Abstract
The semantic range of ditransitive verbs in Modern English has been at the center of linguistic attention ever since the pioneering work of Pinker (1989. Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press). At the same time, historical research on how the semantics of the ditransitive construction has changed over time has seriously lagged behind. In order to address this issue for the Germanic languages, the Indo-European subbranch to which Modern English belongs, we systematically investigate the narrowly defined semantic verb classes occurring in the ditransitive construction in Gothic, Old English and Old Norse-Icelandic. On the basis of data handed down from Proto-Germanic and documented in the oldest layers of the three Germanic subbranches, East, West and North Germanic, respectively, we show that the constructional range of the ditransitive construction was considerably broader in the earlier historical stages than now; several subclasses of verbs that could instantiate the ditransitive in early Germanic are infelicitous in the ditransitive construction in, for instance, Modern English. Taking the oldest surviving evidence from Germanic as point of departure, we reconstruct the ditransitive construction for an earlier proto-stage, using the formalism of Construction Grammar and incorporating narrowly defined semantic verb classes and higher level conceptual domains. We thus reconstruct the internal structure of the ditransitive construction in Proto-Germanic, including different levels of schematicity.
Acknowledgements
For comments and discussions, we thank Laura Bruno, Eleonora Cattafi, Peter Alexander Kerkhof, Svetlana Kleyner, Esther Le Mair, Roland Pooth, two reviewers of FLH and the audiences in Ghent (2015) and Zurich (2017) where earlier versions of this work were presented. For the genesis of this work, we would also like to acknowledge the role played by the 2014 International Symposium on Verbs, Clauses and Constructions (University of La Rioja), organized by Javier Martín-Arista. This research was supported with two generous research grants, the first to Jóhanna Barðdal (PI) from the European Research Council (EVALISA, grant nr. 313461) and the second to Javier Martín-Arista (grant nr. FFI2014-59110, Semántica léxica del inglés antiguo: clases verbales, alternancias y construcciones).
Appendix
Ditransitive verbs across Conceptual Domains in Early Germanic
Domain 1: Verbs inherently signifying giving and delivering
Gothic: giban1 ‘to give’, atgiban1 ʿto give over, deliverʾ, andsaljan ‘to render honor, pay tribute to’, gawadjon ‘to pledge, betroth’, ustiuhan ‘to present’, andstaldan ‘to provide, furnish’;[1]anafilhan ‘to commit’;gadailjan ‘to distribute’, disdailjan ‘to distribute, parcel out’;usgiban ‘to give back, repay’, usgildan ‘to repay, requite’.
Old English: sellan1 ʿto giveʾ, gesellan1ʿto give, give upʾ, ræcan ‘to give, reach out’, beweddian ‘to betroth’, gehalgian ‘to consecrate, sanctify’, fedan ‘to nourish, sustain’;befeolan ʿto bestow sth upon sb, commit toʾ, betæcan ‘to entrust, commit’, befæstan ‘to commend, commit’;dælan ‘to distribute’, todælan ‘to distribute, divide’, scirian ‘to divide, allot’, scrifan ‘to decree, allot judgement’;agiefan ‘to give in return, pay’, agieldan ‘to pay back, return’, gieldan ‘to pay, repay’, forgieldan ‘to repay, requite’, gebetan ‘to repair, compensate’, sellan wiþ ʿto sellʾ.
Old Norse-Icelandic: selja ‘to give, sell’, gefa ‘to give’, fá ‘to give’, rétta ‘to hand’, gifta ‘to pledge, betroth’, fæða ‘to raise, bring up’, skipa stað ‘to give property (by official order)’;skipa e-m e-ð ‘to assign sth to one’, fela ‘to entrust’, fá e-m e-t at geyma ‘to give into one’s charge’, bjóða e-m erendi ‘to commit sth to one’s charge’;deila ‘to allot one sth, deal out to one’, skera ‘to cut, shape’, byggja ‘to parcel out’;gjalda ‘to compensate, pay’, bœta e-m e-t ‘to compensate one for sth’, launa ‘to requite, repay, pay’, gefa e-m e-t til e-s ‘to give sb sth in return for sth, pay’, göra tíund ‘to pay tithes’.
Domain 2: Enabling
Gothic: giban2 ‘to give’, atgiban2 ‘to give over, deliver’, fragiban1 ‘to confer, bestow’, fragiban2 ‘to forgive’, miþgaqiujan ‘to give life to together with, raise up with’;afletan1 ‘to leave, forsake’, afletan2 ‘to forgive’, fraletan1 ‘to set free, release’, fraletan2 ‘to forgive’;uslaubjan ‘to give consent, permit’.
Old English: sellan2 ‘to give, confer’, gesellan2 ‘to confer gratuitously the ownership of’, giefan ‘to give, confer’, forgiefan1 ‘to confer, allow’, forgiefan2 ‘to forgive, overlook’, geunnan ‘to grant’, dihtan ‘to appoint’;lænan ‘to lend, grant’, gelænan ‘to lend, lease’, leon ‘to lend, grant’;lætan ‘to allow, permit’, forlætan ‘to let go, relinquish’, alætan ‘to forgive, pardon’, forberan ‘to forbear, endure’;lyfan ‘to give leave, allow’, alyfan ‘to give leave, grant’, þafian ‘to consent to, permit’, geþafian ‘to favor, support’.
