (Ed.), Strukturelle Bedeutungslehre, 254–273. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. 1978b Einführung in die strukturelle Betrachtung des Wortschatzes. In Horst Geckeler (Ed.), Strukturelle Bedeutungslehre, 193–238. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. 1979 Sprache, Strukturen und Funktionen, 3. durchgesehene und verbesserte Auflage. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. 1985 Linguistic Competence: What is it really?The Modern Language Review80(4), xxv–xxxv. 10.2307/3729050
     https://doi.org/10.2307/3729050 [Google Scholar]
  52. 1987 Formen und Funktionen: Studien zur Grammatik. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. 1992 [1988] Einführung in die Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft. Tübingen: Franke.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. 2001 L’ homme et son langage. Louvain & Paris: Peeters.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. 2007 Sprachkompetenz. Grundzüge der Theorie des Sprechens (2nd ed.). Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Croft, William
    2001 Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  57. 2012 Verbs: aspect and causal structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199248582.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199248582.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  58. Croft, William , Barðdal, Jóhanna , Hollmann, Willem , Nielsen, Maaike , Sotirova, Violeta and Taoka, Chiaki
    2001 Discriminating Verb Meanings: the Case of Transfer Verbs. Paper presented at theLAGB Autumn Meeting, Reading.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Czypionka, Anna , Spalek, Katharina , Wartenburger, Isabell and Krifka, Manfred
    2017 On the interplay of object animacy and verb type during sentence comprehension in German: ERP evidence from the processing of transitive and accusative constructions. Linguistics55(6), 1383–1433. 10.1515/ling‑2017‑0031
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2017-0031 [Google Scholar]
  60. Dal, Ingerid
    1966 Kurze deutsche Syntax auf historischer Grundlage. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. De Cuypere, Ludovic
    2008 Limiting the iconic. From the metatheoretical foundations to the creative possibilities of iconicity in language. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ill.6
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ill.6 [Google Scholar]
  62. 2013 Debiasing semantic analysis: the English preposition to. Language Sciences37, 122–135. 10.1016/j.langsci.2012.12.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2012.12.002 [Google Scholar]
  63. De Cuypere, Ludovic , Vanderschueren, Clara and De Sutter, Gert
    (Eds.) 2017 Current trends in analyzing syntactic variation. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. De Cuypere, Ludovic and Verbeke, Saartje
    2013 A corpus-based analysis of dative alternation in Indian English. World Englishes32(2), 169–184. 10.1111/weng.12017
     https://doi.org/10.1111/weng.12017 [Google Scholar]
  65. De Vaere, Hilde , De Cuypere, Ludovic and Willems, Klaas
    2018 Alternating constructions with ditransitive geben in present-day German. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 17(1): 73–107. 10.1515/cllt‑2017‑0072
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2017-0072 [Google Scholar]
  66. 2021 Constructional variation with two near-synonymous verbs: the case of schicken and senden in present-day German. Language Sciences83(1): 101313. 10.1016/j.langsci.2020.101313
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2020.101313 [Google Scholar]
  67. De Vaere, Hilde , Kolkmann, Julia and Belligh, Thomas
    2020 Allostructions revisited. Journal of Pragmatics170, 96–111. 10.1016/j.pragma.2020.08.016
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.08.016 [Google Scholar]
  68. Diessel, Holger
    2017 Usage-Based Linguistics. In Marc Aronoff (Ed.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved fromhttps://oxfordre.com/linguistics/. 10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.363
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.363 [Google Scholar]
  69. 2019 The Grammar Network. How Linguistic Structure is Shaped by Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108671040
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108671040 [Google Scholar]
  70. Dietrich, Wolf
    1997 Polysemie als ‘volle Wortbedeutung’ – gegen die ‘Mehrdeutigkeit der Zeichen’. In Ulrich Hoinkes and Wolf Dietrich (Eds.), Kaleidoskop der Lexikalischen Semantik, 227–238. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Dik, Simon C.
    1997 The Theory of Functional Grammar. Complex and Derived Constructions. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110218374
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110218374 [Google Scholar]
  72. Dominguez Vázquez, María José
    2018 Was sind Valenzwörterbücher. Sprachwissenschaft43(3), 309–342.
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Du, Rong
    2009 Zur Alternation von Doppelobjekt- und Präpositionalkonstruktion bei Besitzwechselverben im Deutschen und Chinesischen. Eine kontrastive Untersuchung. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Duden
    Duden 1973 Grammatik der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Mannheim: Bibliographisches Institut.
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Duden
    Duden 2006 Die Grammatik (7th ed.). Mannheim: Dudenverlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Duden
    Duden 2016 Die Grammatik (9th ed.). Berlin: Dudenverlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Dürscheid, Christa
    1999 Die verbalen Kasus des Deutschen. Untersuchungen zur Syntax, Semantik und Perspektive. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110810066
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110810066 [Google Scholar]
  78. DWDS
    DWDS. Digitales Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache. Retrieved fromhttps://www.dwds.de/
  79. Eichinger, Ludwig
    2015 Kookkurrenz und Dependenz. Konkurrierende Prinzipien oder einander ergänzende Beobachtungen?In Stefan Engelberg , Meike Meliss , Kristel Proost and Edeltraud Winkler (Eds.), Argumentstruktur zwischen Valenz und Konstruktion, 89–107. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Eisenberg, Peter
    2006 Der Satz. Grundriss der deutschen Grammatik. Stuttgart & Weimar: Metzler.
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Engel, Ulrich and Schumacher, Helmut
    1978 Kleines Valenzlexikon deutscher Verben. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Erben, Johannes
    1960 Gesetz und Freiheit in der deutschen Hochsprache der Gegenwart. Der Deutschunterricht12(5), 9–148.
     [Google Scholar]
  83. 1967 Abriss der deutschen Grammatik. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Eroms, Hans-Werner and Heringer, Hans Jürgen
    2003 Dependenz und lineare Ordnung. In Vilmos Ágel , Ludwig M. Eichinger , Hans-Werner Eroms , Peter Hellwig , Hans Jürgen Heringer and Henning Lobin (Eds.), Dependenz und Valenz. Dependency and Valency, 247–263. Berlin: De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  85. Erteschik-Shir, Nomi
    1979 Discourse Constraints on Dative Movement. In Talmy Givón (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics 12: Discourse and Syntax, 441–467. New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Ferreira, Fernanda and Patson, Nikole D.
    2007 The ‘Good Enough’ Approach to Language Comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass1(1–2), 71–83. 10.1111/j.1749‑818X.2007.00007.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2007.00007.x [Google Scholar]
  87. Ferreira, Victor S.
    1996 Is it better to give than to donate? Syntactic flexibility in language production. Journal of Memory and Language35(5), 724–755. 10.1006/jmla.1996.0038
     https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1996.0038 [Google Scholar]
  88. Fillmore, Charles J.
    1968 The case for case. In Emmon Bach and Robert T. Harms (Eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory, 21–119. New York: Rinehart and Winston.
     [Google Scholar]
  89. 1977 The case for case reopened. In Peter Cole and Jerrold Murray Sadock (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics – Grammatical relations, 59–81. New York, San Francisco & London: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  90. 1982 Frame Semantics. InThe linguistic society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm, 111–137. Seoul: Hanshin.
     [Google Scholar]
  91. Fischer, Kerstin and Stefanowitsch, Anatol
    2008 Konstruktionsgrammatik. Von der Anwendung zur Theorie. Zweite Auflage. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
     [Google Scholar]
  92. Fischer, Klaus
    2013 Satzstrukturen im Deutschen und Englischen: Typologie und Textrealisierung. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. 10.1515/9783050064291
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783050064291 [Google Scholar]
  93. Ford, Marilyn and Bresnan, Joan
    2013 “They whispered me the answer” in Australia and the US: A comparative experimental study. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  94. Fox, John
    2003 Effect Displays in R for Generalised Linear Models. Journal of Statistical Software8(15), 1–27. 10.18637/jss.v008.i15
     https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v008.i15 [Google Scholar]
  95. Fox, John and Weisberg, Sanford
    2019 An {R} Companion to Applied Regression, Third Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
     [Google Scholar]
  96. Frisson, Steven
    2009 Semantic Underspecification in Language Processing. Language and Linguistics Compass3(1), 111–127. 10.1111/j.1749‑818X.2008.00104.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00104.x [Google Scholar]
  97. 2015 About bound and scary books: The processing of book polysemies. Lingua157, 17–35. 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.07.017
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.07.017 [Google Scholar]
  98. Frisson, Steven and Pickering, Martin J.
    1999 The Processing of Metonymy: Evidence from Eye Movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition25, 1366–1383.
     [Google Scholar]
  99. Gadler, Hanspeter
    1982 Zur Serialisierung nominaler Satzglieder im Mittelfeld und zur Topikalisierung. In Werner Abraham (Ed.), Satzglieder im Deutschen, 155–169. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
     [Google Scholar]
  100. Gast, Volker
    2007 I gave it him – on the motivation of the ‘alternative double object construction’ in varieties of British English. Functions of Language14(1), 31–56. 10.1075/fol.14.1.04gas
     https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.14.1.04gas [Google Scholar]
  101. Geckeler, Horst
    1971 Zur Wortfelddiskussion. Untersuchungen zur Gliederung des Wortfeldes ‘alt – jung – neu’ im heutigen Französisch. München: Wilhelm Fink
     [Google Scholar]
  102. Geeraerts, Dirk
    2010 Theories of Lexical Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  103. Geleyn, Tim
    2016 Constructies in variatie en verandering: diachroon corpusonderzoek naar de Nederlandse aan-constructie vanuit semasiologisch en onomasiologisch perspectief. Doctoral dissertation, UGent: Gent.
  104. Gerwin, Johanna
    2013 Give it me!: pronominal ditransitives in English dialects. English Language and Linguistics17(3), 445–463. 10.1017/S1360674313000117
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674313000117 [Google Scholar]
  105. Givón, Talmy
    1984 Syntax: A functional-typological introduction. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.17
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.17 [Google Scholar]
  106. 2018 [1979] On Understanding Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  107. Glinz, Hans
    1965 Innere Form des Deutschen. Eine neue deutsche Grammatik. Bern: Francke.
     [Google Scholar]
  108. Goldberg, Adele E.
    1992 Construction Grammar. The inherent semantics of argument structure: The case of the English ditransitive construction. Cognitive Linguistics3(1), 37–74. 10.1515/cogl.1992.3.1.37
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1992.3.1.37 [Google Scholar]
  109. 1995 Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  110. 2002 Surface Generalisations: an alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics13(4), 327–356. 10.1515/cogl.2002.022
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2002.022 [Google Scholar]
  111. 2003 Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Science7(5), 219–224. 10.1016/S1364‑6613(03)00080‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00080-9 [Google Scholar]
  112. 2006 Constructions at Work: the Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  113. 2019 Explain me this: Creativity, Competition, and the Partial Productivity of Constructions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  114. Grafmiller, Jason and Szmrecsanyi, Benedict
    2018 Mapping out particle placement in Englishes around the world. A study in comparative sociolinguistic analysis. Language Variation and Change30(3), 385–412. 10.1017/S0954394518000170
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394518000170 [Google Scholar]
  115. Green, Georgia
    1974 Semantics and Syntactic Regularity. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  116. Grice, H. Paul
    1989 [1967] Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  117. 1993 Logik und Konversation. In Georg Meggle (Ed.), Handlung, Kommunikation, Bedeutung, 243–265. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
     [Google Scholar]
  118. Gries, Stefan Th.
    2003a Multifactorial Analysis in Corpus Linguistics: A study of Particle Placement. London: Continuum Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  119. Gries, Stefan Th.
    2003b Towards a corpus-based identification of prototypical instances of constructions. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics1, 1–28. 10.1075/arcl.1.02gri
     https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.1.02gri [Google Scholar]
  120. Gries, Stefan Th
    2005 Syntactic priming: a corpus based approach. Journal of psycholinguistic research34, 365–399. 10.1007/s10936‑005‑6139‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-005-6139-3 [Google Scholar]
  121. Gries, Stefan Th. and Stefanowitsch, Anatol
    2004 Extending collostructional analysis. A corpus-based perspective on alternations. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics9(1), 97–129. 10.1075/ijcl.9.1.06gri
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.9.1.06gri [Google Scholar]
  122. Gries, Stefan Th. and Wulff, Stefanie
    2013 The genitive alternation in Chinese and German ESL learners: towards a multifactorial notion of context in learner corpus research. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics18(3), 327–356. 10.1075/ijcl.18.3.04gri
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.18.3.04gri [Google Scholar]
  123. Grimm, Jacob and Grimm, Wilhelm
    1845–1961 Deutsches Wörterbuch. Leipzig: Hirzel.
     [Google Scholar]
  124. Groefsema, Marjolein
    2001 The real-world colour of the dative alternation. Language Sciences23(4–5), 525–550. 10.1016/S0388‑0001(00)00035‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0388-0001(00)00035-8 [Google Scholar]
  125. Gropen, Jess , Pinker, Steven , Hollander, Michelle , Goldberg, Richard and Wilson, Ronald
    1989 The learnability and Acquisition of the Dative Alternation in English. Language65(2), 203–257. 10.2307/415332
     https://doi.org/10.2307/415332 [Google Scholar]
  126. Gundel, Jeanette
    2003 Information Structure and Referential Givenness/Newness: How Much Belongs in the Grammar?Paper presented at the10th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Michigan State University.
     [Google Scholar]
  127. Gundel, Jeanette and Fretheim, Thorstein
    2004 Topic and focus. In Lawrence Horn and Gregory Ward (Eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics, 175–196. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  128. Gundel, Jeanette , Hedberg, Nancy and Zacharski, Ron
    1993 Cognitive Status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language69, 274–307. 10.2307/416535
     https://doi.org/10.2307/416535 [Google Scholar]
  129. Harley, Heidi
    2003 Possession and the double object construction. In Pierre Pica and Johan Rooryck (Eds.), Linguistic Variation Yearbook, Vol.2, 31–70. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  130. Harrel, Frank
    2015 Regression Modeling Strategies. With Applications to Linear Models, Logistic and Ordinal Regression, and Survival Analysis. Berlin: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑19425‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19425-7 [Google Scholar]
  131. Harrell, Frank E. Jr.
    2019 rms: Regression Modeling Strategies. R package version 5.1–3.1. Retrieved fromhttps://CRAN.R-project.org/package=rms
  132. Harrell, Frank E. Jr. , Dupont, Charles
    and others, with contributions from many 2019 Hmisc: Harrell Miscellaneous, R package version 4.2–0. Retrieved fromhttps://CRAN.R-project.org/package=Hmisc
  133. Haspelmath, Martin
    2010 Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies. Language86, 663–387. 10.1353/lan.2010.0021
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2010.0021 [Google Scholar]
  134. 2012 Escaping ethnocentrism in the study of word-class universals. Theoretical Linguistics38(1–2), 91–102. 10.1515/tl‑2012‑0004
     https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2012-0004 [Google Scholar]
  135. Haspelmath, Martin
    2013 Ditransitive Constructions: The Verb ‘Give’. Retrieved fromwals.info/chapter/105
  136. Haspelmath, Martin
    2015 Ditransitive Constructions. The Annual Review of Linguistics1, 19–41. 10.1146/annurev‑linguist‑030514‑125204
     https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-125204 [Google Scholar]
  137. Haspelmath, Martin and Baumann, Luisa
    2013 German Valency Patterns. Valency Patterns Leipzig. Retrieved fromvalpal.info/languages/german
     [Google Scholar]
  138. Helbig, Gerhard
    1973 Die funktionen der substantivischen Kasus in der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Habilitationsschrift, Verlag Enzyklopädie: Leipzig.
     [Google Scholar]
  139. Helbig, Gerhard and Schenkel, Wolfgang
    1983 Wörterbuch zur Valenz und Distribution deutscher Verben. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.
     [Google Scholar]
  140. Hens, Gregor
    1995 Ditransitive Constructions in German. Doctoral dissertation, University of California: Berkeley.
  141. Heringer, Hans Jürgen
    1984 Neues von der Verbszene. In Gerhard Stickel (Ed.), Pragmatik in der Grammatik, 34–64. Düsseldorf: Cornelsen.
     [Google Scholar]
  142. Heuer, Knut
    1977 Untersuchung zur Abgrenzung der obligatorischen und fakultativen Valenz des Verbs. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  143. Hilpert, Martin
    2014 Construction Grammar and its Application to English. Edinburg: Edinburg University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  144. Höllein, Dagobert
    2019 Präpositionalobjekt vs. Adverbial. Die semantischen Rollen der Präpositionalobjekte. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110628302
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110628302 [Google Scholar]
  145. 2021 Coseriu, significative semantics and a new system of semantic roles. In Klaas Willems and Cristinel Munteanu (Eds.), Eugenio Coseriu. Past, present and future, 261–278. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110712391‑016
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110712391-016 [Google Scholar]
  146. Isačenko, Alexander
    1965 Das syntaktische Verhältnis der Bezeichnungen von Körperteilen im Deutschen. InDeutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin (Ed.), Studia Grammatica V. Syntaktische Studien, 7–28. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  147. Jackendoff, Ray
    2013 Constructions in the Parallel Architecture. In Thomas Hoffmann and Graeme Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, 70–92. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  148. Kabatek, Johannes
    2000 Einheitlichkeit der Bedeutung, Designat und Integrale Linguistik. In Bruno Staib (Ed.), Linguistica romanica et indiana. Festschrift für Wolf Dietrich zum 60. Geburtstag, 187–205. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
     [Google Scholar]
  149. Kasper, Simon
    2015 Instruction Grammar. From perception via grammar to action. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110430158
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110430158 [Google Scholar]
  150. Kay, Paul
    1996 Argument Structure: Causative ABC Constructions. Retrieved fromhttps://www1.icsi.berkeley.edu/~kay/bcg/5/lec05.html
  151. 2005 Argument structure constructions and the argument-adjunct distinction. In Mirjam Fried and Hans C. Boas (Eds.), Grammatical Constructions: Back to the Roots, 71–98. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.4.05kay
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.4.05kay [Google Scholar]
  152. 2013 The Limits of (Construction) Grammar. In Thomas Hoffmann and Graeme Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, 32–48. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  153. Kholodova, Alina and Allen, Shanley
    . 2023. The dative alternation in German: Structural preferences and verb bias effects. In Eva Zehentner , Melanie Röthlisberger and Timothy Colleman Eds. Ditransitives in Germanic Languages. Synchronic and diachronic aspects, 236–270.
     [Google Scholar]
  154. Kittilä, Seppo
    2005 Recipient-prominence vs. beneficiary prominence. Linguistic Typology9(2), 269–297. 10.1515/lity.2005.9.2.269
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.2005.9.2.269 [Google Scholar]
  155. Kittilä, Seppo
    2006 The anomaly of the verb ‘give’ explained by its high (formal and semantic) transitivity. Linguistics44(3), 569–612. 10.1515/LING.2006.019
     https://doi.org/10.1515/LING.2006.019 [Google Scholar]
  156. Kizach, Johannes and Winther Balling, Laura
    2013 Givenness, complexity and the Danish dative alternation. Memory and Cognition41, 1159–1171. 10.3758/s13421‑013‑0336‑3
     https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-013-0336-3 [Google Scholar]
  157. Klappenbach, Ruth and Steinitz, Wolfgang
    1973 Wörterbuch der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  158. Klavan, Jane and Divjak, Dagmar
    2016 The Cognitive Plausibility of Statistical Classification Models: Comparing Textual and Behavioral Evidence. Folio Linguistica50(2), 355–384. 10.1515/flin‑2016‑0014
     https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2016-0014 [Google Scholar]
  159. Kleiber, Georges
    1990 La Sémantique du prototype. Catégories et sens lexical. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
     [Google Scholar]
  160. Krifka, Manfred
    1999 Manner in Dative Alternation. Paper presented at theWest Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, University of Arizona, Tucson.
     [Google Scholar]
  161. Labov, William
    1973 The boundaries of words and their meanings. In Charles-James Bailey and Roger W. Shuy (Eds.), New Ways of Analyzing Variation in English, 340–371. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  162. Langacker, Ronald
    1987 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  163. 2007 Cognitive grammar. In Dirk Geeraerts and Hubert Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, 421–462. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  164. Langacker, Ronald W.
    2008 Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  165. Larson, Richard K.
    1988 On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry19(3), 335–392.
     [Google Scholar]
  166. Lenerz, Jürgen
    1977 Zur Abfolge nominaler Satzglieder im Deutschen. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
     [Google Scholar]
  167. Lerot, Jacques
    1982 Die verbregierten Präpositionen in Präpositionalobjekten. In Werner Abraham (Ed.), Satzglieder im Deutschen: Vorschläge zur syntaktischen, semantischen und pragmatischen Fundierung261–291. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
     [Google Scholar]
  168. Levin, Beth
    1993 English Verb Classes and Alternations. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  169. 2006 First Objects and Datives: Two of a kind?Paper presented at theBerkeley Linguistics Society BLS32, Berkeley, CA. Retrieved fromweb.stanford.edu/~bclevin/bls06dat.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  170. 2015 Semantics and Pragmatics of Argument Alternations. Annual Review of Linguistics1, 63–83. 10.1146/annurev‑linguist‑030514‑125141
     https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-125141 [Google Scholar]
  171. Levin, Beth and Rappaport Hovav, Malka
    2005 Argument Realisation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511610479
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610479 [Google Scholar]
  172. 2011 Conceptual categories and Linguistic Categories VII: A Crosslinguistic Perspective on the Linguistic Encoding of Possession Events. Paper presented at theLING 7800–009, CU Boulder. Retrieved fromweb.stanford.edu/~bclevin/lsa11dat2.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  173. Levinson, Stephen C.
    1983 Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813313
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813313 [Google Scholar]
  174. 1995 Three levels of meaning. In Frank R. Palmer (Ed.), Grammar and meaning: Essays in honour of Sir John Lyons, 90–115. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620638.006
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620638.006 [Google Scholar]
  175. Levinson, Stephen C.
    1997 From outer to inner space: Linguistic categories and non-linguistic thinking. In Nuyts Jan and Pederson Erik (Eds.), Language and conceptualisation, 13–45. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139086677.002
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139086677.002 [Google Scholar]
  176. Levinson, Stephen C.
    2000 Presumptive meanings. The theory of generalised conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  177. 2003 Language and mind: Let’s get the issues straight!In Dedre Gentner and Susan Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the investigation of language and thought, 25–46. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  178. Malchukov, Andrej , Haspelmath, Martin and Comrie, Bernard
    2007 Ditransitive constructions: a typological overview. Paper presented at theConference on Ditransitive Constructions, Leipzig.
     [Google Scholar]
  179. 2010 Ditransitive Constructions: A typological overview. In Andrej Malchukov , Martin Haspelmath and Bernard Comrie (Eds.), Studies in Ditransitive Constructions. A Comparative Handbook, 1–64. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110220377.1
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110220377.1 [Google Scholar]
  180. Matzel, Klaus
    1976 Dativ und Präpositionalphrase. SprachwissenschaftBand1, 144–186.
     [Google Scholar]
  181. Meinhard, Hans Joachim
    2003 Ebenen der Valenzbeschreibung: Die logische und die semantische Ebene. In Vilmos Ágel , Ludwig M. Eichinger , Hans-Werner Eroms , Peter Hellwig , Jürgen Heringer and Henning Lobin (Eds.), Dependenz und Valenz. Dependency and Valency, 399–404. Berlin: De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  182. Meinunger, André
    2006 Remarks on the projection of dative arguments in German. In Daniel Hole , André Meinunger and Werner Abraham (Eds.), Datives and Other Cases: Between argument structure and event structure, 79–101. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.75.06mei
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.75.06mei [Google Scholar]
  183. Moser, Hugo
    1970 Sprachliche Ökonomie im heutigen deutschen Satz. In Hugo Moser (Ed.), Studien zur Syntax des heutigen Deutsch: Paul Grebe zum 60. Geburtstag, 9–25. Düsseldorf: Schwann.
     [Google Scholar]
  184. Mukherjee, Joybrato
    2005 English Ditransitive Verbs. Aspects of Theory, Description and a Usage-Based Model. Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi. 10.1163/9789004333079
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004333079 [Google Scholar]
  185. Nash, John C.
    2014 On Best Practice Optimization Methods in R. Journal of Statistical Software60(2), 1–14. 10.18637/jss.v060.i02
     https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v060.i02 [Google Scholar]
  186. Nash, John C. and Varadhan, Ravi
    2011 Unifying Optimization Algorithms to Aid Software System Users: optimx for R. Journal of Statistical Software43(9), 1–14. 10.18637/jss.v043.i09
     https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v043.i09 [Google Scholar]
  187. Newman, John
    1996 Give: A Cognitive Linguistic Study. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110823714
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110823714 [Google Scholar]
  188. Newmeyer, Frederick J.
    2003 Grammar is grammar and usage is usage. Language79, 682–707. 10.1353/lan.2003.0260
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2003.0260 [Google Scholar]
  189. 2005 A reply to the critiques of ‘Grammar is grammar and usage is usage’. Language81, 229–236. 10.1353/lan.2005.0035
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2005.0035 [Google Scholar]
  190. Oehrle, Richard Thomas
    1976 The Grammatical Status of the English Dative Alternation. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Cambridge, MA.
  191. Olsen, Susan
    1997 Der Dativ bei Partikelverben. In Christa Dürscheid , Monika Schwarz and Karl-Heinz Ramers (Eds.), Sprache im Fokus. Festschrift für Heinz Vater zum 65. Geburtstag, 307–328. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.
     [Google Scholar]
  192. Paul, Hermann
    1919 Deutsche Grammatik. Halle/Saale: Max Niemeyer.
     [Google Scholar]
  193. Perek, Florent
    2015 Argument Structure in Usage Based Construction Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.17
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.17 [Google Scholar]
  194. Perek, Florent
    2020 Productivity and schematicity in constructional change. In Elena Smirnova and Lotte Sommerer (Eds.), Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar, 142–166. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.27.04per
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.27.04per [Google Scholar]
  195. Perini, Mário A.
    2015 Describing Verb Valency. Practical and Theoretical Issues. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑20985‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20985-2 [Google Scholar]
  196. Pickering, Martin J. , Branigan, Holly P. and McLean, Janet
    2002 Constituent structure is formulated in one stage. Journal of Memory and Language46, 586–605. 10.1006/jmla.2001.2824
     https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2001.2824 [Google Scholar]
  197. Pinker, Steven
    1989 Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  198. Polinsky, Maria
    1998 A non-syntactic account of some asymmetries in the double object construction. In Jean Pierre Koening (Ed.), Conceptual Structure and Language: Bridging the Gap, 403–423. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  199. Posner, Roland
