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. 150–194

Indexicality across the boundaries of syntax, semantics and pragmatics

The constructional content of the Danish free indirect object

In Danish, indirect object (IO) constructions fall into two main classes: (1) the three-argument valence-governed pattern and (2) the free indirect object construction. The free IO is a constructional extension to certain types of monotransitive constructions and verbs; by contrast, the valence-governed IO is a manifestation of the third argument of three-place verb stems in (prototypically) transfer constructions. The free indirect object (free IO) in Modern Danish presents an intricate problem, calling for concepts and solutions not normally connected with constructional syntax. Its frequency is extremely low, and intuitions about its acceptability vary according to basic speech act type. In assertive contexts, it comes across as old-fashioned and is hardly productive; in regulative contexts, by contrast, it retains full productivity. The few positive results yielded by a corpus search are almost exclusively examples of free IOs in regulative contexts.
Indexicality, as used especially in morphology by Henning Andersen and Raimo Anttila, is the key concept of our analysis. An IOnp must identify its argument by pointing indexically to some aspect of the predicate’s semantics, but since – in the case of free IOs – there is no third argument A3 in the verb’s valence schema, there is apparently nothing for the free IO to index. In special cases, however, most importantly in regulative contexts, the free IO finds an alternative indicatum by pointing to features of the performative situation. Our findings indicate the need for a grammatical theory that allows syntactic rules to be not only semantically, but also pragmatically sensitive.
Keywords: indirect object constructions, constructional meaning, free indirect object, indexical meaning, valence, speech acts, reflexive morpheme, regulative speech acts, symbolic meaning
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The structure of IO constructions
    • 2.1The three-argument transfer construction
    • 2.2The free IO construction: A categorial constructional extension, not a valence role
    • 2.3The passive alternation
    • 2.4Restrictions on the Danish free IOnp
    • 2.5Symbolic and indexical relations in the analysis of IO constructions
      • 2.5.1Case forms as indexes in lexical IO constructions
      • 2.5.2Topological positions as indexes in IO constructions
      • 2.5.3The symbolic structure of the free prepositional IO
      • 2.5.4Symbolic free IOnps of the older language
  • 3.Free indirect objects in a corpus of spoken Danish
    • 3.1The LANCHART corpus
    • 3.2Study design
    • 3.3Results
      • 3.3.1The constructional query
      • 3.3.2The lexical query
      • 3.3.3The free IOs from the LANCHART corpus
  • 4.The indexical paradox – how the Danish language (users) solve it
    • 4.1Reflexive constructions
    • 4.2Two lexical solutions: The verbs skaffe and skrive
    • 4.3A pragmatic solution: Speech act types presupposing a transfer relation
    • 4.4A reanalysis limited to usage
    • 4.5Why it is not all symbolic
  • 5.Discussion
    • 5.1Methodological reflection on the data used
    • 5.2Indexical IO meaning and its wider theoretical significance
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • Sources
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 8 August 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sigl.7.05nie
References (57)
Sources
ADL = Arkiv for dansk litteratur [Archive of Danish Literature]. [URL]
Korpus.dk. [URL]
LANCHART = [URL]
ODS = Ordbog over det danske Sprog 1–28. [Dictionary of the Danish Language]. 1918–1955.
References
Andersen, Henning. 1973. “Abductive and Deductive Change.” Language 49 (4): 765–793. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1980. “Morphological Change: Towards a Typology.” In Historical Morphology, ed. by Jacek Fisiak, 1–50. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. “Grammaticalization in a Speaker-Oriented Theory of Change.” In Grammatical Change and Linguistic Theory: The Rosendal Papers, ed. by Thórhallur Eythórsson, 11–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. “From Morphologization to Demorphologization.” In The Bloomsbury Companion to Historical Linguistics, ed. by Silvia Luraghi, and Vít Bubeník, 117–146. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
. No year. “Some Remarks on Indexes.” Conference handout.
Anttila, Raimo. 1975. The Indexical Element in Morphology. Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft, Vorträge 12.Google Scholar
. 1989. Historical and Comparative Linguistics. (2nd edn). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2007. “The Semantic and Lexical Range of the Ditransitive Construction in the History of (North) Germanic.” Functions of Language 14 (1): 9–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Kristian Emil 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
Bybee, Joan. 2010. Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. “Usage-Based Theory and Exemplar Representations of Constructions.” In The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, ed. by Thomas Hoffmann, and Graeme Trousdale, 49–69. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Christensen, Tanya Karoli, and Lars Heltoft. 2010. “Mood in Danish.” In Mood in the Languages of Europe, ed. by Björn Rothstein, and Rolf Thieroff, 85–102. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Colleman, Timothy. 2011. “Ditransitive Verbs and the Ditransitive Construction: A Diachronic Perspective.” Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 59: 387–410. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Colleman, Timothy, and Bernard De Clerck. 2011. “Constructional Semantics on the Move: On Semantic Specialization in the English Double Object Construction.” Cognitive Linguistics 22: 183–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Collins, Peter. 1995. “The Indirect Object Construction in English: An Informational Approach.” Linguistics 33 (1): 35–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diderichsen, Paul. 1946. Elementær dansk Grammatik. Copenhagen: Gyldendal.Google Scholar
Dyvik, Helge. 1980. “Har gammelnorsk passiv?” In The Nordic Languages and Modern Linguistics: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference of Nordic and General Linguistics in Oslo 1980, ed. by Even Hovdhaugen, 81–107. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth, Michael Fortescue, Peter Harder, Lars Heltoft, and Lisbeth Falster Jakobsen (eds). 1996. Content, Expression and Structure: Studies in Danish Functional Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth, Michael Fortescue, Peter Harder, Lars Heltoft, Michael Herslund, and Lisbeth Falster Jakobsen. 2005. Dansk Funktionel Lingvistik. University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen Business School and Roskilde University.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 2013. “Berkeley Construction Grammar.” In The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, ed. by Thomas Hoffmann, and Graeme Trousdale, 111–132. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2013. “Constructionist Approaches.” In The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, ed. by Thomas Hoffmann, and Graeme Trousdale, 15–31. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Green, Georgia M. 1974. Semantics and syntactic regularity. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Gregersen, Frans. 2009. “The Data and Design of the LANCHART Study.” Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 41 (1): 3–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1971. “Vorbereitende Bemerkungen zu einer Theorie der kommunikativen Kompetenz.” In Theorie der Gesellschaft oder Sozialtechnologie: Was leistet die Systemforschung?, ed. by Jürgen Habermas, and Niklas Luhmann, 101–141. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.Google Scholar
Hansen, Erik, and Lars Heltoft. 2011. Grammatik over det Danske Sprog 1–3. Det Danske Sprog- og Litteraturselskab. Odense: University of Southern Denmark Press.Google Scholar
Harder, Peter. 1996. Functional Semantics: A Theory of Meaning Structure and Tense in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2015. “Ditransitive Constructions”. Annual Review of Linguistics 1, 19–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heltoft, Lars. 2011. “Lette pronomeners placering: klise og topologisk integritet.” Ny forskning i grammatik 18: 61–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 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, 203–241. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. “Word Order as Grammaticalised Semiotic Systems.” In Perspectives on Language Structure and Language Change, ed. by Lars Heltoft, Ivan Igartua, Kirsten Jeppesen Kragh, Brian Joseph, and Lene Schøsler, 151–178. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas, and Graeme Trousdale (eds.). 2013. The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1998. “Emergent Grammar.” In The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure, ed. by Michael Tomasello, 155–176. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Høysgaard, Jens Pedersen. 1752. Methodisk Forsøg til en fuldstændig dansk Syntax. Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1957. “Shifters, Verbal Categories and the Russian Verb.” Reprinted In Selected Writings II (1971), 130–147. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Kemmer, Suzanne 1993. The Middle Voice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meillet, Antoine. 1964 [1937]. Introduction à l’étude comparative des langues indo-européennes. Reprint. University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Mikkelsen, Kristian. 1911. Dansk Ordföjningslære. Copenhagen: Lehmann og Stages Forlag.Google Scholar
Nielsen, Peter Juul. 2016. Functional Structure in Morphology and the Case of Nonfinite Verbs. Theoretical Issues and the Description of the Danish Verb System. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. “Få + supinum som interessentkonstruktion i dansk.” Ny forskning i grammatik 25: 148–165. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. “Indirekte objekt i moderne dansk talesprog: En korpusundersøgelse af frit indirekte objekt.” Ny forskning i grammatik 26: 4–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nørgård-Sørensen, Jens, Lars Heltoft, and Lene Schøsler. 2011. Connecting Grammaticalisation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, Malka and Beth Levin. 2008. “The English dative alternation: The case for verb sensitivity.” Journal of Linguistics 44 (1): 129–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, John R. 1969. Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1979. Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1996. “Applicatives and Benefactives: A Cognitive Account.” In Grammatical Constructions: Their Form and Meaning, ed. by Masayoshi Shibatani, and Sandra A. Thompson, 157–194. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tesnière, Lucien. 1959 [1982]. Éléments de Syntaxe Structurale. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C., and Graeme Trousdale. 2013. Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, Graeme. 2014. “On the relationship between grammaticalization and constructionalization.” Folia Linguistica 48: 557–577. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Valdeson, Fredrik. 2018. “Kollostruktionsanalys som mått på bitransitivitet.” Paper, Grammatik i Fokus 32, University of Lund, February 8, 2018.Google Scholar
Zúñiga, Fernando. 2011. “Why Should Beneficiaries be Subjects (or Objects)? Affaction and Grammatical Relations.” In Case, Animacy and Semantic Roles, ed. by Seppo Kittilä, Katja Västi, and Jussi Ylikoski, 329–348. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar