Article published In:
Variation and Grammaticalization of Verbal ConstructionsEdited by Dániel Czicza and Gabriele Diewald
[Constructions and Frames 14:1] 2022
► pp. 121–149
Edited by Dániel Czicza and Gabriele Diewald
[Constructions and Frames 14:1] 2022
► pp. 121–149
Verbo-Nominal Constructions with kommen ‘come’ in German
The paper presents the results of a diachronic study of the light verb constructions containing the German verb kommen ‘come’ accompanied by a prepositional phrase containing a deverbal noun and the preposition zu ‘to’. The analysis is based on the corpus data from the DTA (DeutschesTextarchiv) between 1600 and 1900. The aim of the paper is to integrate traditional grammatical descriptions of Funktionsverbgefüge 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.
Keywords: German, light verb constructions, grammaticalization, lexicalization, idiomaticity, productivity, constructional change, schematicity
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Theoretical framework
- 2.1 Funktionsverbgefüge: Between lexicalization and grammaticalization
- 2.2Constructionist perspective
- 3.Data
- 4.Analysis
- 4.1The ‘lexicalized’ type of constructions
- 4.2The ‘grammaticalized’ type of constructions
- 5.Conclusion
- Notes
-
References
References (38)
Algeo, J. (1995). Having a look at the expanded predicate. In B. Aarts & Ch. F. Meyer (Eds.), The verb in Contemporary English: Theory and description (pp. 203–217). Cambridge University Press
Baayen, R. H. (2009). Corpus linguistics in morphology: Morphological productivity. In A. Lüdeling & M. Kyto (Eds.), Corpus linguistics. An international handbook (pp. 900–919). Mouton de Gruyter.
Barðdal, J. (2006). Predicting the productivity of argument structure constructions. Berkeley Linguistics Society 321, 467–478. 
(2008). Productivity: Evidence from case and argument structure in Icelandic. John Benjamins.
Barðdal, J. & Gildea, S. (2015). Diachronic Construction Grammar: Epistemological context, basic assumptions and historical implications. In J. Barðdal, E. Smirnova, L. Sommerer & S. Gildea (Eds.), Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 1–50). John Benjamins.
Brinton, L. J. (2011). The grammaticalization of complex predicates. In B. Heine & H. Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization (pp. 556–569). Oxford University Press
Brinton, L. J. & Akimoto, M. (Eds.). (1999). Collocational and idiomatic aspects of composite predicates in the history of English. John Benjamins.
Brinton, L. J. & Traugott, E. C. (2005). Lexicalization and language change. Cambridge University Press.
Bybee, J. (2007). Frequency of use and the organization of language. Oxford University Press.
(2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge University Press.
Coussé, E., Andersson, P. & Olofsson, J. (Eds.). (2018). Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar. John Benjamins.
De Smet, H. (2020). What predicts productivity? Theory meets individuals. Cognitive Linguistics,
31
(2), 251–278.
DUDEN (2016). Die Grammatik: Unentbehrlich für richtiges Deutsch. Dudenverlag.
Eisenberg, P. (1999). Grundriss der deutschen Grammatik. Das Wort. Verlag J.B. Metzler.
Goldberg, A. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press.
(2019). Explain me this. Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton University Press.
Heine, A. (2020). Zwischen Grammatik und Lexikon. Forschungsgeschichtlicher Blick auf Funktionsverbgefüge. In S. De Knop & M. Hermann (Eds.), Funktionsverbgefüge im Fokus (pp. 15–38). Mouton de Gruyter.
Heine, B. & Kuteva, T. (2002). World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press.
Helbig, G. (1979). Probleme der Beschreibung von Funktionsverbgefügen im Deutschen. Deutsch als Fremdsprache,
16
(2), 273–284.
Heringer, H. J. (1968). Die Opposition von „kommen“ und „bringen“ als Funktionsverben. Schwann.
Lehmann, Ch. (2002a). Thoughts on grammaticalization. 2nd ed. Erfurt: Seminar für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität (ASSidUE, 9).
(2002b). New reflections on grammaticalization and lexicalization. In I. Wischer & G. Diewald (Eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization (pp. 1–18). John Benjamins.
(2004). Theory and method in grammaticalization. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik,
32
1, 152–187.
Leiss, E. (1992). Die Verbalkategorien des Deutschen. Mouton de Gruyter.
Plag, I. (2003). Word-formation in English. Cambridge University Press.
Polenz, Peter von. (1987). Funktionsverben, Funktionsverbgefüge und Verwandtes Vorschläge zur Satzsemantischen Lexikographie. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik
15
1, 169–189.
Rösch, O. (1994). Untersuchungen zu passivwertigen Funktionsverbgefügen im Deutschen der Gegenwart. Ein Beitrag zur funktionalen Valenzgrammatik. Helmut Buske.
Schmid, H.-J. (2016). A framework for understanding linguistic entrenchment and its psychological foundations. In H.-J. Schmid (Ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning: How we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge (pp. 9–35). Mouton de Gruyter.
Smirnova, E. (2015). Constructionalization and constructional change: The role of context in the development of constructions. In J. Barðdal, E. Smirnova, L. Sommerer & S. Gildea (Eds.), Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 81–106). John Benjamins.
Smirnova, E. & Sommerer, L. (2020). The nature of the node and the network – Open questions in Diachronic Construction Grammar. In L. Sommerer & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 2–42). John Benjamins.
Traugott, E. C. & Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford University Press.
Trousdale, G. (2008). Constructions in grammaticalization and lexicalization: Evidence from the history of a composite predicate construction in English. In G. Trousdale & N. Gisborne (Eds.), Constructional approaches to English grammar (pp. 33–67). Mouton de Gruyter.
(2014). On the relationship between grammaticalization and constructionalization. Folia Linguistica,
48
(2), 557–578.
Van Goethem, K., Norde, M., Coussé, E. & Vanderbauwhede, G. (Eds.). (2018). Category change from a constructional perspective. John Benjamins.
Van Pottelberge, J. (2001). Verbonominale Konstruktionen, Funktionsverbgefüge. Vom Sinn und Unsinn eines Untersuchungsgegenstandes. Winter.
von Polenz, P. (2009). Funktionsverben, Funktionsverbgefüge und Verwandtes. Vorschläge zur satzsemantischen Lexikografie. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik,
15
(2), 169–189.
Wierzbicka, A. (1982). Why can you ‘have a drink’ when you can’t ‘*have an eat’? Language,
58
1, 753–799.
Zeschel, A. (2008). Funktionsverbgefüge als Idiomverbände. In A. Stefanowitsch & Fischer, K. (Eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik: von der Konstruktion zur Grammatik (pp. 263–278). Stauffenburg.