    1980 Ikonismus in der Syntax, zur natürlichen Stellung der Attribute. Zeitschrift für Semiotik2, 183–195.
     [Google Scholar]
  200. Primus, Beatrice
    2011 Case-Marking Typology. In Jae Jung Song (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  201. Proost, Kristel
    2015 Verbbedeutung, Konstruktionsbedeutung oder beides? Zur Bedeutung deutscher Ditransitivstrukturen und ihrer präpositionalen Varianten. In Stefan Engelberg , Meike Meliss , Kristel Proost and Edeltraud Winkler (Eds.), Argumentstruktur zwischen Valenz und Konstruktion, 157–176. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
     [Google Scholar]
  202. Pustejovsky, James
    1995 The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  203. Pylkkänen, Liina
    2002 Introducing Arguments. Doctoral dissertation, MIT: Cambridge, MA.
  204. R Core Team
    R Core Team 2019 R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved fromhttps://www.R-project.org
     [Google Scholar]
  205. Rappaport Hovav, Malka and Levin, Beth
    1998 Building Verb Meanings. In Miriam Butt and Wilhelm Geuder (Eds.), The Projection of Arguments: lexical and compositional factors, 97–134. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  206. 2008 The English dative alternation: The case for verb sensitivity. Journal of Linguistics44, 129–167. 10.1017/S0022226707004975
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226707004975 [Google Scholar]
  207. Rauth, Philipp
    2016 Graduelle Ditransitivität im Deutschen. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik44(2), 172–214. 10.1515/zgl‑2016‑0010
     https://doi.org/10.1515/zgl-2016-0010 [Google Scholar]
  208. Røreng, Anita
    2011 Die deutsche Doppelobjektkonstruktion. Eine korpusbasierte Untersuchung zur relativen Abfolge nominaler Akkusativ- und Dativobjekte im geschriebenen Deutsch. Doctoral dissertation, Universitetet i Tromsø: Tromsø.
  209. Rosch, Eleanor
    1973 Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology4(3), 328–350. 10.1016/0010‑0285(73)90017‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(73)90017-0 [Google Scholar]
  210. 1975 Cognitive representation of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology104(3), 192–233. 10.1037/0096‑3445.104.3.192
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.104.3.192 [Google Scholar]
  211. Röthlisberger, Melanie , Grafmiller, Jason and Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt
    2017 Cognitive indigenization effects in the English dative alternation. Cognitive Linguistics18 (4), 673–710. 10.1515/cog‑2016‑0051
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0051 [Google Scholar]
  212. Rychlý, Pavel
    2008 A Lexicographer-Friendly Association Score. Paper presented at theRASLAN2008, Brno. Retrieved fromhttps://www.fi.muni.cz/usr/sojka/download/raslan2008/13.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  213. Sabel, Joachim
    2002 Die Doppelobjekt-Konstruktion im Deutschen. Linguistische Berichte190, 229–244.
     [Google Scholar]
  214. Schumacher, Helmut , Kubczak, Jacqueline , Schmidt, Renate and de Ruiter, Vera
    2004 VALBU – Valenzwörterbuch deutscher Verben. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
     [Google Scholar]
  215. Sekerina, Irina A.
    2003 Scrambling and Processing: Dependencies, Complexity, and Constraints. In Simin Karimi (Ed.), Word Order and Scrambling, 301–324. Malden, MA: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470758403.ch13
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470758403.ch13 [Google Scholar]
  216. SIL, Language Technology
    SIL, Language Technology 2003 SIL glossary of linguistic terms. Lingual Links Library. 5.0. Retrieved fromhttps://glossary.sil.org/term/addressee
     [Google Scholar]
  217. Slobin, Dan I.
    1987 Thinking for Speaking. Paper presented at theBLS 13, Berkeley, CA.
     [Google Scholar]
  218. 2003 Language and thought online: Cognitive consequences of linguistic relativity. In Dedre Gentner and Susan Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Advances in the investigation of language and thought157–191. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  219. Smirnova, Elena and Sommerer, Lotte
    2020 Introduction: The nature of the node and the network – Open questions in Diachronic Construction Grammar. In Lotte Sommerer and Elena Smirnova (Eds.), Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar, 2–42. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.27.int
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.27.int [Google Scholar]
  220. Snyder, Kieran Margaret
    2003 The relationship between form and function in ditransitive constructions. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania: Philadelphia.
  221. Sommerfeldt, Karl-Ernst and Schreiber, Herbert
    1996 Wörterbuch der Valenz etymologisch verwandter Wörter: Verben, Adjektive, Substantive. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783110918878
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110918878 [Google Scholar]
  222. Starke, Günter
    1969a Konkurrierende syntaktische Konstruktionen in der deutschen Sprache der Gegenwart. Untersuchungen im Funktionsbereich des Objekts (1. Teil). Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und KommunikationsforschungBand22 (Heft1), 25–65.
     [Google Scholar]
  223. 1969b Konkurrierende syntaktische Konstruktionen in der deutschen Sprache der Gegenwart. Untersuchungen im Funktionsbereich des Objekts. (Zweiter Teil). Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und KommunikationsforschungBand22 (Heft2), 154–195.
     [Google Scholar]
  224. 1969–1970 Konkurrierende syntaktische Konstruktionen in der deutschen Sprache der Gegenwart. Untersuchungen im Funktionsbereich des Objekts. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung22, 23, 25–65 (I), 154–195 (II), 153–184 (II), 232–260 (IV), 573–589 (V).
     [Google Scholar]
  225. 1970a Konkurrierende syntaktische Konstruktionen in der deutschen Sprache der Gegenwart. Untersuchungen im Funktionsbereich des Objekts (Fünfter Teil und Schluß). Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und KommunikationsforschungBand23 (Heft6), 573–589.
