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



The paper presents the results of a diachronic study of the light verb constructions containing the German verb ‘come’ accompanied by a prepositional phrase containing a deverbal noun and the preposition ‘to’. The analysis is based on the corpus data from the DTA () between 1600 and 1900. The aim of the paper is to integrate traditional grammatical descriptions of with grammaticalization and lexicalization approaches as well as with more recent usage-based constructionist approaches. In doing so, the view of composite predicates as more or less grammaticalized or more or less lexicalized constructions will be challenged by offering empirical evidence in favor of a more diversified account. It will be argued that it is often a matter of the methodological perspective as to which particular status is assigned to a structure under investigation.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Algeo, J.
    (1995) Having a look at the expanded predicate. InB. Aarts & Ch. F. Meyer (Eds.), The verb in Contemporary English: Theory and description (pp.203–217). Cambridge University Press
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Baayen, R. H.
    (2009) Corpus linguistics in morphology: Morphological productivity. InA. Lüdeling & M. Kyto (Eds.), Corpus linguistics. An international handbook (pp.900–919). Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Barðdal, J.
    (2006) Predicting the productivity of argument structure constructions. Berkeley Linguistics Society32, 467–478. 10.3765/bls.v32i1.3438
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v32i1.3438 [Google Scholar]
  4. (2008) Productivity: Evidence from case and argument structure in Icelandic. John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.8
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.8 [Google Scholar]
  5. Barðdal, J. & Gildea, S.
    (2015) Diachronic Construction Grammar: Epistemological context, basic assumptions and historical implications. InJ. Barðdal, E. Smirnova, L. Sommerer & S. Gildea (Eds.), Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp.1–50). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.18.01bar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.18.01bar [Google Scholar]
  6. Brinton, L. J.
    (2011) The grammaticalization of complex predicates. InB. Heine & H. Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization (pp.556–569). Oxford University Press
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Brinton, L. J. & Akimoto, M.
    (Eds.) (1999) Collocational and idiomatic aspects of composite predicates in the history of English. John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.47
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.47 [Google Scholar]
  8. Brinton, L. J. & Traugott, E. C.
    (2005) Lexicalization and language change. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511615962
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615962 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bybee, J.
    (2007) Frequency of use and the organization of language. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195301571.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195301571.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  10. (2010) Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511750526
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
  11. Coussé, E., Andersson, P. & Olofsson, J.
    (Eds.) (2018) Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar. John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.21
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.21 [Google Scholar]
  12. De Smet, H.
    (2020) What predicts productivity? Theory meets individuals. Cognitive Linguistics, 31(2), 251–278. 10.1515/cog‑2019‑0026
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2019-0026 [Google Scholar]
  13. DUDEN
    DUDEN (2016) Die Grammatik: Unentbehrlich für richtiges Deutsch. Dudenverlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Eisenberg, P.
    (1999) Grundriss der deutschen Grammatik. Das Wort. Verlag J.B. Metzler. 10.1007/978‑3‑476‑03765‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-476-03765-7 [Google Scholar]
  15. Goldberg, A.
    (2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. (2019) Explain me this. Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Heine, A.
    (2020) Zwischen Grammatik und Lexikon. Forschungsgeschichtlicher Blick auf Funktionsverbgefüge. InS. De Knop & M. Hermann (Eds.), Funktionsverbgefüge im Fokus (pp.15–38). Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110697353‑002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110697353-002 [Google Scholar]
  18. Heine, B. & Kuteva, T.
    (2002) World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511613463
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511613463 [Google Scholar]
  19. Helbig, G.
    (1979) Probleme der Beschreibung von Funktionsverbgefügen im Deutschen. Deutsch als Fremdsprache, 16(2), 273–284.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Heringer, H. J.
    (1968) Die Opposition von „kommen“ und „bringen“ als Funktionsverben. Schwann.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Lehmann, Ch.
    (2002a) Thoughts on grammaticalization. 2nd ed.Erfurt: Seminar für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität (ASSidUE, 9).
    [Google Scholar]
  22. (2002b) New reflections on grammaticalization and lexicalization. InI. Wischer & G. Diewald (Eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization (pp.1–18). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.49.03leh
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.49.03leh [Google Scholar]
  23. (2004) Theory and method in grammaticalization. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik, 32, 152–187.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Leiss, E.
    (1992) Die Verbalkategorien des Deutschen. Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110883541
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110883541 [Google Scholar]
  25. Plag, I.
    (2003) Word-formation in English. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511841323
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511841323 [Google Scholar]
  26. Polenz, Peter von
    (1987) Funktionsverben, Funktionsverbgefüge und Verwandtes Vorschläge zur Satzsemantischen Lexikographie. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik15, 169–189. 10.1515/zfgl.1987.15.2.169
    https://doi.org/10.1515/zfgl.1987.15.2.169 [Google Scholar]
  27. Rösch, O.
    (1994) Untersuchungen zu passivwertigen Funktionsverbgefügen im Deutschen der Gegenwart. Ein Beitrag zur funktionalen Valenzgrammatik. Helmut Buske.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Schmid, H.-J.
    (2016) A framework for understanding linguistic entrenchment and its psychological foundations. InH.-J. Schmid (Ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning: How we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge (pp.9–35). Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Smirnova, E.
    (2015) Constructionalization and constructional change: The role of context in the development of constructions. InJ. Barðdal, E. Smirnova, L. Sommerer & S. Gildea (Eds.), Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp.81–106). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.18.03smi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.18.03smi [Google Scholar]
  30. Smirnova, E. & Sommerer, L.
    (2020) The nature of the node and the network – Open questions in Diachronic Construction Grammar. InL. Sommerer & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp.2–42). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.27.int
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.27.int [Google Scholar]
  31. Traugott, E. C. & Trousdale, G.
    (2013) Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  32. Trousdale, G.
    (2008) Constructions in grammaticalization and lexicalization: Evidence from the history of a composite predicate construction in English. InG. Trousdale & N. Gisborne (Eds.), Constructional approaches to English grammar (pp.33–67). Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110199178.1.33
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199178.1.33 [Google Scholar]
  33. (2014) On the relationship between grammaticalization and constructionalization. Folia Linguistica, 48(2), 557–578. 10.1515/flin.2014.018
    https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.2014.018 [Google Scholar]
  34. Van Goethem, K., Norde, M., Coussé, E. & Vanderbauwhede, G.
    (Eds.) (2018) Category change from a constructional perspective. John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.20
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.20 [Google Scholar]
  35. Van Pottelberge, J.
    (2001) Verbonominale Konstruktionen, Funktionsverbgefüge. Vom Sinn und Unsinn eines Untersuchungsgegenstandes. Winter.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. von Polenz, P.
    (2009) Funktionsverben, Funktionsverbgefüge und Verwandtes. Vorschläge zur satzsemantischen Lexikografie. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik, 15(2), 169–189.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Wierzbicka, A.
    (1982) Why can you ‘have a drink’ when you can’t ‘*have an eat’?Language, 58, 753–799. 10.2307/413956
    https://doi.org/10.2307/413956 [Google Scholar]
  38. Zeschel, A.
    (2008) Funktionsverbgefüge als Idiomverbände. InA. Stefanowitsch & Fischer, K. (Eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik: von der Konstruktion zur Grammatik (pp.263–278). Stauffenburg.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media 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