Article published in:
Diachronic Construction Grammar
Edited by Jóhanna Barðdal, Elena Smirnova, Lotte Sommerer and Spike Gildea
[Constructional Approaches to Language 18] 2015
► pp. 213–256

Constructionalization and post-constructionalization

The constructional semantics of the Dutch krijgen-passive from a diachronic perspective

| Ghent University
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.
Published online: 30 July 2015
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.18.07col
References
Askedal, J.O
(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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009) Some general evolutionary and typological characteristics of the Germanic languages. In J.O. Askedal, I. Roberts, T. Matsushita, & H. Hasegawa (Eds.), Germanic languages and linguistic universals (pp. 7–56). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, J
(2008) Productivity: Evidence from case and argument structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, J., Kristoffersen, K.E., & Sveen, A
(2011) West Scandinavian ditransitives as a family of constructions: With a special attention to the Norwegian ‘V-REFL-NP’ construction. Linguistics, 49, 53–104. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blom, C
(2005) Complex predicates in Dutch: Synchrony and diachrony. Utrecht: LOT publications.Google Scholar
Booij, G
(2010) Construction morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Broekhuis, H., & Cornips, L
(1994) Undative constructions. Linguistics, 32, 173–189. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012)  The verb krijgen ‘to get’ as an undative verb . Linguistics, 50, 1205–1249. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Colleman, T
(2006) De Nederlandse datiefalternantie: Een constructioneel en corpusgebaseerd onderzoek. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Ghent University.
(2009a) The semantic range of the Dutch double object construction: A collostructional perspective. Constructions and Frames, 1, 190–220. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009b) Verb disposition in argument structure alternations: A corpus study of the Dutch dative alternation. Language Sciences, 31, 593–611. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) Ditransitive verbs and the ditransitive construction: A diachronic perspective. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 59, 387–410. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Colleman, T., & De Clerck, B
(2011) Constructional semantics on the move: On semantic specialization in the English double object construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 22, 183–210. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Colleman, T., & Noël, D
(2012) The Dutch evidential NCI: A case of constructional attrition. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 13, 1–28. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W
(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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Diewald, G
(1997) Grammatikalisierung. Eine Einführung in Sein und Werden grammatischer Formen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006) Context types in grammaticalization as constructions. In D. Schönefeld (Ed.), Constructions. Special Volume 1: Constructions all over - case studies and theoretical implications. www​.constructions​-online​.de
Fleischer, N
(2006) The origin of passive get . English Language and Linguistics, 10, 225–252. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A.E
(1995) Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2002) Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics, 13, 327–356. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Hopper, P
(1991) On some principles of grammaticalization. In E.C. Traugott, & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization (pp. 17–35). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Israel, M
(1996) The way constructions grow. In A.E. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language (pp. 217–230). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
(2009) Cultural evolutionary modeling of patterns in language change: Exercises in evolutionary linguistics. Utrecht: LOT publications.Google Scholar
Leirbukt, O
(1997) Untersuchungen zum bekommen-Passiv im heutigen Deutsch. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lenz, A.N
(2012) On the genesis of the German recipient passive – Two competing hypotheses in the light of current dialect data. In G. de Vogelaer, & G. Seiler (Eds.), The dialect laboratory: Dialects as a testing ground for theories of language change (pp. 121–138). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leeuwen, M. van
(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.Google Scholar
Royen, P.G
(1952) Een aktief-passieve konstruktie. De nieuwe taalgids, 45, 258–261.Google Scholar
Schermer-Vermeer, I
(1991) Substantiële versus formele taalbeschrijving: het indirect object in het Nederlands. Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Schutter, G. de
(1989) Casussen, syntactische functietoekenning en gemarkeerdheid. Antwerp Papers in Linguistics 63.Antwerpen: Universiteit Antwerpen.Google Scholar
Siewierska, A
(1984) The passive: A comparative linguistic analysis. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A
(2006) Negative evidence and the raw frequency fallacy. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 2, 61–77. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E.C., & Trousdale, G
2013). Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Crossref
Cited by

Cited by 7 other publications

Budts, Sara & Peter Petré
2020.  In Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 27], ► pp. 318 ff. Crossref logo
Colleman, Timothy
2018.  In Constructions in Contact [Constructional Approaches to Language, 24], ► pp. 143 ff. Crossref logo
Fanego, Teresa
2017.  The trolley rumbled through the tunnel: On the history of the English Intransitive Motion Construction . Folia Linguistica 51:s38-s1 ► pp. 29 ff. Crossref logo
Gyselinck, Emmeline
2020.  In Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 27], ► pp. 108 ff. Crossref logo
Gyselinck, Emmeline & Timothy Colleman
2016. Tracking shifts in the literal versus the intensifying fake reflexive resultative construction. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 30 ► pp. 55 ff. Crossref logo
Hilpert, Martin
2018.  In Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 21], ► pp. 21 ff. Crossref logo
Höder, Steffen
2019. Phonological schematicity in multilingual constructions: A diasystematic perspective on lexical form. Word Structure 12:3 ► pp. 334 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 may 2022. 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.