Old Norse-Icelandic: gefa ‘to confer, bestow’, fyrirgefa ‘to forgive’, veita ‘to grant, confer’, veita e-m lið, ‘to give sb help, assist’, veita e-m eina bæn ‘to grant a request’, gera gagn ‘to do a favor’, tjá ‘to show, grant’, tjá e-m góðvilja to ‘show sb a kindness’, velja e-m gjafar ‘to pick out gifts for someone’, göra e-m kost ‘to grant sb a choice’, göra e-m lög ‘to grant the law to sb’, líkna ‘to show mercy, forgive’, nýta ‘to utilize’;ljá ‘to lend, grant’;láta ‘to allow, permit’;leyfa ‘to allow, permit’.
Domain 3: Deictically Specified Transfer
Gothic: gamiþsandjan ‘to send thither along’, miþinsandjan ‘to send thither along’, atbairan ‘to bring, lead’, attiuhan ‘to pull, draw’;wandjan ‘to wend, turn’;gadragan ‘to draw together’.
Old English: sendan ‘to send’, beran ‘to bear, carry’, ætberan ‘to bear away, bear forth’, bringan ‘to carry, bear’, bringan offrunga ‘to bring sb an offering’, lædan ‘to carry, bring forth’, dragan ‘to drag, pull’.
Old Norse-Icelandic: senda ‘to send’, gera orð ‘to send a message’, bera ‘to carry, bring’, bera e-m kveðju/orð/orðsending ‘to bring sb a greeting/word/message’, fœra ‘to bring, take’, draga ‘to drag, pull’.
Domain 4: Intention
Gothic: bileiþan ‘to leave, leave behind’, galewjan ‘to present, offer’;swaran ‘to swear, take an oath’, biswaran ‘to put under oath’.
Old English: læfan ‘to leave’, beodan ‘to offer’, gebeodan ‘to offer, propose’, offrian ‘to offer, sacrifice’, geoffrian ‘to offer, sacrifice’, foresceowian ‘to foresee, provide’, leanian ‘to reward, recompense’, geleanian ‘to reward, repay’;beweddian ‘to pledge’, behatan ‘to promise, vow’, swerian að(/as) ‘to swear, make oath(s)’, sculan ‘to owe’.
Old Norse-Icelandic: leifa ‘to leave’, bjóða ‘to offer’, launa ‘to reward’, œtla ‘to intend’, huga ‘to make out, think out’, segja sér e-ð af hendi ‘to renounce sth’;sverja eið ‘to swear, promise upon oath’, borga ‘to guarantee’.
Domain 5: Creation, Miscreation
Gothic: gawaurkjan ‘to do, make’, gataujan ‘to do, make, produce’, gatimrjan ‘to build’, gasatjan namna ‘to surname’;manwjan ‘to prepare, make ready’, gasmeitan ‘to spread, anoint’, bismeitan ‘besmear, anoint’;afwalwjan ‘to roll away, remove by rolling’, uslukan ‘to unlock, open’;afslahan ‘to strike off, cut off’, afmaitan ‘to chop off, cut off’, gawaurkjan dauþu ‘to cause death’, ufsneiþan ‘to kill, butcher’.
Old English: wyrcan ‘to do, make’, don ‘to do, make’, don teala ‘to do good’, timbrian ‘to build, construct’, getimbrian ‘to build, construct’, plantian ‘to plant’, siwian ‘to sew’, onsettan nama ‘to surname’, gesettan ‘to set’, gegeotan ‘to cast’, cennan ‘to beget, conceive’, acennan ‘to bring forth, conceive’, strienan ‘to gain, beget’;gearwian ‘to prepare, make ready’, gegearwian ‘to prepare, make ready’, gearcian ‘to prepare, procure’, don gebeorscipe to make sb a feast’;ryman ‘to clear, make room’, awyltan ‘to roll, roll away’, openian ‘to open, open up’, ryman ‘to make roomy, enlarge’, ryman weg ‘to clear, make way’;don lað ‘to do harm’, gesniþan ‘to cut, cut off’, ofslean ‘to strike down, kill’, ofaslean ‘to kill, slay’;sirwan ‘to prepare, attempt with craft’;belucan ‘to close, prevent a passage through’, forsettan weg ‘to obstruct a path’, fortynan weg ‘to stop, hinder the way’, fordician weg ‘to obstruct, barricade, block up a path’.
Old Norse-Icelandic: setja ‘to make, create’, skera ‘to cut, sew’, timbra ‘to carpenter’, kenna ‘to father’, vinna e-m bót ‘to do sb good’, göra gott ‘to do good’;göra ‘to do, prepare’, klá ‘to scratch, rub’, temja sér e-t ‘to exercise’;troða sér gadd ‘to tread’;gera e-m mein ‘to cause someone harm, hurt’, veita e-m áverka ‘to inflict a wound on someone’, vinna e-m illt ‘to do one harm’, göra íllt ‘to do ill’, göra e-m geig ‘to work harm to one’, vekja sér blóð ‘to open a vein, let blood’, veita e-m bana ‘to cause death’, vinna e-m bana ‘to cause death to one, kill’, ráða e-m bana ‘to do away with sb’.
Domain 6: Possession, Obtaining and Dispossession
Gothic: haban ‘to have’;huzdjan ‘to lay up treasure, hoard’, gadragan ‘to draw together, amass’, niman ‘to take, receive’, franiman ‘to acquire, take possession of’, bugjian ‘to buy, purchase’;afslaupjan ‘to clip off, put off’.
Old English: habban ‘to have’, agan (refl.) ‘to own, possess for oneself’, sparian ‘to spare’;gaderian ‘to gather, collect’, goldhordian ‘to hoard, lay up treasure’, agnian ‘to appropriate, seize’, agnian land (refl.) ‘to appropriate, claim land as one’s own’, geagnian ‘to appropriate, seize’,niman ‘to take, receive’, onfon ‘to take, receive’, begietan ‘to get, obtain’, findan ‘to find’, gemetan ‘to find, find out’, ceosan ‘to choose, select’, geceosan ‘to elect, choose’, bycgan ‘to buy, acquire’, geceapian ‘to buy, purchase’, gestrienan ‘to obtain, acquire’, earnian ‘to earn, deserve’;abregdan ‘to move quickly, suddenly or violently, remove’, ætbregdan ‘to take away, withdraw’, beniman ‘to take away, deprive’, forstelan ‘to steal with violence, rob’, afyrran ‘to remove, take away’, tosecan ‘to deprive’, bewerian ‘to keep something from sb, forbid’.
Old Norse-Icelandic: hafa ‘to have’, eiga sér e-t ‘to have, possess something for oneself’, spara sér e-t ‘to save, spare something for oneself’;eigna e-m e-t ‘to attribute property to sb’, eigna sér land ‘to take land into one own’s hands’, helga sér land ‘to appropriate land by performing sacred rites’, skilja sér e-t ‘to reserve to oneself’,nema ‘to take, take possession of’, fá ‘to get, get hold of’, taka ‘to take, seize’, geta ‘to get’, finna ‘to find’, kjósa ‘to choose’, velja ‘to choose, pick out’, kaupa ‘to buy’, afla sér fjár ok frægðar ‘to earn oneself fame and wealth’, sœkja ‘to fetch’, frelsa ‘to free, secure a thing for sb’, nýta ‘to utilize’;afsifja sér e-t ‘to alienate from one’s family’, sitja e-m e-t ‘to cut one off from’.
Domain 7: Retaining
Gothic: warjan ‘to forbid’, lagjan handau ‘to lay, place hands on’, ufhnaiwjan ‘to put under, subdue’;þwahan ‘to wash, bathe’, usþwahan ‘to wash, bathe’, skalkinon ‘to serve, be a slave’, fastan ‘to have in custody, keep’.
Old English: werian ‘to keep off, keep sb from sth’, bewerian ‘to keep something from sb, forbid’, warian ‘to ward off’, warnian ‘to warn, caution’, forbeodan ‘to forbid, refuse’, geteon wearne ‘to give sb a denial/refusal’, don yfel ‘to do evil’, don teonan ‘to do wrong’, ðreatian ‘to oppress, afflict’, befeolan ‘to dispose, importune’, settan ‘to set over, place’, asettan ‘to set, place’, gesettan ‘to set, fix’, onsettan ‘to impose’;geþwean ‘to wash’, hyrsumian ‘to obey, serve’, gehyrsumian ‘to make obedient, bring into subjection’, underðeodan ‘to subject’, ðeowian ‘to serve’, ðegnian ‘to serve, minister’, byrelian ‘to pour out, give to drink’, ætfæstan ‘to fasten, inflict on’, læstan ‘to perform, discharge a debt or duty’, gelæstan ‘to discharge an obligation’, geðeodan ‘to join, associate’, sellan (fore)gislas ‘to give hostages as security for the performance of a promise’.
Old Norse-Icelandic: verja e-m e-t ‘to guard a place, hold it against a comer’, varða e-m e-ð ‘to defend’, gera e-m óspekt ‘to cause turmoil to sb’, setja lög ‘to set laws’, leiða ‘to make sb dislike something’, gera e-m skomm ‘to bring dishonor on sb’, veita e-m vegskarð ‘to inflict a flaw in sb’s honor’, gjalda e-m fjándskap ‘to show ill-will towards sb’, vinna e-m úsœmd ‘to bring shame, disgrace on sb’, gera e-m illt ‘to do evil’, setja e-m e-t ‘to submit to’, veita e-m atför/heimferð ‘to make an expedition against sb’, bjóða e-m ógn ‘to affright, terrify’, bjóða e-m ójöfnuð ‘to treat unfairly, oppress’, bjóða e-m rangt ‘to treat sb unjustly’;gera lotning ‘pay homage’, tjá e-m þjónustu ‘to pay homage to’, vinna e-m beinleika ‘to do sb service, attend on sb as a guest’, setja e-m gisla ‘to put guards around sb’, setja e-m skriftir ‘to put sb up for confession’, þola ‘to endure, suffer’.
Domain 8: Mode of Communication
Gothic: qiþan ‘to say’, fauraqiþan ‘to predict, foretell’, rodjan ‘to speak, tell’, gateihan ‘to tell, report’, fauragateihan ‘to foretell’, kannjan ‘to appraise of, inform of’, gakannjan ‘to announce, proclaim’, merjan ‘to proclaim’, wailamerjan ‘to praise, preach’, spillon ‘to announce, proclaim’, ussakan ‘to expound thoroughly or in detail’, anainsakan ‘to add by argumentation’, andbindan ‘to untie, explain’, laisjan ‘to teach’, anabiudan ‘to command, bid’, augjan ‘to put before the eyes, show’, ataugjan ‘to bring before the eyes, show’, gabairhtjan ‘to bring to light, show clearly’, uslukan augona ‘to unlock, open sb’s eyes’, taiknjan ‘to show, manifest’;gameljan ‘to write’.
