Article published in:
Corpus Methods for Semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy
Edited by Dylan Glynn and Justyna A. Robinson
[Human Cognitive Processing 43] 2014
► pp. 39–60

Competing ‘transfer’ constructions in Dutch

The case of ont-verbs

| Ghent University
| Ghent University
| Ghent University
This paper zooms in on the semantic relations between the constructions of “possessional transfer” (i.e. constructions used to encode events of possessional transfer) in Dutch by zooming in on a specific morphological class of dispossession verbs, viz. verbs with the prefix ont- ‘away’, such as ontnemen ‘take away’, ontfutselen ‘fish out of ’, onttrekken ‘extract, withdraw’, ontheffen ‘relieve’, etc. A database with several thousand attested ont-examples from various corpora of present-day written Dutch will serve as the starting point for an investigation of their constructional possibilities and preferences: the ont-verbs will be shown to cluster into a number of subclasses in terms of alternation possibilities. In addition, a comparison of these present-day Dutch results with data from a diachronic corpus of 19th century Dutch will reveal a number of lexico-grammatical shifts: the use of the double object construction and (especially) of the aan-dative with ont-verbs is more heavily constrained now than it was in earlier stages of the language.
Keywords: aan-dative, alternations, dispossession verbs, Dutch, ont-verbs
Published online: 06 November 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.43.02del
References
Barðdal, J
(2007) The semantic and lexical range of the ditransitive construction in the history of (North) Germanic. Functions of Language , 14, 9–30. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Colleman, T
(2006) De Nederlandse datiefalternantie: Een constructioneel en corpusgebaseerd onderzoek [The Dutch dative alternation. A constructionist and corpus-based investigation]. Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Ghent University.Google Scholar
(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
Colleman, T., & De Clerck, B
(2009) Caused motion? The semantics of the English to-dative and the Dutch aan-dative. Cognitive Linguistics , 20, 5–42. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) Constructional semantics on the move: On semantic specialization in the English double object construction. Cognitive Linguistics , 22, 183–210. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Delorge, M., & De Clerck, B
(2007) A contrastive and corpus-based study of English and Dutch provide-verbs. Phrasis , 48, 121–142.Google Scholar
Delorge, M
(2010) De relatie tussen betekenis en structuur bij privatieve en receptieve werkwoorden in het Nederlands [The relation between meaning and structure in verbs of dispossession and reception in Dutch]. Unpublished Ph. D dissertation, Ghent University.Google Scholar
De Schutter, G
(1974)  De Nederlandse zin: Poging tot beschrijving van zijn structuur [The Dutch clause: An attempt at describing its structure]. Brugge: De Tempel.Google Scholar
Duyck, W., Desmet, T., Verbeke, L., & Brysbaert, M
(2004) WordGen: A tool for word selection and nonword generation in Dutch, English, German, and French. Behavior Research Methods , Instruments, & Computers , 36, 488–499. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D
(1998) The semantic structure of the indirect object in Dutch. In W. Van 
Langendonck & W. Van Belle (Eds), The Dative. Volume 2. Theoretical and contrastive studies (pp. 185–210). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A.E
(1992) The inherent semantics of argument structure: The case of the English ditransitive. Cognitive Linguistics , 3, 37–74. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1995)  Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Greenacre, M
(2007)  Correspondence analysis in practice (2nd ed.). Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M
(2005) Argument marking in ditransitive alignment types. Linguistic Discovery , 3, 1–21. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Janssen, T
(1997) Giving in Dutch: An intra-lexematical and inter-lexematical description. In J. Newman (Ed.), The Linguistics of Giving (pp. 267–306). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R.W
(1991)  Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar . Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, A., Haspelmath, M., & Comrie, B
(2010)  Studies in ditransitive constructions: A comparative handbook . Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Newman, J
(1996)  Give. A Cognitive Linguistic study . Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schermer-Vermeer, I
(1991)  Substantiële versus formele taalbeschrijving: Het indirect object in het Nederlands [Substantial versus formal language analysis: The indirect object in Dutch]. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam, Dutch Department.Google Scholar
Van Belle, W., & Van Langendonck, W
(1996) The indirect object in Dutch: In W. Van Belle & W. Van Langendonck (Eds.), The dative. Volume I: Descriptive studies (pp. 217–250). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Verhagen, A
(1986)  Linguistic theory and the function of word order in Dutch . Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

Colleman, Timothy
2018.  In Constructions in Contact [Constructional Approaches to Language, 24], ► pp. 143 ff. Crossref logo
Neels, Jakob & Stefan Hartmann
2018.  In Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 21], ► pp. 137 ff. Crossref logo
Zehentner, Eva
2021. Alternations emerge and disappear: the network of dispossession constructions in the history of English. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 17:3 ► pp. 525 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.