The development of case in Germanic

Jóhanna Barðdal | University of Bergen

In this article five existing explanations for the loss of case morphology in the Germanic languages are examined. These are (1) phonological erosion, (2) a change from synthetic to analytic language type, (3) a change from free to fixed word order, (4) the development of the definite article, and (5) a change from lexical to structural case. All five explanations are rejected in favor of (6) a usage-based constructional approach where the breakdown of the case system is expected on the basis of the fact that the argument structure constructions are partially synonymous. Hence, it is predicted that the case and argument structure constructions will either merge, with subsequent loss of case distinctions and case morphology, or that high type frequency constructions will attract new verbs and verbs from low type frequency constructions, gradually causing them to fall into disuse. English, Mainland Scandinavian and Dutch have taken the former path, while German, Icelandic and Faroese have developed along the latter.

Published online: 11 March 2009
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.108.09bar

Cited by

Cited by 17 other publications

No author info given

2011. In Linguistic Universals and Language Variation, ► pp. 171 ff.

Abraham, Werner & Elisabeth Leiss

2012. The Case Differential: Syntagmatic Versus Paradigmatic Case - Its Status In Synchrony And Diachrony. Transactions of the Philological Society 110:3 ► pp. 316 ff.

Barðdal, Jóhanna

2011. Lexical vs. structural case: a false dichotomy. Morphology 21:3-4 ► pp. 619 ff.

Barðdal, Jóhanna, Carlee Arnett, Stephen Mark Carey, Thórhallur Eythórsson, Gard B. Jenset, Guus Kroonen & Adam Oberlin

2016. Dative subjects in Germanic. STUF - Language Typology and Universals 69:1 ► pp. 49 ff.

Barðdal, Jóhanna & Spike Gildea

2015. In Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 18], ► pp. 1 ff.

Beuls, Katrien, Luc Steels & Ricard V. Solé

2013. Agent-Based Models of Strategies for the Emergence and Evolution of Grammatical Agreement. PLoS ONE 8:3 ► pp. e58960 ff.

Boas, Hans C. & Alexander Ziem

2018. In Constructicography [Constructional Approaches to Language, 22], ► pp. 183 ff.

Butt, Miriam & Tafseer Ahmed

2011. The redevelopment of Indo-Aryan case systems from a lexical semantic perspective. Morphology 21:3-4 ► pp. 545 ff.

Cennamo, Michela, Thórhallur Eythórsson & Jóhanna Barðdal

2015. Semantic and (morpho)syntactic constraints on anticausativization: Evidence from Latin and Old Norse-Icelandic. Linguistics 53:4

Dewey-Findell, Tonya Kim & Stephen Mark Carey

2018. In Non-Canonically Case-Marked Subjects [Studies in Language Companion Series, 200], ► pp. 213 ff.

Johnson, Cynthia A., Peter Alexander Kerkhof, Leonid Kulikov, Esther Le Mair & Jóhanna Barðdal

2019. Argument structure, conceptual metaphor and semantic change. Diachronica 36:4 ► pp. 463 ff.

McFadden, Thomas

2020. In The Cambridge Handbook of Germanic Linguistics, ► pp. 282 ff.

Melis, Chantal & Marcela Flores

2018. In Studies in Historical Ibero-Romance Morpho-Syntax [Issues in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics, 16], ► pp. 123 ff.

Mojedano Batel, Andrea

2020. In Historical Linguistics 2017 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 350], ► pp. 82 ff.

Seržant, Ilja A.

2015. In Subjects in Constructions – Canonical and Non-Canonical [Constructional Approaches to Language, 16], ► pp. 175 ff.

Trijp, Remi van

2020. Making good on a promise. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 34 ► pp. 357 ff.

ZEHENTNER, EVA

2018. Ditransitives in Middle English: on semantic specialisation and the rise of the dative alternation. English Language and Linguistics 22:01 ► pp. 149 ff.

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 06 september 2021. 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.