Old English: secgan ‘to say, tell’, secgan bigspell ‘to tell a parable’, asecgan ‘to speak out, declare’, cweðan ‘to say, speak’, tocweðan ‘to say’, cyðan ‘to reveal, manifest’, sprecan ‘to speak’, maþelian[2] ‘to speak, make a speech’, tellan ‘to tell, count’, clipian ‘to call, address’, togeclypian ‘to call together, send forth’, gecennan ‘to declare, prove’, bodian ‘to announce, proclaim’, bicnian ‘to indicate, declare’, gebicnian ‘to indicate, tell’, tacnian ‘to indicate, point out’, openian ‘to disclose, manifest’, geopenian ‘to open, manifest’, ætywan ‘to show, reveal’, reccan ‘to explain, tell’, reccan bigspell ‘to tell a parable’, reccan swefn ‘to tell sb a dream’, areccan ‘to recount, tell’, areccan bigspell ‘to explain a parable’, spellian ‘to talk, relate’, gewisian ‘to teach, explain’, læran ‘to teach’, beodan ‘to command’, bebeodan ‘to command, order’, acsian ‘to ask’, biddan ‘to ask, entreat’, gebiddan ‘to ask for something for sb’, abiddan ‘to ask, pray’, andswarian ‘to answer’, andwyrdan ‘to answer’, þancian ‘to thank, give thanks’, don þancas ‘to thank, give thanks’, teon stale ‘to accuse’, ætwitan ‘to reproach, blame’, oðwitan ‘to blame, reproach with’, cennan ‘to bring forth from the mind, prove’, ontynan ‘to open, reveal’, atynan ‘to open, reveal’, onlucan ‘to open, reveal’, deman ‘to adjudge’, ætiewan ‘to explain, show’, sweotolian ‘to make clear or manifest, show’, gesweotolian ‘to make clear or manifest, show’, iewan ‘to show’, ætiewan ‘to show’, æteowian ‘to show’, getacnian ‘to show’, tæcan ‘to offer to view, present’, betæcan ‘to show, point out’, wisian ‘to show, direct’;writan ‘to write’, awritan ‘to write down, compose’, secgan æfenlac ‘to recite the evening sacrifice psalm’, singan ‘to sing, recite’, geærendian ‘to go on an errand, intercede’.
Old Norse-Icelandic: kveða ‘to quoth, say’, segja ‘to tell’, segja e-m leið ‘to tell the way, pilot’, telja ‘to tell’, spá e-m e-t ‘to forecast, foretell’, kunngera ‘to make sth known to sb’, boða ‘to preach’, kenna ‘to teach’, bjóða e-m erendi ‘to order someone (on) an errand’, biðja sér ölmusu ‘to ask for alms’, biðja (sér) konu ‘to ask in marriage’, þakka e-m e-t ‘to thank, give thanks’, mæla sér e-t ‘to claim for oneself’, telja sér e-t ‘to claim, reckon as one’s property’, festa trú ‘to declare loyalty’, gera sér gabb og gaman ‘to make fun of’, gefa sök ‘to accuse’, fá e-m sök, ‘to charge one’, leggja e-m e-t til ámælis/orðs ‘to blame sb for sth’, velja e-m hæðilig orð, ‘to speak ignominiously to (or of) sb’, afsegja sér e-t ‘to resign, renounce’, kenna ‘to attribute’, kynna e-m e-t ‘to make known, communicate to sb’, dœma e-m e-t, ‘to adjudge a thing to’, dœma e-m dóm ‘to deal out a sentence’;rísta e-m þursa-staff ‘to carve/scratch a libelous rune against sb’, gala ‘to sing, chant’, bera e-m vel (illa) söguna ‘to give a favourable (unfavourable) account of sb’.
Domain 9: Mental Processes
Gothic: rahnjan ‘to reckon, count up’, gamaudjan ‘to call to mind, remind’.
Old English: witan ‘to know, have knowledge of’, hogian ‘to think, intend’, gemunan ‘to remember, bear in mind’, willan yfel ‘to wish ill’, unnan god ‘to wish well’, unnan yfel ‘to wish evil/ill’, unnan wean ‘to wish woe, affliction’, ofunnan ‘to wish to deprive’, þincan god ‘to seem good’, þincan yfel ‘to seem bad’.
Old Norse-Icelandic: reikna ‘to calculate, count’, huga sér ráð ‘to think up a solution’, hverfa e-m hugi ‘to change sb’s mind’, hyggja e-m e-t ‘to intend, to have in store for one’, hyggja e-m gott ‘to wish good for one’, huga e-m e-t ‘to think of, intend’, vilja e-m gott ‘to wish sb good’, muna e-m e-t ‘to remember sth against sb’, virða til þunga ‘to regard as demeaning’, ætla ‘to mean, suppose’, ætla sér hóf ‘to correctly estimate sb’s abilities’;ugga sér e-t ‘to apprehend evil’, unna e-m ást ‘to bestow one’s love on’.
References
Adler, Julia. 2011. Dative alternations in German: The argument realization options of transfer verbs. Hebrew University of Jerusalem PhD Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Baker, Collin F., Charles J. Fillmore & Beau Cronin. 2003. The structure of the FrameNet database. International Journal of Lexicography 16(3). 281–296.10.1093/ijl/16.3.281Search in Google Scholar
Baker, Collin F., Charles J. Fillmore & John B. Lowe. 1998. The Berkeley FrameNet project. COLING-ACL ’98: Proceedings of the Conference, held at the University of Montreal, 86–90. Association for Computational Linguistics.10.3115/980451.980860Search in Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2004. The semantics of the impersonal construction in Icelandic, German and Faroese: Beyond thematic roles. In Werner Abraham (ed.), Focus on Germanic typology, 105–137. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Search in Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2006. Construction-specific properties of syntactic subjects in Icelandic and German. Cognitive Linguistics 17(1). 39–106.10.1515/COG.2006.002Search in Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2007. The semantic and lexical range of the ditransitive construction in the history of (North) Germanic. Functions of Language 14(1). 9–30.10.1075/fol.14.1.03barSearch in Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2008. Productivity: Evidence from case and argument structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cal.8Search in Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2011a. The rise of dative substitution in the history of Icelandic: A diachronic construction grammar account. Lingua 121(1). 60–79.10.1016/j.lingua.2010.07.007Search in Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2011b. Lexical vs. structural case: A false dichotomy. Morphology 21(3–4). 619–659.10.1007/s11525-010-9174-1Search in Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2013. Construction-based historical–comparative reconstruction. In Graeme Trousdale & Thomas Hoffmann (eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar, 438–457. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0024Search in Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2014. Syntax and syntactic reconstruction. In Claire Bowern & Bethwyn Evans (eds.), The Routledge handbook of historical linguistics, 343–373. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Valgerður Bjarnadóttir, Serena Danesi, Tonya Kim Dewey, Thórhallur Eythórsson, Chiara Fedriani & Thomas Smitherman. 2013. The story of ‘Woe’. Journal of Indo-European Studies 41(3–4). 321–377.Search in Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna & Thórhallur Eythórsson. 2012a. Reconstructing syntax: Construction grammar and the comparative method. In Hans C. Boas & Ivan A. Sag (eds.), Sign-based construction grammar, 257–308. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Search in Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna & Thórhallur Eythórsson. 2012b. “Hungering and lusting for women and fleshly delicacies”: Reconstructing grammatical relations for Proto-Germanic. Transactions of the Philological Society 110(3). 363–393.10.1111/j.1467-968X.2012.01318.xSearch in Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna & Thórhallur Eythórsson. 2020. How to identify cognates in syntax: Taking Watkins’ legacy one step further. To appear In Jóhanna Barðdal, Spike Gildea & Eugenio R. Lujan (eds.), Reconstructing syntax. Brill: Leiden.10.1163/9789004392007Search in Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Kristian E. Kristoffersen & Andreas Sveen. 2011. West Scandinavian ditransitives as a family of constructions: With a special attention to the Norwegian V-REFL-NP construction. Linguistics 49(1). 53–104.10.1515/ling.2011.002Search in Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna & Thomas Smitherman. 2013. The quest for cognates: A reconstruction of oblique subject constructions in Proto-Indo-European. Language Dynamics and Change 3(1). 28–67.10.1163/22105832-13030101Search in Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Thomas Smitherman, Valgerður Bjarnadóttir, Serena Danesi, Gard B. Jenset & Barbara McGillivray. 2012. Reconstructing constructional semantics: The dative subject construction in Old Norse-Icelandic, Latin, Ancient Greek, Old Russian and Old Lithuanian. Studies in Language 36(3). 511–547.10.1075/bct.67.03barSearch in Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna & Juan G. Vázquez-González. 2015. Reconstructing the ditransitive construction for Proto-Germanic. Paper delivered at the Workshop on Variation and Change in Dative and Ditransitive Constructions, Ghent University. February 24.Search in Google Scholar
Bosworth, Joseph & Thomas Northcote Toller. 1921. An Anglo-Saxon dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan & Jennifer Hay. 2008. Gradient grammar: An effect of animacy on the syntax of give in New Zealand and American English. Lingua 18(2). 245–259.10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.007Search in Google Scholar
Cappelle, Bert. 2014. Conventional combinations in pockets of productivity: English resultatives and Dutch ditransitives expressing excess. In Ronny Boogaart, Timothy Colleman & Gijsbert Rutten (eds.), Extending the scope of construction grammar, 251–282. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110366273.251Search in Google Scholar
Cleasby, Richard, Gudbrand Vigfusson & William A. Craigie. 1986. An Icelandic-English dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Search in Google Scholar
Colleman, Timothy. 2002. De benefactieve dubbelobject-constructie in het 19de-eeuws Nederlands [The benefactive double object construction in 19th-Century Dutch]. In R. Willemyns (ed.), De taal in Vlaanderen in de 19de eeuw: Historisch-sociolinguïstische onderzoekingen, 509–528. Gent: Koninklijke Academie voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde.Search in Google Scholar
Colleman, Timothy. 2006. De Nederlandse datiefalternatie: een constructioneel en corpusgebaseerd onderzoek [The Dutch dative alternation: A constructional and corpus-based research]. Ghent University PhD Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Colleman, Timothy. 2009. The semantic range of the Dutch double object construction: A collostructional perspective. Constructions and Frames 1(2). 190–220.10.1075/cf.1.2.02colSearch in Google Scholar
Colleman, Timothy. 2011. Ditransitive verbs and the ditransitive construction: A diachronic perspective. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 59. 387–410.10.1515/zaa-2011-0408Search in Google Scholar
Colleman, Timothy & Bernard De Clerck. 2011. Constructional semantics on the Move: On semantic specialization in the English double object construction. Cognitive Linguistics 22(1). 183–209.10.1515/cogl.2011.008Search in Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2003. Lexical rules vs. constructions: A false dichotomy. In Hubert Cuyckens, Thomas Berg, René Dirven & Klaus-Uwe Panther (eds.), Motivation in language: Studies in honour of Günter Radden, 49–68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.243.07croSearch in Google Scholar
Danesi, Serena, Cynthia A. Johnson & Jóhanna Barðdal. 2017. Between the historical languages and the reconstructed language: An alternative approach to the gerundive + “dative of agent” construction in Indo-European. Indogermanische Forschungen 122. 143–188.10.1515/if-2017-0007Search in Google Scholar
Danesi, Serena, Cynthia A. Johnson & Jóhanna Barðdal. 2018. Where does the modality of ancient greek modal verbs come from? The relation between modality and oblique case marking. Journal of Greek Linguistics 18(1). 45–92.10.1163/15699846-01801005Search in Google Scholar
De Cuypere, Ludovic. 2015a. A multivariate analysis of the old English acc+dat double object alternation. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 11(2). 1–30.10.1515/cllt-2014-0011Search in Google Scholar
De Cuypere, Ludovic. 2015b. The Old English to-dative construction. English Language and Linguistics 19(1). 1–26.10.1017/S1360674314000276Search in Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik. 2005. A corpus of late modern English. ICAME Journal 29. 69–82.Search in Google Scholar
De Vaere, Hilde, Ludovic De Cuypere & Klaas Willems. 2018. Alternating constructions with ditransitive Geben in present-day German. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2017-0072.Search in Google Scholar
Delorge, Martine & Bernard De Clerck. 2007. A contrastive and corpus-based study of English and Dutch provide-verbs. Phrasis 48. 121–142.Search in Google Scholar
Delorge, Martine & Timothy Colleman. 2006. Constructions with verbs of dispossession in Dutch: A corpus-based case study. Studies Van De BKL 1. 1–15.Search in Google Scholar
Eythórsson, Thórhallur & Jóhanna Barðdal. 2011. Die Konstruktionsgrammatik und die komparative Methode. In Thomas Krisch & Thomas Lindner (eds.), Indogermanistik und Linguistik im Dialog: Akten der XIII. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 21. bis 27. September 2008 in Salzburg, 148–156. Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag.Search in Google Scholar
Eythórsson, Thórhallur & Jóhanna Barðdal. 2016. Syntactic reconstruction in Indo-European: The state of the art. In J. Gorrochategui, C. García Castillero & J. M. Vallejo (eds.), Franz Bopp and his comparative grammar model (1816–2016), vol. 33, 83–102. A special monographic volume in Veleia.10.1387/veleia.16823Search in Google Scholar
Fanego, Teresa. 2017. The trolley rumbled through the tunnel: On the history of the English intransitive motion construction. Folia Linguistica Historica 38. 29–73.10.1515/flih-2017-0002Search in Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay & Mary Kay O’Connor. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64. 501–538.10.2307/414531Search in Google Scholar
Fried, Mirjam & Jan-Ola Östman. 2005. Construction grammar and spoken language: The case of pragmatic particles. Journal of Pragmatics 37(11). 1752–1778.10.1016/j.pragma.2005.03.013Search in Google Scholar
Fritzner, Johan. 1886–1896. Ordbog over det gamle norske Sprog [Dictionary of the Old Norwegian Language]. Kristiania: Den norske Forlagsforening.Search in Google Scholar
Geleyn, Tim. 2017. Syntactic variation and diachrony. The case of the Dutch dative alternation. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 13(1). 65–96.10.1515/cllt-2015-0062Search in Google Scholar
Gerwin, Johanna. 2014. Ditransitives in British English dialects. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110352320Search in Google Scholar
Gildea, Spike. 1992. Comparative Cariban morphosyntax: On the genesis of ergativity in independent clauses. University of Oregon PhD Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Gildea, Spike. 1998. On reconstructing grammar: Comparative Cariban morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Gildea, Spike. 2000. On the genesis of the verb phrase in Cariban languages. In Spike Gildea (ed.), Reconstructing grammar: Comparative linguistics and grammaticalization, 65–106. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.43.04gilSearch in Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1997. The relationships between verbs and constructions. In Marjolijn Verspoor, Kee Dong Lee & Eve Sweetser (eds.), Lexical and syntactical constructions and the construction of meaning, 383–298. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.150.27golSearch in Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 2006. Constructions at Work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199268511.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Green, Georgia M.. 1974. Semantics and syntactic regularity. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Green, D. H. 1998. Language and history in the early Germanic world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th., Beate Hampe & Doris Schönefeld. 2005. Converging evidence: Bringing together experimental and corpus data on the association of verbs and constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 16(4). 635–676.10.1515/cogl.2005.16.4.635Search in Google Scholar
Gropen, Jess, Steven Pinker, Michelle Hollander, Richard Goldberg & Ronald Wilson. 1989. The learnability and acquisition of the dative alternation in English. Language 65. 203–257.10.2307/415332Search in Google Scholar
Grossman, Eitan & Stéphane Polis. 2012. Navigating polyfunctionality in the lexicon: Semantic maps and Ancient Egyptian lexical semantics language. In Eitan Grossman, Stéphane Polis & Jean Winand (eds.), Lexical semantics in Ancient Egyptian, 175–225. Hamburg: Kai Widmaier Verlag.Search in Google Scholar
Harris, Alice C. 2008. Reconstruction in syntax: Reconstruction of patterns. In Gisella Ferraresi & Maria Goldbach (eds.), Principles of syntactic reconstruction, 73–95. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.302.05harSearch in Google Scholar
Harris, Alice C. & Lyle Campbell. 1995. Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620553Search in Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1999. External possession in a European areal perspective. In Doris L. Payne & Immanuel Barshi (eds.), External possession, 109–135. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.39.09hasSearch in Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2004. On directionality in language change with particular reference to grammaticalization. In Olga Fischer, Muriel Norde & Harry Perridon (eds.), Up and down the cline – The nature of grammaticalization, 17–47. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.59.03hasSearch in Google Scholar
Healey, Antonette diPaolo (ed.). 2000. The dictionary of Old English corpus in electronic form. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, University of Toronto.Search in Google Scholar
Healey, Antonette diPaolo, et al. 2009. The dictionary of Old English: A-H on CD-ROM. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, University of Toronto.Search in Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Sebastian & Joybrato Mukherjee. 2007. Ditransitive verbs in Indian English and British English: A corpus-linguistic study. Arbeiten Aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik 32(1). 5–24.Search in Google Scholar
Israel, Michael. 1996. The way constructions grow. In Adele Goldberg (ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language, 217–230. Stanford: CSLI.Search in Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1997. Twistin’ the night away. Language 73. 534–559.10.2307/415883Search in Google Scholar
Jeffers, Robert J. 1976. Syntactic change and syntactic reconstruction. In William M. Christie Jr. (ed.), Current progress in historical linguistics: Proceedings of the second international conference on historical linguistics, 1–15 Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing.Search in Google Scholar
Kay, Paul & Charles J. Fillmore. 1999. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The ‘What’s X doing Y?‘ Construction. Language 75. 1–33.10.2307/417472Search in Google Scholar
Kholodova, Alina, Caroline Rowland, Shanley Allen & Michelle Peter. 2019. Ditransitive syntactic priming in a biased language: Investigating abstract representations over development To appear in Timothy Colleman, Melanie Röthlisberger & Eva Zehentner (eds.), Ditransitive constructions in Germanic Languages: Diachronic and synchronic aspects. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar
Kikusawa, Ritsuko. 2002. Proto central pacific ergativity: Its reconstruction and development in the Fijian, Rotuman and Polynesian languages. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Search in Google Scholar
Kikusawa, Ritsuko. 2003. The development of some Indonesian pronominal systems. In B. J. Blake, K. Burridge & J. Taylor (eds.), Historical linguistics 2001: Selected papers from the 15th international conference on historical linguistics, Melbourne, 13–17 August 2001, 237–268. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.237.16kikSearch in Google Scholar
Kittilä, Seppo. 2006. The anomaly of the verb ‘give’ explained by its high (formal and semantic) transitivity. Linguistics 44(3). 569–612.10.1515/LING.2006.019Search in Google Scholar
Klein, Jared S. 2010. Review of principles of reconstruction, ed. by G. Ferraresi & M. Goldbach (2008). Language 86. 720–726.Search in Google Scholar
Köbler, Gerhard. 1989. Gotisches Wörterbuch. Leiden: Brill.Search in Google Scholar
Kroonen, Guus. 2013. Etymological dictionary of Proto-Germanic. Leiden: Brill.Search in Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1993. English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Lightfoot, David. 1979. Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Luján, Eugenio R. 2010. Semantic maps and word formation: Agents, instruments, and related semantic roles. Linguistic Discovery 8(1). 162–175.10.1349/PS1.1537-0852.A.349Search in Google Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia. 2014. Plotting diachronic semantic maps. In Silvia Luraghi & Heiko Narrog (eds.), Perspectives on semantic roles, 99–150. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.106.04lurSearch in Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej, Martin Haspelmath & Bernard Comrie. 2007. Ditransitive constructions: A typological overview. First draft, Sept. 2007. https://www.keel.ut.ee/sites/default/files/www_ut/4-ditransitiveoverview.pdf.Search in Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej, Martin Haspelmath & Bernard Comrie. 2010. Ditransitive constructions: A typological overview. In Andrej Malchukov, Martin Haspelmath & Bernard Comrie (eds.), Studies in ditransitive constructions: A comparative handbook, 1–64. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110220377Search in Google Scholar
Meinunger, André. 2006. Remarks on the projection of dative arguments in German. In Daniel Hole, André Meinunger & Werner Abraham (eds.), Datives and other cases, 79–101. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.75.06meiSearch in Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A. 2010. Sign-based construction grammar. In Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, 155–176. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A. 2012. Making the case for construction grammar. In Hans C. Boas & Ivan A. Sag (eds.), Sign-based construction grammar, 31–68. Stanford: CSLI Publications.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0008Search in Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A. & Josef Ruppenhofer. 2001. Beyond alternations: A construction-based account of the applicative construction in German. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Search in Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko. 2010. A diachronic dimension in maps of case functions. Linguistic Discovery 8(1). 233–254.10.1349/PS1.1537-0852.A.352Search in Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko & Johan van der Auwera. 2011. Grammaticalization and semantic maps. In Heiko Narrog & Bernd Heine (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization, 318–327. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199586783.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Newman, John. 1996. Give: A cognitive linguistic study. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110823714Search in Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 1989. Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Pokorny, Julius. 1959–1969. Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Bern: Francke.Search in Google Scholar
Proost, Kristel. 2014. Ditransitive transfer constructions and their prepositional variants in German and Romanian: An empirical survey. In Ruxandra Cosma, Stefan Engelberg, Susan Schlotthauer, Speranta Stanescu & Gisela Zifonun (eds.), Komplexe Argumentstrukturen, 19–83. Berlin: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110343229.19Search in Google Scholar
Rauth, Philip. 2016a. Graduelle ditransitivität im deutschen. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 44(2). 172–214.10.1515/zgl-2016-0010Search in Google Scholar
Rauth, Philipp. 2016b. Die Rolle dialektaler Kasussysteme bei der Abfolge ditransitiver Objekte. In Augustin Speyer & Philipp Rauth (eds.), Syntax aus Saarbrücker Sicht 1: Beiträge der SaRDiSTagung zur Dialektsyntax, 109–135. Stuttgart: Steiner.Search in Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter. 1995. Betrachtungen zum Auf- und Abstief einiger präpositionaler Konstruktionen im Englischen. NOWELE 26. 67–124.10.1075/nowele.26.05rohSearch in Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter. 2007. Functional constraints in syntactic change: The rise and fall of prepositional constructions in early and late modern English. English Studies 88(2). 217–233.10.1080/00138380601042824Search in Google Scholar
Røreng, Anita. 2011. Die deutsche Doppelobjektkonstruktion: Eine korpusbasierte Untersuchung zur relativen Abfolge nominaler Akkusativ- und Dativobjekte im geschriebenen Deutsch. University of Tromsø PhD Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan. 2012. Sign-based construction grammar: An informal synopsis. In Hans C. Boas & Ivan A. Sag (eds.), Sign-based construction grammar, 69–202. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Search in Google Scholar
Siewierska, Anna & Willem Hollmann. 2007. Ditransitive clauses in English with special reference to Lancashire dialect. In Michael Hannay & Gerard J. Steen (eds.), Structural-functional studies in English Grammar: In honour of Lachlan McKenzie, 83–102. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.83.06sieSearch in Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2006. Negative evidence and the raw frequency fallacy. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 21. 61–77.10.1515/CLLT.2006.003Search in Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Stefan T. Gries. 2003. Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8(2). 209–243.10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03steSearch in Google Scholar
Streitberg, Wilhelm. 1960. Die gotische Bibel I. Teil, 4th edn. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag.Search in Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Graeme Trousdale. 2013. Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Valdeson, Fredrik. 2019. Semantic shifts in the Swedish ditransitive construction. To appear in Timothy Colleman, Melanie Röthlisberger & Eva Zehentner (eds.), Ditransitive constructions in Germanic Languages: Diachronic and synchronic aspects. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar
Vázquez-González, Juan G. 2013. The semantic and lexical range of the ditransitive construction in Old English. Paper delivered at the 2013 International Symposium on Verbs, Clauses and Constructions organized by the Functional Grammars Research Group. University of La Rioja, 27–29 November.Search in Google Scholar
Vázquez-González, Juan G. 2014. Dative-Accusative ditransitive constructions in Skeat’s edition of The Four Gospels in Anglo-Saxon, Northumbrian and Old Mercian versions. Paper delivered at the 2014 International Symposium on Verbs, Clauses and Constructions, organized by the Functional Grammars Research Group, University of La Rioja, 22–24 October.Search in Google Scholar
Watkins, Calvert. 1976. Towards Proto-Indo-European syntax: Problems and pseudo-problems. In Sanford B. Steever, Carol A. Walker & Salokoko S. Mufwene (eds.), Papers from the parasession on diachronic syntax, 306–326. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Search in Google Scholar
Webelhuth, Gert & Clare J. Danneberg. 2006. Southern American English personal datives: The theoretical significance of dialectal variation. American Speech 81(1). 31–55.10.1215/00031283-2006-002Search in Google Scholar
Willis, David. 2011. Reconstructing last week’s weather: Syntactic reconstruction and Brythonic free relatives. Journal of Linguistics 47(2). 407–446.10.1017/S0022226710000381Search in Google Scholar
Winter, Werner. 1984. Reconstructional comparative linguistics and the reconstruction of the syntax of undocumented stages in the development of languages and language families. In J. Fisiak (ed.), Historical syntax, 613–625. The Hague: Mouton.10.1515/9783110824032.613Search in Google Scholar
Yáñez-Bouza, Nuria. 2016. May depend on me sending it you: Double objects in early grammars. Journal of English Linguistics 44(2). 138–161.10.1177/0075424216630793Search in Google Scholar
Yáñez-Bouza, Nuria & David Denison. 2015. Which comes first in the double object construction? English Language and Linguistics 19(2). 247–268.10.1017/S136067431500012XSearch in Google Scholar
Zehentner, Eva. 2016. On Competition and Cooperation in Middle English Ditransitives. Vienna: University of Vienna Ph.D. Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Zehentner, Eva. 2018. Ditransitives in Middle English: On semantic specialisation and the rise of the dative alternation. English Language and Linguistics 22(1). 149–175.10.1017/S1360674316000447Search in Google Scholar
© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
