Cover not available
Part of
The Ditransitive Alternation in Present-Day German: A corpus-based analysis
Hilde De Vaere
[Studies in Germanic Linguistics 6] 2023
► pp. 279–293

References

“grammis”, Grammatisches Informationssystem. Retrieved from [URL]
Adler, Julia. 2011. Dative alternations in German. The argument realization options of transfer verbs. Doctoral dissertation, Hebrew University: Jerusalem.
Ágel, Vilmos. 2000. Valenztheorie. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
. 2015. Brisante Gegenstände. Zur valenztheoretischen integrierbarkeit von Konstruktionen. In Stefan Engelberg, Meike Meliss, Kristel Proost and Edeltraud Winkler (Eds.), Argumentstruktur zwischen Valenz und Konstruktion, 61–87. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
. 2017. Grammatische Textanalyse: Textglieder, Satzglieder, Wortgruppenglieder. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ágel, Vilmos and Eichinger, Ludwig. 2003. Dependenz und Valenz : Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ágel, Vilmos and Fischer, Klaus. 2010. Dependency Grammar and Valency Theory. In Bernd Heine and Heiko Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis, 223–255. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Agricola, Erhard. 1957. Fakultative sprachliche Formen. In Theodor Frings and Elisabeth Karg-Gasterstädt (Eds.), Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur, Vol. 79 – Sonderband, 43–76. Halle/Saale: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
. 1962. Wörter und Wendungen. Wörterbuch zum deutschen Sprachgebrauch. Leipzig: VEB Bibliographisches Institut.Google Scholar
Aissen, Judith. 1999. Markedness and subject choice in Optimality Theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17, 673–711. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ariel, Mira. 2008. Pragmatics and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Defining Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Atlas, Jay David. 2005. Logic, Meaning, and Conversation: Semantical Underdeterminancy, Implicature, and their Interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bach, Kent. 2010. Impliciture vs Explicature: What’s the difference? In María Belén Soria Casaverde and Esther Romero (Eds.), Explicit Communication: Robyn Carston’s Pragmatics, 126–137. Basingstoke: Palgrave. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark. 1989. Object sharing and projection in serial verb constructions. Linguistic Inquiry 20(4), 513–553.Google Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Maechler, Martin, Bolker, Ben and Walker, Steve. 2015. Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67(1), 1–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beavers, John. 2011. An Aspectual Analysis of Ditransitive Verbs of Caused Possession in English. Journal of Semantics 28, 1–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Behaghel, Otto. 1932. Deutsche Syntax. Eine geschichtliche Darstellung. Vol. IV: Wortstellung. Periodenbau. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Belligh, Thomas. 2018. The role of referential givenness in Dutch alternating presentational constructions. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 32, 21–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Belligh, Thomas and Willems, Klaas. 2021. What’s in a code? The code-inference distinction in Neo-Gricean Pragmatics, Relevance Theory, and Integral Linguistics. Language Sciences 83(1). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bernaisch, Tobias, Gries, Stefan Th. and Mukherjee, Joybrato. 2014. The dative alternation in South Asian English(es). English World-Wide 35(1), 7–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 2011. Grammatical Relations Typology. In Jae Jung Song (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology, 399–444. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Boas, Hans C. and Ziem, Alexander. 2018a. Approaching German syntax from a constructionist perspective. In Hans C. Boas and Alexander Ziem (Eds.), Constructional Approaches to Syntactic Structures in German, 1–44. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018b. Constructional Approaches to Syntactic Structures in German. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bock, Kathryn J. 1986. Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology 18, 355–387. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight L. 1968. Entailment and the Meaning of Structures. Glossa 2, 119–127.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 2007. Is syntactic knowledge probabilistic? Experiments with the English dative alternation. In Sam Featherston and Wolfgang Sternefeld (Eds.), Roots: Linguistics in search of its evidential base 77–96. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, Cueni, Anna, Nikitina, Tatiana and Baayen, Harald. 2007. Predicting the Dative Alternation. Paper presented at the Cognitive Foundations of Interpretation Colloquium, Amsterdam.
Bresnan, Joan and Ford, Marilyn. 2010. Predicting Syntax: Processing Dative Constructions in American and Australian Varieties of English. Language 86(1), 168–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan and Nikitina, Tatiana. 2003. On the Gradience of the Dative Alternation. Paper presented at the MIT Linguistics Department Colloquium, Cambridge MASS. Retrieved from [URL]
Bybee, Joan. 2006. From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language 82(4), 711–733. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Usage-based Theory and Exemplar Representations of Constructions. In Thomas Hoffmann and Graeme Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, 49–69. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cappelle, Bert. 2006. Particle placement and the case for “allostructions”. In Doris Schönefeld (Ed.), Constructions All Over: Case Studies and Theoretical Implications. Special volume 1, Constructions. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 2002a. Linguistic meaning, Communicated Meaning and Cognitive Pragmatics. Mind & language 17(1–2), 127–148. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002b. Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of explicit Communication. Malden, MA: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Linguistic Communication and the Semantics/Pragmatics Distinction. Synthese 165, 321–345. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Word Meaning and Concept Expressed. The Linguistic Review 29(4), 607–623. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2002 [1957]. Syntactic Structures. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coene, Ann. 2006. Lexikalische Bedeutung, Valenz und Koerzion. Hildesheim: Georg Olms.Google Scholar
Coene, Ann and Willems, Klaas. 2006. Konstruktionelle Bedeutungen. Kritische Anmerkungen zu Adele Goldbergs konstruktiongrammatischer Bedeutungstheorie. Sprachtheorie und germanistische Linguistik 16(1), 1–35.Google Scholar
Colleman, Timothy. 2006. De Nederlandse datiefalternantie: een constructioneel en corpusgebaseerd onderzoek. Doctoral dissertation, UGent: Gent.
. 2009. Verb disposition in argument structure alternations. A corpus study of the Dutch dative alternation. Language Sciences 31, 593–611. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Collins, Peter. 1995. The indirect object construction in English: an informational approach. Linguistics 33, 35–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coseriu, Eugenio. 1970. Bedeutung und Bezeichnung im Lichte der strukturellen Semantik. In Peter Hartmann and Henri Vernay (Eds.), Sprachwissenschaft und Übersetzen, 104–124. München: Max Hueber.Google Scholar
. 1972. Semantik und Grammatik. In Hugo Moser (Ed.), Neue Grammatiktheorien und ihre Anwendung auf das heutige Deutsch, 77–89. Düsseldorf: Schwan.Google Scholar
. 1975 [1962]. Sprachtheorie und allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft. München: Wilhelm Fink.Google Scholar
. 1978a. Die lexematischen Strukturen. In Horst Geckeler (Ed.), Strukturelle Bedeutungslehre, 254–273. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
. 1978b. Einführung in die strukturelle Betrachtung des Wortschatzes. In Horst Geckeler (Ed.), Strukturelle Bedeutungslehre, 193–238. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
. 1979. Sprache, Strukturen und Funktionen, 3. durchgesehene und verbesserte Auflage. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
. 1985. Linguistic Competence: What is it really? The Modern Language Review 80(4), xxv–xxxv. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1987. Formen und Funktionen: Studien zur Grammatik. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
. 1992 [1988]. Einführung in die Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft. Tübingen: Franke.Google Scholar
. 2001. L’ homme et son langage. Louvain & Paris: Peeters.Google Scholar
. 2007. Sprachkompetenz. Grundzüge der Theorie des Sprechens (2nd ed.). Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Verbs: aspect and causal structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William, Barðdal, Jóhanna, Hollmann, Willem, Nielsen, Maaike, Sotirova, Violeta and Taoka, Chiaki. 2001. Discriminating Verb Meanings: the Case of Transfer Verbs. Paper presented at the LAGB Autumn Meeting, Reading.
Czypionka, Anna, Spalek, Katharina, Wartenburger, Isabell and Krifka, Manfred. 2017. On the interplay of object animacy and verb type during sentence comprehension in German: ERP evidence from the processing of transitive and accusative constructions. Linguistics 55(6), 1383–1433. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dal, Ingerid. 1966. Kurze deutsche Syntax auf historischer Grundlage. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
. 2013. Debiasing semantic analysis: the English preposition to. Language Sciences 37, 122–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Cuypere, Ludovic, Vanderschueren, Clara and De Sutter, Gert (Eds.). 2017. Current trends in analyzing syntactic variation. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Cuypere, Ludovic and Verbeke, Saartje. 2013. A corpus-based analysis of dative alternation in Indian English. World Englishes 32(2), 169–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Vaere, Hilde, De Cuypere, Ludovic and Willems, Klaas. 2018. Alternating constructions with ditransitive geben in present-day German. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 17(1): 73–107. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2021. Constructional variation with two near-synonymous verbs: the case of schicken and senden in present-day German. Language Sciences 83(1): 101313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Vaere, Hilde, Kolkmann, Julia and Belligh, Thomas. 2020. Allostructions revisited. Journal of Pragmatics 170, 96–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2017. Usage-Based Linguistics. In Marc Aronoff (Ed.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from [URL]. DOI logo
. 2019. The Grammar Network. How Linguistic Structure is Shaped by Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dietrich, Wolf. 1997. Polysemie als ‘volle Wortbedeutung’ – gegen die ‘Mehrdeutigkeit der Zeichen’. In Ulrich Hoinkes and Wolf Dietrich (Eds.), Kaleidoskop der Lexikalischen Semantik, 227–238. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Dik, Simon C. 1997. The Theory of Functional Grammar. Complex and Derived Constructions. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dominguez Vázquez, María José. 2018. Was sind Valenzwörterbücher. Sprachwissenschaft 43(3), 309–342.Google Scholar
Du, Rong. 2009. Zur Alternation von Doppelobjekt- und Präpositionalkonstruktion bei Besitzwechselverben im Deutschen und Chinesischen. Eine kontrastive Untersuchung. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Duden. 1973. Grammatik der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Mannheim: Bibliographisches Institut.Google Scholar
. 2006. Die Grammatik (7th ed.). Mannheim: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar
. 2016. Die Grammatik (9th ed.). Berlin: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar
Dürscheid, Christa. 1999. Die verbalen Kasus des Deutschen. Untersuchungen zur Syntax, Semantik und Perspektive. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DWDS. Digitales Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache. Retrieved from [URL]
Eichinger, Ludwig. 2015. Kookkurrenz und Dependenz. Konkurrierende Prinzipien oder einander ergänzende Beobachtungen? In Stefan Engelberg, Meike Meliss, Kristel Proost and Edeltraud Winkler (Eds.), Argumentstruktur zwischen Valenz und Konstruktion, 89–107. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, Peter. 2006. Der Satz. Grundriss der deutschen Grammatik. Stuttgart & Weimar: Metzler.Google Scholar
Engel, Ulrich and Schumacher, Helmut. 1978. Kleines Valenzlexikon deutscher Verben. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erben, Johannes. 1960. Gesetz und Freiheit in der deutschen Hochsprache der Gegenwart. Der Deutschunterricht 12(5), 9–148.Google Scholar
. 1967. Abriss der deutschen Grammatik. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Eroms, Hans-Werner and Heringer, Hans Jürgen. 2003. Dependenz und lineare Ordnung. In Vilmos Ágel, Ludwig M. Eichinger, Hans-Werner Eroms, Peter Hellwig, Hans Jürgen Heringer and Henning Lobin (Eds.), Dependenz und Valenz. Dependency and Valency, 247–263. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 1979. Discourse Constraints on Dative Movement. In Talmy Givón (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics 12: Discourse and Syntax, 441–467. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, Fernanda and Patson, Nikole D. 2007. The ‘Good Enough’ Approach to Language Comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass 1(1–2), 71–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, Victor S. 1996. Is it better to give than to donate? Syntactic flexibility in language production. Journal of Memory and Language 35(5), 724–755. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1968. The case for case. In Emmon Bach and Robert T. Harms (Eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory, 21–119. New York: Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
1977. The case for case reopened. In Peter Cole and Jerrold Murray Sadock (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics – Grammatical relations, 59–81. New York, San Francisco & London: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1982. Frame Semantics. In The linguistic society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm, 111–137. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
Fischer, Kerstin and Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2008. Konstruktionsgrammatik. Von der Anwendung zur Theorie. Zweite Auflage. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Fischer, Klaus. 2013. Satzstrukturen im Deutschen und Englischen: Typologie und Textrealisierung. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ford, Marilyn and Bresnan, Joan. 2013. “They whispered me the answer” in Australia and the US: A comparative experimental study. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Fox, John. 2003. Effect Displays in R for Generalised Linear Models. Journal of Statistical Software 8(15), 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, John and Weisberg, Sanford. 2019. An {R} Companion to Applied Regression, Third Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Frisson, Steven. 2009. Semantic Underspecification in Language Processing. Language and Linguistics Compass 3(1), 111–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. About bound and scary books: The processing of book polysemies. Lingua 157, 17–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frisson, Steven and Pickering, Martin J. 1999. The Processing of Metonymy: Evidence from Eye Movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 25, 1366–1383.Google Scholar
Gadler, Hanspeter. 1982. Zur Serialisierung nominaler Satzglieder im Mittelfeld und zur Topikalisierung. In Werner Abraham (Ed.), Satzglieder im Deutschen, 155–169. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Geckeler, Horst. 1971. Zur Wortfelddiskussion. Untersuchungen zur Gliederung des Wortfeldes ‘alt – jung – neu’ im heutigen Französisch. München: Wilhelm FinkGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk. 2010. Theories of Lexical Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Geleyn, Tim. 2016. Constructies in variatie en verandering: diachroon corpusonderzoek naar de Nederlandse aan-constructie vanuit semasiologisch en onomasiologisch perspectief. Doctoral dissertation, UGent: Gent.
Gerwin, Johanna. 2013. Give it me!: pronominal ditransitives in English dialects. English Language and Linguistics 17(3), 445–463. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1984. Syntax: A functional-typological introduction. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018 [1979]. On Understanding Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glinz, Hans. 1965. Innere Form des Deutschen. Eine neue deutsche Grammatik. Bern: Francke.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1992. Construction Grammar. The inherent semantics of argument structure: The case of the English ditransitive construction. Cognitive Linguistics 3(1), 37–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2002. Surface Generalisations: an alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics 13(4), 327–356. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003. Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Science 7(5), 219–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006. Constructions at Work: the Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2019. Explain me this: Creativity, Competition, and the Partial Productivity of Constructions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Grafmiller, Jason and Szmrecsanyi, Benedict. 2018. Mapping out particle placement in Englishes around the world. A study in comparative sociolinguistic analysis. Language Variation and Change 30(3), 385–412. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Green, Georgia. 1974. Semantics and Syntactic Regularity. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Grice, H. Paul. 1989 [1967]. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
. 1993. Logik und Konversation. In Georg Meggle (Ed.), Handlung, Kommunikation, Bedeutung, 243–265. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2003a. Multifactorial Analysis in Corpus Linguistics: A study of Particle Placement. London: Continuum Press.Google Scholar
2003b. Towards a corpus-based identification of prototypical instances of constructions. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 1, 1–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2005. Syntactic priming: a corpus based approach. Journal of psycholinguistic research 34, 365–399. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. and Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2004. Extending collostructional analysis. A corpus-based perspective on alternations. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9(1), 97–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. and Wulff, Stefanie. 2013. The genitive alternation in Chinese and German ESL learners: towards a multifactorial notion of context in learner corpus research. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 18(3), 327–356. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grimm, Jacob and Grimm, Wilhelm. 1845–1961. Deutsches Wörterbuch. Leipzig: Hirzel.Google Scholar
Groefsema, Marjolein. 2001. The real-world colour of the dative alternation. Language Sciences 23(4–5), 525–550. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gropen, Jess, Pinker, Steven, Hollander, Michelle, Goldberg, Richard and Wilson, Ronald. 1989. The learnability and Acquisition of the Dative Alternation in English. Language 65(2), 203–257. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette. 2003. Information Structure and Referential Givenness/Newness: How Much Belongs in the Grammar? Paper presented at the 10th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Michigan State University.
Gundel, Jeanette and Fretheim, Thorstein. 2004. Topic and focus. In Lawrence Horn and Gregory Ward (Eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics, 175–196. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette, Hedberg, Nancy and Zacharski, Ron. 1993. Cognitive Status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69, 274–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2003. Possession and the double object construction. In Pierre Pica and Johan Rooryck (Eds.), Linguistic Variation Yearbook, Vol. 2, 31–70. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Harrel, Frank. 2015. Regression Modeling Strategies. With Applications to Linear Models, Logistic and Ordinal Regression, and Survival Analysis. Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harrell, Frank E. Jr. 2019. rms: Regression Modeling Strategies. R package version 5.1–3.1. Retrieved from [URL]
Harrell, Frank E. Jr., Dupont, Charles and others, with contributions from many. 2019. Hmisc: Harrell Miscellaneous, R package version 4.2–0. Retrieved from [URL]
Haspelmath, Martin. 2010. Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies. Language 86, 663–387. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Escaping ethnocentrism in the study of word-class universals. Theoretical Linguistics 38(1–2), 91–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Ditransitive Constructions: The Verb ‘Give’. Retrieved from [URL]
. 2015. Ditransitive Constructions. The Annual Review of Linguistics 1, 19–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin and Baumann, Luisa. 2013. German Valency Patterns. Valency Patterns Leipzig. Retrieved from [URL]
Helbig, Gerhard. 1973. Die funktionen der substantivischen Kasus in der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Habilitationsschrift, Verlag Enzyklopädie: Leipzig.Google Scholar
Helbig, Gerhard and Schenkel, Wolfgang. 1983. Wörterbuch zur Valenz und Distribution deutscher Verben. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Hens, Gregor. 1995. Ditransitive Constructions in German. Doctoral dissertation, University of California: Berkeley.
Heringer, Hans Jürgen. 1984. Neues von der Verbszene. In Gerhard Stickel (Ed.), Pragmatik in der Grammatik, 34–64. Düsseldorf: Cornelsen.Google Scholar
Heuer, Knut. 1977. Untersuchung zur Abgrenzung der obligatorischen und fakultativen Valenz des Verbs. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2014. Construction Grammar and its Application to English. Edinburg: Edinburg University Press.Google Scholar
Höllein, Dagobert. 2019. Präpositionalobjekt vs. Adverbial. Die semantischen Rollen der Präpositionalobjekte. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2021. Coseriu, significative semantics and a new system of semantic roles. In Klaas Willems and Cristinel Munteanu (Eds.), Eugenio Coseriu. Past, present and future, 261–278. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Isačenko, Alexander. 1965. Das syntaktische Verhältnis der Bezeichnungen von Körperteilen im Deutschen. In Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin (Ed.), Studia Grammatica V. Syntaktische Studien, 7–28. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 2013. Constructions in the Parallel Architecture. In Thomas Hoffmann and Graeme Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, 70–92. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kabatek, Johannes. 2000. Einheitlichkeit der Bedeutung, Designat und Integrale Linguistik. In Bruno Staib (Ed.), Linguistica romanica et indiana. Festschrift für Wolf Dietrich zum 60. Geburtstag, 187–205. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Kasper, Simon. 2015. Instruction Grammar. From perception via grammar to action. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kay, Paul. 1996. Argument Structure: Causative ABC Constructions. Retrieved from [URL]
. 2005. Argument structure constructions and the argument-adjunct distinction. In Mirjam Fried and Hans C. Boas (Eds.), Grammatical Constructions: Back to the Roots, 71–98. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. The Limits of (Construction) Grammar. In Thomas Hoffmann and Graeme Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, 32–48. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kholodova, Alina and Allen, Shanley. 2023. The dative alternation in German: Structural preferences and verb bias effects. In Eva Zehentner, Melanie Röthlisberger and Timothy Colleman (Eds.), Ditransitives in Germanic Languages. Synchronic and diachronic aspects, 236–270.
Kittilä, Seppo. 2005. Recipient-prominence vs. beneficiary prominence. Linguistic Typology 9(2), 269–297. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. The anomaly of the verb ‘give’ explained by its high (formal and semantic) transitivity. Linguistics 44(3), 569–612. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kizach, Johannes and Winther Balling, Laura. 2013. Givenness, complexity and the Danish dative alternation. Memory and Cognition 41, 1159–1171. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klappenbach, Ruth and Steinitz, Wolfgang. 1973. Wörterbuch der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Klavan, Jane and Divjak, Dagmar. 2016. The Cognitive Plausibility of Statistical Classification Models: Comparing Textual and Behavioral Evidence. Folio Linguistica 50(2), 355–384. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kleiber, Georges. 1990. La Sémantique du prototype. Catégories et sens lexical. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1999. Manner in Dative Alternation. Paper presented at the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, University of Arizona, Tucson.
Labov, William. 1973. The boundaries of words and their meanings. In Charles-James Bailey and Roger W. Shuy (Eds.), New Ways of Analyzing Variation in English, 340–371. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2007. Cognitive grammar. In Dirk Geeraerts and Hubert Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, 421–462. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larson, Richard K. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19(3), 335–392.Google Scholar
Lenerz, Jürgen. 1977. Zur Abfolge nominaler Satzglieder im Deutschen. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Lerot, Jacques. 1982. Die verbregierten Präpositionen in Präpositionalobjekten. In Werner Abraham (Ed.), Satzglieder im Deutschen: Vorschläge zur syntaktischen, semantischen und pragmatischen Fundierung 261–291. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. 2006. First Objects and Datives: Two of a kind? Paper presented at the Berkeley Linguistics Society BLS32, Berkeley, CA. Retrieved from [URL]
. 2015. Semantics and Pragmatics of Argument Alternations. Annual Review of Linguistics 1, 63–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levin, Beth and Rappaport Hovav, Malka. 2005. Argument Realisation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Conceptual categories and Linguistic Categories VII: A Crosslinguistic Perspective on the Linguistic Encoding of Possession Events. Paper presented at the LING 7800–009, CU Boulder. Retrieved from [URL]
Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1995. Three levels of meaning. In Frank R. Palmer (Ed.), Grammar and meaning: Essays in honour of Sir John Lyons, 90–115. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1997. From outer to inner space: Linguistic categories and non-linguistic thinking. In Nuyts Jan and Pederson Erik (Eds.), Language and conceptualisation, 13–45. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000. Presumptive meanings. The theory of generalised conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003. Language and mind: Let’s get the issues straight! In Dedre Gentner and Susan Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the investigation of language and thought, 25–46. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej, Haspelmath, Martin and Comrie, Bernard. 2007. Ditransitive constructions: a typological overview. Paper presented at the Conference on Ditransitive Constructions, Leipzig.
. 2010. Ditransitive Constructions: A typological overview. In Andrej Malchukov, Martin Haspelmath and Bernard Comrie (Eds.), Studies in Ditransitive Constructions. A Comparative Handbook, 1–64. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matzel, Klaus. 1976. Dativ und Präpositionalphrase. Sprachwissenschaft Band 1, 144–186.Google Scholar
Meinhard, Hans Joachim. 2003. Ebenen der Valenzbeschreibung: Die logische und die semantische Ebene. In Vilmos Ágel, Ludwig M. Eichinger, Hans-Werner Eroms, Peter Hellwig, Jürgen Heringer and Henning Lobin (Eds.), Dependenz und Valenz. Dependency and Valency, 399–404. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Meinunger, André. 2006. Remarks on the projection of dative arguments in German. In Daniel Hole, André Meinunger and Werner Abraham (Eds.), Datives and Other Cases: Between argument structure and event structure, 79–101. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moser, Hugo. 1970. Sprachliche Ökonomie im heutigen deutschen Satz. In Hugo Moser (Ed.), Studien zur Syntax des heutigen Deutsch: Paul Grebe zum 60. Geburtstag, 9–25. Düsseldorf: Schwann.Google Scholar
Mukherjee, Joybrato. 2005. English Ditransitive Verbs. Aspects of Theory, Description and a Usage-Based Model. Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nash, John C. 2014. On Best Practice Optimization Methods in R. Journal of Statistical Software 60(2), 1–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nash, John C. and Varadhan, Ravi. 2011. Unifying Optimization Algorithms to Aid Software System Users: optimx for R. Journal of Statistical Software 43(9), 1–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newman, John. 1996. Give: A Cognitive Linguistic Study. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2003. Grammar is grammar and usage is usage. Language 79, 682–707. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005. A reply to the critiques of ‘Grammar is grammar and usage is usage’. Language 81, 229–236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oehrle, Richard Thomas. 1976. The Grammatical Status of the English Dative Alternation. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Cambridge, MA.
Olsen, Susan. 1997. Der Dativ bei Partikelverben. In Christa Dürscheid, Monika Schwarz and Karl-Heinz Ramers (Eds.), Sprache im Fokus. Festschrift für Heinz Vater zum 65. Geburtstag, 307–328. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Paul, Hermann. 1919. Deutsche Grammatik. Halle/Saale: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Perek, Florent. 2015. Argument Structure in Usage Based Construction Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. Productivity and schematicity in constructional change. In Elena Smirnova and Lotte Sommerer (Eds.), Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar, 142–166. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perini, Mário A. 2015. Describing Verb Valency. Practical and Theoretical Issues. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pickering, Martin J., Branigan, Holly P. and McLean, Janet. 2002. Constituent structure is formulated in one stage. Journal of Memory and Language 46, 586–605. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 1989. Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Polinsky, Maria. 1998. A non-syntactic account of some asymmetries in the double object construction. In Jean Pierre Koening (Ed.), Conceptual Structure and Language: Bridging the Gap, 403–423. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Posner, Roland. 1980. Ikonismus in der Syntax, zur natürlichen Stellung der Attribute. Zeitschrift für Semiotik 2, 183–195.Google Scholar
Primus, Beatrice. 2011. Case-Marking Typology. In Jae Jung Song (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Proost, Kristel. 2015. Verbbedeutung, Konstruktionsbedeutung oder beides? Zur Bedeutung deutscher Ditransitivstrukturen und ihrer präpositionalen Varianten. In Stefan Engelberg, Meike Meliss, Kristel Proost and Edeltraud Winkler (Eds.), Argumentstruktur zwischen Valenz und Konstruktion, 157–176. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, James. 1995. The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2002. Introducing Arguments. Doctoral dissertation, MIT: Cambridge, MA.
R Core Team. 2019. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from [URL]
Rappaport Hovav, Malka and Levin, Beth. 1998. Building Verb Meanings. In Miriam Butt and Wilhelm Geuder (Eds.), The Projection of Arguments: lexical and compositional factors, 97–134. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
. 2008. The English dative alternation: The case for verb sensitivity. Journal of Linguistics 44, 129–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rauth, Philipp. 2016. Graduelle Ditransitivität im Deutschen. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 44(2), 172–214. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Røreng, Anita. 2011. Die deutsche Doppelobjektkonstruktion. Eine korpusbasierte Untersuchung zur relativen Abfolge nominaler Akkusativ- und Dativobjekte im geschriebenen Deutsch. Doctoral dissertation, Universitetet i Tromsø: Tromsø.
Rosch, Eleanor. 1973. Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology 4(3), 328–350. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1975. Cognitive representation of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology 104(3), 192–233. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Röthlisberger, Melanie, Grafmiller, Jason and Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2017. Cognitive indigenization effects in the English dative alternation. Cognitive Linguistics 18 (4), 673–710. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rychlý, Pavel. 2008. A Lexicographer-Friendly Association Score. Paper presented at the RASLAN 2008, Brno. Retrieved from [URL]
Sabel, Joachim. 2002. Die Doppelobjekt-Konstruktion im Deutschen. Linguistische Berichte 190, 229–244.Google Scholar
Schumacher, Helmut, Kubczak, Jacqueline, Schmidt, Renate and de Ruiter, Vera. 2004. VALBU – Valenzwörterbuch deutscher Verben. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Sekerina, Irina A. 2003. Scrambling and Processing: Dependencies, Complexity, and Constraints. In Simin Karimi (Ed.), Word Order and Scrambling, 301–324. Malden, MA: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
SIL, Language Technology. 2003. SIL glossary of linguistic terms. Lingual Links Library. 5.0. Retrieved from [URL]
Slobin, Dan I. 1987. Thinking for Speaking. Paper presented at the BLS 13, Berkeley, CA. DOI logo
2003. Language and thought online: Cognitive consequences of linguistic relativity. In Dedre Gentner and Susan Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Advances in the investigation of language and thought 157–191. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Smirnova, Elena and Sommerer, Lotte. 2020. Introduction: The nature of the node and the network – Open questions in Diachronic Construction Grammar. In Lotte Sommerer and Elena Smirnova (Eds.), Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar, 2–42. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Snyder, Kieran Margaret. 2003. The relationship between form and function in ditransitive constructions. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania: Philadelphia.
Sommerfeldt, Karl-Ernst and Schreiber, Herbert. 1996. Wörterbuch der Valenz etymologisch verwandter Wörter: Verben, Adjektive, Substantive. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Starke, Günter. 1969a. Konkurrierende syntaktische Konstruktionen in der deutschen Sprache der Gegenwart. Untersuchungen im Funktionsbereich des Objekts (1. Teil). Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung Band 22 (Heft 1), 25–65.Google Scholar
. 1969b. Konkurrierende syntaktische Konstruktionen in der deutschen Sprache der Gegenwart. Untersuchungen im Funktionsbereich des Objekts. (Zweiter Teil). Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung Band 22 (Heft 2), 154–195.Google Scholar
. 1969–1970. Konkurrierende syntaktische Konstruktionen in der deutschen Sprache der Gegenwart. Untersuchungen im Funktionsbereich des Objekts. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 22, 23, 25–65 (I), 154–195 (II), 153–184 (II), 232–260 (IV), 573–589 (V).Google Scholar
. 1970a. Konkurrierende syntaktische Konstruktionen in der deutschen Sprache der Gegenwart. Untersuchungen im Funktionsbereich des Objekts (Fünfter Teil und Schluß). Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung Band 23 (Heft 6), 573–589.Google Scholar
. 1970b. Konkurrierende syntaktische Konstruktionen in der deutschen Sprache der Gegenwart. Untersuchungen im Funktionsbereich des Objekts (Vierter Teil). Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung Band 23 (Heft 2/3), 232–260.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2011. Argument Structure: Item- Based or Distributed? Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 59(4), 369–386. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol and Herbst, Thomas. 2011. Argument Structure – Valency and/or Constructions. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 59(4), 315–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sütterlin, Ludwig. 1902. Das Wesen der sprachlichen Gebilde. Kritische Bemerkungen zu Wilhelm Wundts Sprachpsychologie. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedict. 2006. Morphosyntactic persistence in spoken English. A corpus study at the intersection of variationist sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, and discourse analysis. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedict, Grafmiller, Jason, Heller, Benedikt and Röthlisberger, Melanie. 2016. Around the world in three alternations. Modeling syntactic variation in varieties of English. English World-Wide 37(2), 109–137. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, John. 2002. Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tesnière, Lucien. 1959. Éléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Librairie C. Klincksieck.Google Scholar
. 2015 [1966]. Elements of structural syntax. Translated by Timothy Osborne and Sylvain Kahane. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Tham, Shiao Wei. 2005. Representing Possessive Predication: Semantic Dimensions and Pragmatic Bases. Stanford University: Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
. 2006. The definiteness effect in English Have sentences. Paper presented at the Texas Linguistics Society (TLS 8) Conference, Somerville, MA.
Theijssen, Daphne. 2012. Making Choices. Modelling the English dative alternation. Doctoral dissertation, Radboud Universiteit: Nijmegen.
Theijssen, Daphne, ten Bosch, Louis, Boves, Lou, Cranen, Bert and van Halteren, Hans. 2013. Choosing alternatives: Using Bayesian Networks and memory-based learning to study the dative alternation. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 9(2), 227–262. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. 1990. Information flow and dative shift in English discourse. In Jerold A. Edmondson, Crawford Feagin and Mühlhäusler Peter (Eds.), Development and Diversity, Language Variation Across Space and Time, 239–253. Dallas, Texas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Van Damme, Evi. 2023. Die Dativalternation in der Geschichte des Neuhochdeutschen. Eine historische und korpusbasierte Untersuchung. Tübingen: Narr Francke Attempto.
Van de Velde, Freek. 2014. Degeneracy: the maintenance of constructional networks. In Ronny Boogaart, Timothy Colleman and Gijsbert Rutten (Eds.), Extending the Scope of Construction Grammar, 141–179. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van der Gucht, Fieke, Willems, Klaas and De Cuypere, Ludovic. 2007. The iconicity of embodied meaning. Polysemy of spatial prepositions in the cognitive framework. Language Sciences 29(6), 733–754. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vázquez-Gonzáles, Juan G. and Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2019. Reconstructing the Ditransitive Construction for Proto-Germanic: Gothic, Old-English and Old Norse-Icelandic. Folia Linguistica Historica 40(2), 555–620. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Velnić, Marta. 2017. Ditransitive structures in Croatian adult and child language: the role of animacy and givenness. Doctoral dissertation, The Arctic University of Norway: Tromsø.
. 2019. The influence of animacy, givenness and focus on object order in Croatian ditransitives. Studia Linguistica 73(1), 175–201. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Von Weiss, A. 1953. Zur Frage der Parallelkonstruktion. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 75, 451–477. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wegener, Heide. 1985. Der Dativ im heutigen Deutsch. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
. 1986. Gibt es im Deutschen ein Indirektes Objekt? Deutsche Sprache, Zeitschrift für Theorie, Praxis, Dokumentation 14, 12–22.Google Scholar
. 1991. Der Dativ – ein struktureller kasus. In Gisbert Fanselow and Sascha W. Felix (Eds.), Strukturen und Merkmale syntaktischer Kategorien, 70–103. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Welke, Klaus. 1988. Einführung in die Valenz- und Kasustheorie. Leipzig: Bibliografisches Institut.Google Scholar
. 1989. Pragmatische Valenz: Verben des Besitzwechsels. Zeitschrift für Germanistik 10(1), 5–18.Google Scholar
. 1994. Thematische Relationen. Sind thematische Relationen semantisch, syntaktisch oder/und pragmatisch zu definieren? Deutsche Sprache 22, 1–18.Google Scholar
. 2009a. Konstruktionsvererbung, Valenzvererbung und die Reichweite von Konstruktionen. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 37, 514–543. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009b. Valenztheorie und Konstruktionsgrammatik. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 37, 81–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Valensgrammatik des Deutschen: eine Einführung. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. Konstruktionsgrammatik des Deutschen: Ein sprachgebrauchsbezogener Ansatz. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Whaley, Lindsay J. 1997. Introduction to Typology: the Unity and Diversity of Language. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wickham, Hadley, François, Romain, Henry, Lionel and Müller, Kirill. 2019. dplyr: A Grammar of Data Manipulation. R package version 0.8.3. Retrieved from [URL]
Willems, Klaas. 1997. Kasus, grammatische Bedeutung und kognitive Linguistik: ein Beitrag zur allgemeinen Sprachwissenschaft. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
. 2000. Form, meaning, and reference in natural language: a phenomenological account of proper names. Onoma 35, 85–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. Indeterminiertheit, Valenzvariation und Verbbedeutung vom Gesichtspunkt der funktionellen Syntax. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 34, 178–206. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011a. Meaning and interpretation: The semiotic similarities and differences between Cognitive Grammar and European structural linguistics. Semiotica 185(1/4), 1–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011b. The Semantics of Variable Case Marking (Accusative/Dative) after Two-Way Prepositions in German Locative Constructions. Towards a Constructionist Approach. Indogermanische Forschungen 116, 324–366. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016a. Empirische, essentiële en mogelijke universalia: Unzeitgemäße Betrachtung bij het ‘categoriale particularisme’ in de moderne taaltypologie. Leuvense Bijdragen 99–100, 170–187.Google Scholar
. 2016b. The universality of categories and meaning: a Coserian perspective. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 48(1), 110–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. Remarks on the ditransitive construction in German. Sprachwissenschaft 45(2), 141–180.Google Scholar
Willems, Klaas and Coene, Ann. 2003. Argumentstruktur, verbale Polysemie und Koerzion. In Alan Cornell, Klaus Fischer and Ian F. Roe (Eds.), German Linguistic and Cultural Studies, 37–63. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
. 2006. Satzmuster und die Konstruktionalität der Verbbedeutung. Sprachwissenschaft 31, 237–272.Google Scholar
Willems, Klaas, Coene, Ann and Van Pottelberghe, Jeroen (Eds.). 2011. Valenztheorie: Neuere Perspektiven. Gent: Academia Press.Google Scholar
Willems, Klaas, De Cuypere, Ludovic and De Vaere, Hilde. 2019. Recording and explaining: exploring the German ditransitive alternation. Mapping Linguistic Data – Festschrift Liliane Haegeman, 313–322. Retrieved from [URL]
Willems, Klaas and Munteanu, Cristinel. 2021. Introduction. In Klaas Willems and Cristinel Munteanu (Eds.), Eugenio Coseriu. Past, present and future, 1–44. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilmanns, Wilhelm. 1909. Deutsche Grammatik – Gotisch, Alt- Mittel- und Neuhochdeutsch; Dritte Abteilung: Flexion. 2. Hälfte: Nomen und Pronomen. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ziem, Alexander and Lasch, Alexander. 2013. Konstruktionsgrammatik. Konzepte und Grundlagen gebrauchsbasierter Ansätze. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zifonun, Gisela, Hoffmann, Ludger and Strecker, Bruno. 1997. Grammatik der deutschen Sprache. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar