Cover not available
Part of
Ditransitives in Germanic Languages: Synchronic and diachronic aspects
Edited by Eva Zehentner, Melanie Röthlisberger and Timothy Colleman
[Studies in Germanic Linguistics 7] 2023
► pp. 1–18

Ditransitive constructions in Germanic languages

New avenues and new challenges

Article outline
  • 1.Ditransitive constructions and ditransitive verbs
  • 2.Topical issues in recent research on ditransitive constructions
    • 2.1Novel determinants, variants, and methodologies in studying dative alternations
    • 2.2Interlingual and lectal variation
    • 2.3Ditransitive constructions and language change
  • 3.Studies included in the volume
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Published online: 8 August 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sigl.7.00zeh
References
Adler, Julia
2011 “Dative Alternations in German: The Argument Realization Options of Transfer Verbs.” PhD thesis. Jerusalem: Hebrew University.Google Scholar
Allen, Cynthia
1995 Case Marking and Reanalysis: Grammatical Relations from Old to Early Modern English. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Barss, Andrew, and Howard Lasnik
1986 “A Note on Anaphora and Double Objects.” Linguistic Inquiry 17 (2): 347–354.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna
2008 Productivity: Evidence from Case and Argument Structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Kristian Kristoffersen, and Andreas Sveen
2011 “West Scandinavian Ditransitives as a Family of Constructions: With a Special Attention to the Norwegian V-REFL-NP Construction.” Linguistics 49 (1): 53–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beck, Sigrid, and Kyle Johnson
2004 “Double Objects Again.” Linguistic Inquiry 35 (1): 97–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan
2001 Lexical Functional Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, and Jennifer Hay
2008 “Gradient Grammar: An Effect of Animacy on the Syntax of Give in New Zealand and American English.” Lingua 18 (2): 245–259. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bruening, Benjamin
2010 “Double Object Constructions Disguised as Prepositional Datives.” Linguistic Inquiry 41 (2): 287–305. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Colleman, Timothy
2009 “The Semantic Range of the Dutch Double Object Construction: A Collostructional Perspective.” Constructions and Frames 1 (2), 190–220. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Colleman, Timothy, and Bernard De Clerck
2009 “ ‘Caused Motion’? The Semantics of the English to-Dative and the Dutch aan-Dative.” Cognitive Linguistics 20 (1): 5–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 “Constructional Semantics on the Move: On Semantic Specialization in the English Double Object Construction.” Cognitive Linguistics 22 (1): 183–209. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William
2003 “Lexical Rules vs. Constructions: A False Dichotomy.” In Motivation in language: Studies in honour of Guenter Radden, ed. by Hubert Cuyckens, Thomas Berg, René Dirven, and Klaus-Uwe Panther, 49–68. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Cuypere, Ludovic
2015a “A Multivariate Analysis of the Old English ACC+DAT Double Object Alternation.” Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 11 (2): 225–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015b “The Old English to-Dative Construction.” English Language and Linguistics 19 (1): 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dehé, Nicole
2004 “On the Order of Objects in Icelandic Double Object Constructions.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 16, 85–108.Google Scholar
Delorge, Martine, Koen Plevoets, and Timothy Colleman
2014 “Competing ‘transfer’ Constructions in Dutch: The Case of Ont-Verbs.” In Corpus Methods for Semantics: Quantitative Studies in Polysemy and Synonymy, ed. by Dylan Glynn and Justyna Robinson, 39–60. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Marneffe, Marie-Catherine, Scott Grimm, Inbal Arnon, Susannah Kirby, and Joan Bresnan
2012 “A Statistical Model of Grammatical Choices in Child Production of Datives Sentences.” Language and Cognitive Processes 27 (1): 25–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Vaere, Hilde, Ludovic De Cuypere, and Klaas Willems
2020a “Alternating Constructions with Ditransitive ‘Geben’ in Present-Day German.” Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory.Google Scholar
2020b “Constructional Variation with Two Near-Synonymous Verbs: The Case of Schicken and Senden in Present-Day German.” Language Sciences 83.Google Scholar
Geleyn, Tim
2017 “Syntactic Variation and Diachrony. The Case of the Dutch Dative Alternation.” Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 13: 135–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gerwin, Johanna
2013 “ Give It Me! Pronominal Ditransitives in English Dialects.” English Language and Linguistics 17 (3): 445–463. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014 Ditransitives in British English Dialects. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele
1995 Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2002 “Surface Generalizations: An Alternative to Alternations”. Cognitive Linguistics 13: 327–356. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006 Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Green, Georgia
1974 Semantics and Syntactic Regularity. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan, and Anatol Stefanowitsch
2004 “Extending Collostructional Analysis: A Corpus-Based Perspective on ‘Alternations’.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9: 97–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan, and Stefanie Wulff
2005 “Do Foreign Language Learners Also Have Constructions? Evidence from Priming, Sorting, and Corpora.” Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 3: 182–200. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haddican, Bill, and Anders Holmberg
2014 “Four Kinds of Object Symmetry.” In Complex Visibles out There. Proceedings of the Olomouc Linguistics Colloquium 2014: Language Use and Linguistic Structure, ed. by Ludmila Veselovská and Markéta Janebová, 145–162. Palacký University.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi
2002 “Possession and the Double Object Construction.” Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2 (1): 31–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heltoft, Lars
2014 “Constructional Change, Paradigmatic Structure and the Orientation of Usage Processes.” In Usage-Based Approaches to Language Change, ed. by Evie Coussé, and Ferdinand von Mengden, 203–242. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W.
1991 The Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. II: Descriptive Application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lee-Schönefeld, Vera, and Gabriele Diewald
2017 “Passivization Possibilities in Double-Accusative Constructions.” Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America 2 (9): 1–14. DOI logo Google Scholar
Levin, Beth, and Malka Rappaport Hovav
2005 Argument Realization. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej, Martin Haspelmath, and Bernard Comrie
2010 “Ditransitive Constructions: A Typological Overview.” In Studies in Ditransitive Constructions, ed. by Andrej Malchukov, Martin Haspelmath, and Bernard Comrie, 1–64. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McFadden, Thomas
2002 “The Rise of the to-Dative in Middle English.” In Syntactic Effects of Morphological Change, ed. by David Lightfoot, 107–123. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mukherjee, Joybrato
2005 English Ditransitive Verbs: Aspects of Theory, Description and a Usage-Based Model. Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Muhkerjee, Joybrato, and Sebastian Hoffmann
2006 “Describing Verb-Complementational Profiles of New Englishes: A Pilot Study of Indian English.” English World-Wide 27 (2): 147–173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ozón, Gabriel
2009 “Alternating Ditransitives in English: A Corpus-Based Study.” PhD dissertation, Sheffield: University of Sheffield.
Pinker, Steven
1989 Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Primus, Beatrice
1998 “The Relative Order of Recipient and Patient in the Languages of Europe.” In Constituent Order in the Languages of Europe (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 20.1), ed. by Anna Siewierska, 421–473. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, Malka, and Beth Levin
2008 “The English Dative Alternation: The Case for Verb Sensitivity.” Journal of Linguistics 44: 129–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Røreng, Anita
2011 “Die deutsche Doppelobjektkonstruktion: Eine korpusbasierte Untersuchung zur relativen Abfolge nominaler Akkusativ- und Dativobjekte im geschriebenen Deutsch.” PhD thesis. Tromsø: Univ. Tromsø.Google Scholar
Röthlisberger, Melanie
2018 “Regional Variation in Probabilistic Grammars: A Multifactorial Study of the English Dative Alternation.” PhD dissertation, Leuven: KU Leuven.
2021 “Social Constraints on Syntactic Variation: The Role of Gender in Jamaican English Ditransitive Constructions. In Gender in World Englishes, ed. by Tobias Bernaisch, 147–175. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Röthlisberger, Melanie, Jason Grafmiller, and Benedikt Szmrecsanyi
2017 “Cognitive Indigenization Effects in the English Dative Alternation.” Cognitive Linguistics 28 (4): 673–710. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siewierska, Anna
1998 “Languages with and without Objects: The Functional Grammar Approach.” Languages in Contrast 1 (2): 173–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siewierska, Anna, and Willem Hollmann
2007 “Ditransitive Clauses in English with Special Reference to Lancashire Dialect.” In Structural-Functional Studies in English Grammar, ed. by Mike Hannay, and Gerard Steen, 83–102. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Speyer, Augustin
2015 “Object Order and the Thematic Hierarchy in Older German.” In Historical Corpora: Challenges and Perspectives, ed. by Jost Gippert, and Ralf Gehrke, 101–124. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt, Douglas Biber, Jesse Egbert, and Karlien Franco
2016 “Towards More Accountability: Modeling Ternary Genitive Variation in Late Modern English.” Language Variation and Change 28 (1): 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Theijssen, Daphne, Louis Ten Bosch, Lou Boves, Bert Cranen, and Hans van Halteren
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
Ussery, Cherlon
2017 “Double Objects Again…but in Icelandic.” In A Schrift to Fest Kyle Johnson, ed. by Nicholas LaCara, Keir Moulton, and Anne-Michelle Tessier, 375–389. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusets – Amherst Linguistics Open Access Publications.Google Scholar
Willems, Klaas
2020 “Remarks on the Ditransitive Construction in German”. Sprachwissenschaft 45: 141–180.Google Scholar
Wolk, Christoph, Joan Bresnan, Anette Rosenbach, and Benedikt Szmrecsanyi
2014 “Dative and Genitive Variability in Late Modern English.” Diachronica 30 (3): 382–419. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yáñez-Bouza, Nuria, and David Denison
2015 “Which Comes First in the Double Object Construction? Diachronic and Dialectal Variation.” English Language and Linguistics 19 (2): 247–268. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zehentner, Eva
2017 “Ditransitives in Middle English: On Semantic Specialisation and the Rise of the Dative Alternation.” English Language and Linguistics 22 (1): 149–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2022 “Competing Constructions Construct Complementary Niches: A Diachronic View on the English Dative Alternation.” Language Dynamics and Change: 1–40. DOI logo Google Scholar
2019 Competition in Language Change: The Rise of the English Dative Alternation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zehentner, Eva, and Elizabeth C. Traugott
2020 “Constructional Networks and the Development of Benefactive Ditransitives in English.” In Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar, ed. by Lotte Sommerer, and Elena Smirnova, 167–212. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar