Volume 14, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1876-1933
  • E-ISSN: 1876-1941
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



As in many other Germanic languages, Modern Danish combines the verb ‘get’ and a semantic main verb in the supine form (the uninflected perfect participle). Three main types of the construction are found: an agentive type typically interpreted as expressing successful intentional action and two non-agentive types: one with a ditransitive main verb and promotion of the indirect object to subject status, and one with a non-valency-bound subject typically interpreted as a Beneficiary. Based on a functional framework, the paper presents a corpus study of the construction and an analysis unifying all three main types in a common whose functional contribution is the specification of the subject as an Afficiary (Beneficiary or Maleficiary). The distinction between agentive and non-agentive interpretation is analysed as a voice distinction between active and passive.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Askedal, J. O.
    (2012) Norwegian ‘get’: A survey of its uses in present-day Riksmål/Bokmål, Linguistics, 50(6), 1289–1331. 10.1515/ling‑2012‑0041
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2012-0041 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bateson, G.
    (1972) Form, substance and difference. InG. Bateson, Steps to an Ecology of Mind (pp.455–472). Jason Aronson.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Boas, H. C.
    (2013) Cognitive Construction Grammar. InT. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp.233–250). Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Boye, K.
    (2010) Raising verbs and auxiliaries in a functional theory of grammatical status. InK. Boye & E. Engberg-Pedersen (Eds.), Language usage and language structure (pp.73–104). Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219180.1.73
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219180.1.73 [Google Scholar]
  5. Boye, K. & Harder, P.
    (2007) Complement-taking predicates. Usage and linguistic structure. Studies in Language, 31(3), 569–606. 10.1075/sl.31.3.03boy
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.31.3.03boy [Google Scholar]
  6. (2012) A usage-based theory of grammatical status and grammaticalization. Language, 88(1), 1–44. 10.1353/lan.2012.0020
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2012.0020 [Google Scholar]
  7. (2017) Konstruktionsgrammatik, regler og funktionsbaseret struktur i neurokognitiv belysning. Ny forskning i grammatik, 24, 45–61. 10.7146/nfg.v25i24.97244
    https://doi.org/10.7146/nfg.v25i24.97244 [Google Scholar]
  8. Colleman, T.
    (2015) Constructionalization and post-constructionalization: The constructional semantics of the Dutch krijgen-passive in a diachronic perspective. InJ. Barðdal, E. Smirnova, L. Sommerer & S. Gildea (Eds.), Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp.213–255). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.18.07col
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.18.07col [Google Scholar]
  9. Comrie, B.
    (1977) In defense of spontaneous demotion: The impersonal passive. InP. Cole & J. M. Sadock (Eds.). Grammatical relations (Syntax and Semantics, vol. 8) (pp.47–58). Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Croft, W.
    (2001) Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  11. Diderichsen, P.
    (1962) Elementær Dansk Grammatik. 3rd ed.Gyldendal.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 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(6), 1163–1204. 10.1515/ling‑2012‑0038
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2012-0038 [Google Scholar]
  13. Diessel, H.
    (2015) Usage-based construction grammar. InE. Dabrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp.296–322). Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110292022‑015
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110292022-015 [Google Scholar]
  14. (2019) The grammar network. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108671040
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108671040 [Google Scholar]
  15. Durst-Andersen, P. & Herslund, M.
    (1996) The syntax of Danish verbs: Lexical and syntactic transitivity. InE. Engberg-Pedersen (Eds.), Content, expression and structure. Studies in Danish Functional Grammar (pp.65–102). John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.29.05dur
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.29.05dur [Google Scholar]
  16. Eisenberg, P.
    (2006) Grundriss der deutschen Grammatik. Band 2: Der Satz. 3rd ed.J. B. Metzler.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Engberg-Pedersen, E., Fortescue, M., Harder, P., Heltoft, L. & Falster Jakobsen, L.
    (Eds.) (1996) Content, expression and structure. Studies in Danish Functional Grammar. John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.29
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.29 [Google Scholar]
  18. Engberg-Pedersen, E., Fortescue, M., Harder, P., Heltoft, L., Herslund, M. & Falster Jakobsen, L.
    (2005) Dansk Funktionel Lingvistik. University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen Business School & Roskilde University.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Falster Jakobsen, L.
    (2007) Hvordan fungerer verbet at få?InH. Jørgensen & P. Widell (Eds.). Det bedre argument. Festskrift til Ole Togeby 7. marts 2007 (pp.281–298). Wessel og Huitfeldt.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. (2009) Lad os få analyseret lidt mere på verbet at få. Få + perfektum participium set i lyset af Construction Grammar. InR. Therkelsen & E. S. Jensen (Eds.), Dramatikken i grammatikken. Festskrift til Lars Heltoft (pp.185–201). Department of Culture & Identity, Roskilde University.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Foley, W. A.
    (2007) A typology of information packaging in the clause. InT. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, vol.1. 2nd ed. (pp.362–446). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511619427.007
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511619427.007 [Google Scholar]
  22. Fried, M. & Östman, J-O.
    (2004) Construction Grammar: A thumbnail sketch. InM. Fried & J.-O. Östman (Eds.), Construction Grammar in a Cross-Language Perspective (pp.11–86). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.2.02fri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.2.02fri [Google Scholar]
  23. Goldberg, A. E.
    (1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. (2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Haiman, J.
    (1985) Natural syntax: Iconicity and erosion. Cambridge University Press. 10.1075/tsl.6
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.6 [Google Scholar]
  26. Hansen, E. & Heltoft, L.
    (2011) Grammatik over det Danske Sprog. Det Danske Sprog- og Litteraturselskab.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Hansen, Aa.
    (1967) Moderne Dansk, Vol.I–III. Grafisk Forlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Harder, P.
    (1996) Functional semantics. A theory of meaning structure and tense in English. Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110818758
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110818758 [Google Scholar]
  29. (2006) Dansk Funktionel Lingvistik. NyS, 34–35, 92–130. 10.7146/nys.v34i34‑35.13459
    https://doi.org/10.7146/nys.v34i34-35.13459 [Google Scholar]
  30. Heltoft, L.
    (2008) Grammatik over det Danske Sprog – en radikal dependensgrammatik?Ny forskning i grammatik, 15, 69–94. 10.7146/nfg.v16i15.23759
    https://doi.org/10.7146/nfg.v16i15.23759 [Google Scholar]
  31. (2010) Paradigmatic structure in a usage-based theory of grammaticalisation. InK. Boye & E. Engberg-Pedersen (Eds.), Language usage and language structure (pp.145–166). Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. (2014) Constructional change, paradigmatic structure and the orientation of usage processes. InE. Coussé & F. von Mengden (Eds.), Usage-based approaches to language change (pp.203–241). John Benjamins. 10.1075/sfsl.69.08hel
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sfsl.69.08hel [Google Scholar]
  33. Hilpert, M.
    (2019) Construction Grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Hopper, P. J. & Thompson, S. A.
    (1980) Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language, 56(2), 251–299. 10.1353/lan.1980.0017
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1980.0017 [Google Scholar]
  35. Larsson, I.
    (2014) GET and HAVE + past participle or supine. The Nordic Atlas of Language Structures Journal, 1, 165–181.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Lenz, A. & G. Rawoens
    (Eds.) (2012) The art of getting: GET verbs in European languages from a synchronic and diachronic point of view. Linguistics, 50(6). Mouton de Gruyter Special Issue.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Mikkelsen, K.
    (1911 [1975]) Dansk Ordföjningslære. Hans Reitzels Forlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Nielsen, P. J.
    (2016) Functional structure in morphology and the case of nonfinite verbs. Theoretical issues and the description of the Danish verb system. Brill. 10.1163/9789004321830
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004321830 [Google Scholar]
  39. (2019) Diachronic morphology, indexical function and a critique of the morphome analysis: The content and expression of Danish forstå. InL. Heltoft, I. Igartua, K. Kragh Jeppesen, B. D. Joseph & L. Schøsler (Eds.), Perspectives on language structure and language change (pp.125–150). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.345.05nie
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.345.05nie [Google Scholar]
  40. Nørgård-Sørensen, J., Heltoft, L. & Schøsler, L.
    (2011) Connecting grammaticalisation. The role of paradigmatic structure. John Benjamins. 10.1075/sfsl.65
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sfsl.65 [Google Scholar]
  41. Pedersen, K. M.
    (2011) Få stolene malet – få malet stolene. Mål og Mæle, 34(2), 25–29.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Saeed, J. I.
    (1997) Semantics. Blackwell Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Stein, D. & Wright, S.
    (Eds.) (1995) Subjectivity and subjectivisation. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511554469
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511554469 [Google Scholar]
  44. Traugott, E. C.
    (1989) On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language, 65(1), 31–55. 10.2307/414841
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414841 [Google Scholar]
  45. (1995) Subjectification in grammaticalisation. InD. Stein & S. Wright (Eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation (pp.31–54). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511554469.003
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511554469.003 [Google Scholar]
  46. Trousdale, G.
    (2014) On the relationship between grammaticalization and constructionalization. Folia Linguistica, 48, 557–577. 10.1515/flin.2014.018
    https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.2014.018 [Google Scholar]
  47. Zúñiga, F.
    (2011) Why should beneficiaries be subjects (or objects)? Affaction and grammatical relations. InS. Kittilä (Eds.), Case, animacy and semantic roles (pp.329–348). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.99.12zun
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.99.12zun [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): affaction; agentivity; beneficiary; maleficiary; telicity; voice; ‘get’ verbs
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