     [Google Scholar]
  226. 1970b Konkurrierende syntaktische Konstruktionen in der deutschen Sprache der Gegenwart. Untersuchungen im Funktionsbereich des Objekts (Vierter Teil). Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und KommunikationsforschungBand23 (Heft2/3), 232–260.
     [Google Scholar]
  227. Stefanowitsch, Anatol
    2011 Argument Structure: Item- Based or Distributed?Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik59(4), 369–386. 10.1515/zaa‑2011‑0407
     https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa-2011-0407 [Google Scholar]
  228. Stefanowitsch, Anatol and Herbst, Thomas
    2011 Argument Structure – Valency and/or Constructions. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik59(4), 315–316. 10.1515/zaa‑2011‑0403
     https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa-2011-0403 [Google Scholar]
  229. Sütterlin, Ludwig
    1902 Das Wesen der sprachlichen Gebilde. Kritische Bemerkungen zu Wilhelm Wundts Sprachpsychologie. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
     [Google Scholar]
  230. Szmrecsanyi, Benedict
    2006 Morphosyntactic persistence in spoken English. A corpus study at the intersection of variationist sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, and discourse analysis. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110197808
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197808 [Google Scholar]
  231. Szmrecsanyi, Benedict , Grafmiller, Jason , Heller, Benedikt and Röthlisberger, Melanie
    2016 Around the world in three alternations. Modeling syntactic variation in varieties of English. English World-Wide37(2), 109–137. 10.1075/eww.37.2.01szm
     https://doi.org/10.1075/eww.37.2.01szm [Google Scholar]
  232. Taylor, John
    2002 Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  233. Tesnière, Lucien
    1959 Éléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Librairie C. Klincksieck.
     [Google Scholar]
  234. 2015 [1966] Elements of structural syntax. Translated by Timothy Osborne and Sylvain Kahane. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  235. Tham, Shiao Wei
    2005 Representing Possessive Predication: Semantic Dimensions and Pragmatic Bases. Stanford University: Stanford, CA.
     [Google Scholar]
  236. 2006 The definiteness effect in English Have sentences. Paper presented at theTexas Linguistics Society (TLS 8) Conference, Somerville, MA.
     [Google Scholar]
  237. Theijssen, Daphne
    2012 Making Choices. Modelling the English dative alternation. Doctoral dissertation, Radboud Universiteit: Nijmegen.
  238. Theijssen, Daphne , ten Bosch, Louis , Boves, Lou , Cranen, Bert and van Halteren, Hans
    2013 Choosing alternatives: Using Bayesian Networks and memory-based learning to study the dative alternation. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory9(2), 227–262. 10.1515/cllt‑2013‑0007
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2013-0007 [Google Scholar]
  239. Thompson, Sandra A.
    1990 Information flow and dative shift in English discourse. In Jerold A. Edmondson , Crawford Feagin and Mühlhäusler Peter (Eds.), Development and Diversity, Language Variation Across Space and Time, 239–253. Dallas, Texas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  240. Van Damme, Evi
    2023 Die Dativalternation in der Geschichte des Neuhochdeutschen. Eine historische und korpusbasierte Untersuchung. Tübingen: Narr Francke Attempto.
  241. Van de Velde, Freek
    2014 Degeneracy: the maintenance of constructional networks. In Ronny Boogaart , Timothy Colleman and Gijsbert Rutten (Eds.), Extending the Scope of Construction Grammar, 141–179. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110366273.141
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110366273.141 [Google Scholar]
  242. Van der Gucht, Fieke , Willems, Klaas and De Cuypere, Ludovic
    2007 The iconicity of embodied meaning. Polysemy of spatial prepositions in the cognitive framework. Language Sciences29(6), 733–754. 10.1016/j.langsci.2006.12.027
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2006.12.027 [Google Scholar]
  243. Vázquez-Gonzáles, Juan G. and Barðdal, Jóhanna
    2019 Reconstructing the Ditransitive Construction for Proto-Germanic: Gothic, Old-English and Old Norse-Icelandic. Folia Linguistica Historica40(2), 555–620. 10.1515/flih‑2019‑0021
     https://doi.org/10.1515/flih-2019-0021 [Google Scholar]
  244. Velnić, Marta
    2017 Ditransitive structures in Croatian adult and child language: the role of animacy and givenness. Doctoral dissertation, The Arctic University of Norway: Tromsø.
  245. 2019 The influence of animacy, givenness and focus on object order in Croatian ditransitives. Studia Linguistica73(1), 175–201. 10.1111/stul.12094
     https://doi.org/10.1111/stul.12094 [Google Scholar]
  246. Von Weiss, A.
    1953 Zur Frage der Parallelkonstruktion. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur75, 451–477. 10.1515/bgsl.1953.1953.75.451
     https://doi.org/10.1515/bgsl.1953.1953.75.451 [Google Scholar]
  247. Wegener, Heide
    1985 Der Dativ im heutigen Deutsch. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
     [Google Scholar]
  248. Wegener, Heide
    1986 Gibt es im Deutschen ein Indirektes Objekt?Deutsche Sprache, Zeitschrift für Theorie, Praxis, Dokumentation14, 12–22.
     [Google Scholar]
  249. 1991 Der Dativ – ein struktureller kasus. In Gisbert Fanselow and Sascha W. Felix (Eds.), Strukturen und Merkmale syntaktischer Kategorien, 70–103. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
     [Google Scholar]
  250. Welke, Klaus
    1988 Einführung in die Valenz- und Kasustheorie. Leipzig: Bibliografisches Institut.
     [Google Scholar]
  251. 1989 Pragmatische Valenz: Verben des Besitzwechsels. Zeitschrift für Germanistik10(1), 5–18.
     [Google Scholar]
  252. 1994 Thematische Relationen. Sind thematische Relationen semantisch, syntaktisch oder/und pragmatisch zu definieren?Deutsche Sprache22, 1–18.
     [Google Scholar]
  253. 2009a Konstruktionsvererbung, Valenzvererbung und die Reichweite von Konstruktionen. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik37, 514–543. 10.1515/ZGL.2009.034
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ZGL.2009.034 [Google Scholar]
  254. 2009b Valenztheorie und Konstruktionsgrammatik. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik37, 81–124. 10.1515/ZGL.2009.005
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ZGL.2009.005 [Google Scholar]
  255. 2011 Valensgrammatik des Deutschen: eine Einführung. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110254198
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110254198 [Google Scholar]
  256. 2019 Konstruktionsgrammatik des Deutschen: Ein sprachgebrauchsbezogener Ansatz. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110614077
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110614077 [Google Scholar]
  257. Whaley, Lindsay J.
    1997 Introduction to Typology: the Unity and Diversity of Language. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. 10.4135/9781452233437
     https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452233437 [Google Scholar]
  258. Wickham, Hadley , François, Romain , Henry, Lionel and Müller, Kirill
    2019 dplyr: A Grammar of Data Manipulation. R package version 0.8.3. Retrieved fromhttps://CRAN.R-project.org/package=dplyr
  259. Willems, Klaas
    1997 Kasus, grammatische Bedeutung und kognitive Linguistik: ein Beitrag zur allgemeinen Sprachwissenschaft. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
     [Google Scholar]
  260. 2000 Form, meaning, and reference in natural language: a phenomenological account of proper names. Onoma35, 85–119. 10.2143/ONO.35.0.574370
     https://doi.org/10.2143/ONO.35.0.574370 [Google Scholar]
  261. 2006 Indeterminiertheit, Valenzvariation und Verbbedeutung vom Gesichtspunkt der funktionellen Syntax. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik34, 178–206. 10.1515/ZGL.2006.010
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ZGL.2006.010 [Google Scholar]
  262. 2011a Meaning and interpretation: The semiotic similarities and differences between Cognitive Grammar and European structural linguistics. Semiotica185(1/4), 1–50. 10.1515/semi.2011.032
     https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.2011.032 [Google Scholar]
  263. 2011b The Semantics of Variable Case Marking (Accusative/Dative) after Two-Way Prepositions in German Locative Constructions. Towards a Constructionist Approach. Indogermanische Forschungen116, 324–366. 10.1515/9783110239485.324
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110239485.324 [Google Scholar]
  264. 2016a Empirische, essentiële en mogelijke universalia: Unzeitgemäße Betrachtung bij het ‘categoriale particularisme’ in de moderne taaltypologie. Leuvense Bijdragen99–100, 170–187.
     [Google Scholar]
  265. 2016b The universality of categories and meaning: a Coserian perspective. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia48(1), 110–133. 10.1080/03740463.2016.1141565
     https://doi.org/10.1080/03740463.2016.1141565 [Google Scholar]
  266. 2020 Remarks on the ditransitive construction in German. Sprachwissenschaft45(2), 141–180.
     [Google Scholar]
  267. Willems, Klaas and Coene, Ann
    2003 Argumentstruktur, verbale Polysemie und Koerzion. In Alan Cornell , Klaus Fischer and Ian F. Roe (Eds.), German Linguistic and Cultural Studies, 37–63. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  268. Willems, Klaas and Coene, Ann
    2006 Satzmuster und die Konstruktionalität der Verbbedeutung. Sprachwissenschaft31, 237–272.
     [Google Scholar]
  269. Willems, Klaas , Coene, Ann and Van Pottelberghe, Jeroen
    (Eds.) 2011 Valenztheorie: Neuere Perspektiven. Gent: Academia Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  270. Willems, Klaas , De Cuypere, Ludovic and De Vaere, Hilde
    2019 Recording and explaining: exploring the German ditransitive alternation. Mapping Linguistic Data – Festschrift Liliane Haegeman, 313–322. Retrieved fromhttps://www.haegeman.ugent.be/7-2/
     [Google Scholar]
  271. Willems, Klaas and Munteanu, Cristinel
    2021 Introduction. In Klaas Willems and Cristinel Munteanu (Eds.), Eugenio Coseriu. Past, present and future, 1–44. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110712391‑002
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110712391-002 [Google Scholar]
  272. Wilmanns, Wilhelm
    1909 Deutsche Grammatik – Gotisch, Alt- Mittel- und Neuhochdeutsch; Dritte Abteilung: Flexion. 2. Hälfte: Nomen und Pronomen. Berlin: De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  273. Ziem, Alexander and Lasch, Alexander
    2013 Konstruktionsgrammatik. Konzepte und Grundlagen gebrauchsbasierter Ansätze. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110295641
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110295641 [Google Scholar]
  274. Zifonun, Gisela , Hoffmann, Ludger and Strecker, Bruno
    1997 Grammatik der deutschen Sprache. Berlin: De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/books/9789027252845
Loading

  • From This Site

    /content/books/9789027252845
    dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Chapter
    10
    5
/content/books/9789027252845
dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
-contentType:Journal -contentType:Chapter
10
5
Chapter
content/books/9789027252845
Book
false
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error