Cover not available
Article published In:
Variation and Grammaticalization of Verbal Constructions
Edited by Dániel Czicza and Gabriele Diewald
[Constructions and Frames 14:1] 2022
► pp. 78–120

The affactive få ‘get’ construction in Danish

Afficiaries, agentivity and voice

| University of Southern Denmark
As in many other Germanic languages, Modern Danish combines the verb få ‘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 Affactive Construction 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.
Keywords: affaction, beneficiary, maleficiary, ‘get’ verbs, agentivity, voice, telicity
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2. Få ‘get’ + supine in Danish
  • 3.Previous studies
    • 3.1Hansen & Heltoft’s non-integrated constructions
    • 3.2Other previous treatments
    • 3.3Discussion of previous studies
  • 4.The corpus study
    • 4.1Questions to answer and design of the study
    • 4.2Agentivity
    • 4.3Telicity
    • 4.4Transitivity
    • 4.5Malefactive predicates
    • 4.6Subject referents
    • 4.7The AC and expressions of purpose and achievement
    • 4.8Discussion of the corpus results
  • 5.The Affactive Construction
    • 5.1Afficiary and agent
    • 5.2Coded content, variants and semantic affinities
    • 5.3Voice: Active and passive AC
    • 5.4The taxonomy of AC types
    • 5.5Non-human subjects and subjectification
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 9 August 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00059.nie
References (47)
References
Askedal, J. O. (2012). Norwegian få ‘get’: A survey of its uses in present-day Riksmål/Bokmål, Linguistics, 50 (6), 1289–1331. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bateson, G. (1972). Form, substance and difference. In G. Bateson, Steps to an Ecology of Mind (pp. 455–472). Jason Aronson.Google Scholar
Boas, H. C. (2013). Cognitive Construction Grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 233–250). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Boye, K. (2010). Raising verbs and auxiliaries in a functional theory of grammatical status. In K. Boye & E. Engberg-Pedersen (Eds.), Language usage and language structure (pp. 73–104). Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boye, K. & Harder, P. (2007). Complement-taking predicates. Usage and linguistic structure. Studies in Language, 31 (3), 569–606. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). A usage-based theory of grammatical status and grammaticalization. Language, 88 (1), 1–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Konstruktionsgrammatik, regler og funktionsbaseret struktur i neurokognitiv belysning. Ny forskning i grammatik, 24 1, 45–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Colleman, T. (2015). Constructionalization and post-constructionalization: The constructional semantics of the Dutch krijgen-passive in a diachronic perspective. In J. Barðdal, E. Smirnova, L. Sommerer & S. Gildea (Eds.), Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 213–255). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, B. (1977). In defense of spontaneous demotion: The impersonal passive. In P. Cole & J. M. Sadock (Eds.). Grammatical relations ( Syntax and Semantics, vol. 8) (pp. 47–58). Academic Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diderichsen, P. (1962). Elementær Dansk Grammatik. 3rd ed. Gyldendal.Google 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 (6), 1163–1204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. (2015). Usage-based construction grammar. In E. Dabrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 296–322). Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). The grammar network. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Durst-Andersen, P. & Herslund, M. (1996). The syntax of Danish verbs: Lexical and syntactic transitivity. In E. Engberg-Pedersen et al. (Eds.), Content, expression and structure. Studies in Danish Functional Grammar (pp. 65–102). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eisenberg, P. (2006). Grundriss der deutschen Grammatik. Band 2: Der Satz. 3rd ed. J. B. Metzler.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Falster Jakobsen, L. (2007). Hvordan fungerer verbet at få? In H. Jørgensen & P. Widell (Eds.). Det bedre argument. Festskrift til Ole Togeby 7. marts 2007 (pp. 281–298). Wessel og Huitfeldt.Google Scholar
(2009). Lad os få analyseret lidt mere på verbet at få. Få + perfektum participium set i lyset af Construction Grammar. In R. Therkelsen & E. S. Jensen (Eds.), Dramatikken i grammatikken. Festskrift til Lars Heltoft (pp. 185–201). Department of Culture & Identity, Roskilde University.Google Scholar
Foley, W. A. (2007). A typology of information packaging in the clause. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, vol. 11. 2nd ed. (pp. 362–446). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fried, M. & Östman, J-O. (2004). Construction Grammar: A thumbnail sketch. In M. Fried & J.-O. Östman (Eds.), Construction Grammar in a Cross-Language Perspective (pp. 11–86). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haiman, J. (1985). Natural syntax: Iconicity and erosion. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hansen, E. & Heltoft, L. (2011). Grammatik over det Danske Sprog. Det Danske Sprog- og Litteraturselskab.Google Scholar
Hansen, Aa. (1967). Moderne Dansk, Vol. I–III. Grafisk Forlag.Google Scholar
Harder, P. (1996). Functional semantics. A theory of meaning structure and tense in English. Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006). Dansk Funktionel Lingvistik. NyS, 34–35 1, 92–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heltoft, L. (2008). Grammatik over det Danske Sprog – en radikal dependensgrammatik? Ny forskning i grammatik, 15 1, 69–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Paradigmatic structure in a usage-based theory of grammaticalisation. In K. Boye & E. Engberg-Pedersen (Eds.), Language usage and language structure (pp. 145–166). Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2014). Constructional change, paradigmatic structure and the orientation of usage processes. In E. Coussé & F. von Mengden (Eds.), Usage-based approaches to language change (pp. 203–241). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2019). Construction Grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J. & Thompson, S. A. (1980). Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language, 56 (2), 251–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larsson, I. (2014). GET and HAVE + past participle or supine. The Nordic Atlas of Language Structures Journal, 11, 165–181.Google Scholar
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
Mikkelsen, K. (1911 [1975]). Dansk Ordföjningslære. Hans Reitzels Forlag.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). Diachronic morphology, indexical function and a critique of the morphome analysis: The content and expression of Danish forstå . In L. Heltoft, I. Igartua, K. Kragh Jeppesen, B. D. Joseph & L. Schøsler (Eds.), Perspectives on language structure and language change (pp. 125–150). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nørgård-Sørensen, J., Heltoft, L. & Schøsler, L. (2011). Connecting grammaticalisation. The role of paradigmatic structure. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pedersen, K. M. (2011). Få stolene malet – få malet stolene. Mål og Mæle, 34 (2), 25–29.Google Scholar
Saeed, J. I. (1997). Semantics. Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Stein, D. & Wright, S. (Eds.). (1995). Subjectivity and subjectivisation. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (1989). On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language, 65 (1), 31–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1995). Subjectification in grammaticalisation. In D. Stein & S. Wright (Eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation (pp. 31–54). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, G. (2014). On the relationship between grammaticalization and constructionalization. Folia Linguistica, 48 1, 557–577. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zúñiga, F. (2011). Why should beneficiaries be subjects (or objects)? Affaction and grammatical relations. In S. Kittilä et al. (Eds.), Case, animacy and semantic roles (pp. 329–348). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar