The grammatical literature on Dutch generally distinguishes two “passive” alternatives to the active double object construction, one of which, the so-called krijgen-passive is a fairly recent addition to the grammar, the earliest reported examples dating from around 1900. The present chapter addresses the early and subsequent history of this construction from a diachronic constructionist perspective. The first part of the chapter uses data from the 1900–1935 volumes of the Dutch periodical De Gids to reconstruct the lexical and semantic range of the krijgen-passive in its very first decades of life, in order to investigate which (semantic and/or morphological) subclasses of ditransitive verbs played a pathbreaking role in the development of this new construction from other krijgen + participle constructions, i.e. in the constructionalization of the krijgen-passive. The second part of the chapter looks into post-constructionalization semantic change, i.e. into the subsequent expansion of the newly emerged construction towards more sub-classes of ditransitive verbs, on the basis of data from the diachronic CONDIV-corpus (1950s to 1990s). Contra recent non-constructionist proposals, it will be argued that the krijgen-passive is an argument structure construction in its own right, with a semantic dynamics of its own, and that the apparently random constraints on its present-day distribution are less puzzling when viewed against the background of the construction’s genesis and subsequent semantic expansion.
(2005) Grammatikalisierung und Persistenz im deutschen “Rezipienten-Passiv” mit bekommen/kriegen/erhalten. In T. Leuschner, T. Mortelmans, & S. De Groodt (Eds.), Grammatikalisierung im Deutschen (pp. 211–228). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
(2011) West Scandinavian ditransitives as a family of constructions: With a special attention to the Norwegian ‘V-REFL-NP’ construction. Linguistics, 49, 53–104.
Blom, C
(2005) Complex predicates in Dutch: Synchrony and diachrony. Utrecht: LOT publications.
Booij, G
(2010) Construction morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
(2003) Lexical rules vs. constructions: A false dichotomy. In H. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven, & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Motivation in language: Studies in honour of Günter Radden (pp. 49–68). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
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, 1163–1204.
Diewald, G
(1997) Grammatikalisierung. Eine Einführung in Sein und Werden grammatischer Formen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Diewald, G
(2006) Context types in grammaticalization as constructions. In D. Schönefeld (Ed.), Constructions. Special Volume 1: Constructions all over - case studies and theoretical implications. [URL]
Fleischer, N
(2006) The origin of passive get. English Language and Linguistics, 10, 225–252.
Glaser, E
(2005) Krieg und kriegen: Zur Arealität der BEKOMMEN-Periphrasen. In U.K. Günther, A.H. Buhofer, & E. Piirainen (Eds.), “Krieg und Frieden” – Auseinandersetzung und Versöhnung in Diskursen (pp. 43–64). Tübingen: Francke.
Goldberg, A.E
(1995) Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, A.E
(2002) Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics, 13, 327–356.
Haeseryn, W., Romijn, K., Geerts, G., de Rooij, J., & Toorn, M.C. van den
(1997) Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunst. Tweede, geheel herziene druk. Groningen: Martinus Nijhoff & Deurne: Wolters Plantyn.
(1996) The way constructions grow. In A.E. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language (pp. 217–230). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Landsbergen, F
(2006) Krijgen, kriegen en get: een vergelijkend onderzoek naar betekenisverandering en grammaticalisatie. In M. Huening, A. Verhagen, U. Vogl, & T. van der Wouden (Eds.), Nederlands tussen Duits en Engels (pp. 259–272). Leiden: Stichting Neerlandistiek Leiden.
Landsbergen, F
(2009) Cultural evolutionary modeling of patterns in language change: Exercises in evolutionary linguistics. Utrecht: LOT publications.
Leirbukt, O
(1997) Untersuchungen zum bekommen-Passiv im heutigen Deutsch. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
(2006) Een baan aangeboden krijgen? Dat krijg ik nooit gedaan! Een synchroon en diachroon onderzoek naar de gebruiksmogelijkheden van krijgen + participium in het kader van de constructiegrammatica. Unpublished MA dissertation, University of Leiden.
Royen, P.G
(1952) Een aktief-passieve konstruktie. De nieuwe taalgids, 45, 258–261.
Schermer-Vermeer, I
(1991) Substantiële versus formele taalbeschrijving: het indirect object in het Nederlands. Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam.
Schutter, G. de
(1989) Casussen, syntactische functietoekenning en gemarkeerdheid. Antwerp Papers in Linguistics 63.Antwerpen: Universiteit Antwerpen.
Siewierska, A
(1984) The passive: A comparative linguistic analysis. London: Croom Helm.
Stefanowitsch, A
(2006) Negative evidence and the raw frequency fallacy. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 2, 61–77.
Traugott, E.C., & Trousdale, G
2013). Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 17 february 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.