Cover not available
Part of
Perspectives on Semantic Roles
Edited by Silvia Luraghi and Heiko Narrog
[Typological Studies in Language 106] 2014
► pp. 271–326

From semantic roles to evaluative markers. The dative and affected possessors

A constructional comparison between German, Italian and French

| [email protected]
This paper targets the phenomenon of non valence-governed datives of affectedness linked to possession. By adopting a constructional approach based on Goldberg (1995) and a revision of Raineri and Evola (2008), I work out a grid that may be adopted for cross-linguistic purposes. By applying this model to German, French and Italian, I show that the latter language, contrary to the two former ones has thoroughly grammaticalized this function. I also propose a tentative account of the grammaticalization paths that may have led to the heterogeneous behavior of the languages under discussion with respect to this construction. Keywords: Construction Grammar; Dative; Beneficiary; Maleficiary; Affectedness; Grammaticalization
Published online: 19 August 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.106.09nic
References (42)
References
Alexiadou, Artemis, Anagnostopoulou, Elena & Schäfer, Florian. 2006. The properties of anti-causatives crosslinguistically. In Phases of Interpretation, Mara Frascarelli (ed.), 187–211. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Perkins, Revere & Pagliuca, William. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2007. Frequency of Usage and the Organization of Language. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Colleman, Timothy. 2010. The benefactive semantic potential of ‘caused reception’constructions. A case study of English, German, French, and Dutch. In Benefactives and Malefactives. Case Studies and Typological Perspectives [Typological Studies in Language 92], Fernando Zúňiga & Seppo Kittilä (eds), 219–243. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 1990. Possible verbs and event structure. In Meanings and Prototypes: Studies on Linguistic Categorization, Savas L. Tsohatzidis (ed.), 48–73. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2003. Typology and Universals, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Dabrowska, Ewa. 1997. Cognitive Semantics and the Polish Dative. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David R. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67(3): 547–619. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier Gilles & Turner, Mark. 2002. The Way We Think. Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2002. Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics 13(4): 327–356. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan T. & Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2004. Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspectives on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9(1): 97–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gutzmann, Daniel. 2007. Eine Implikatur konventioneller Art: Der Dativus Ethicus. Linguistische Berichte 211: 277–308.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1993. More on the typology of inchoative/causative verb alternations. In Causatives and Transitivity [Studies in Language Companion Series 23], Bernard Comrie & Maria Polinsky (eds) 87–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Claudi, Ulrike & Hünnemeyer, Friederike. 1991. Grammaticalization. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 1997. Possession: Cognitive Forces, Sources, and Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hens, Gregor. 1997. Constructional semantics in German: The dative of inaction. American Journal of Germanic Linguistics and Literatures 9(2): 191–219. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003. Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kallulli, Dalina. 2004. De-agentivised causers or non-active causative predications’ predications. In The Pre-conference Proceedings of the Workshop “Demoting the Agent: Passive and Other Voice-related Phenomena ”. University of Oslo, 59–66.
Kaltenböck, Gunther, Heine, Bernd & Kuteva, Tania. 2011. On thetical grammar. Studies in Language 35(4): 848–893. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kay, Paul. 2005. Argument structure constructions and the argument-adjunct distinction. In Grammatical Constructions: Back to the Roots [Constructional Approaches to Language 4], Mirjam Fried & Hans Boas (eds), 71–98. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Cited after the online version available at: <[URL]> DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kemmer, Suzanne. 1993. Middle Voice [Typological Studies in Language 22]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kimps, Ditte & Davidse, Kristin. 2008. Illocutionary force and conduciveness in imperative constant polarity tag questions: A typology. Text & Talk 28(6): 699–722. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kittilä, Seppo. 2005. Recipient-prominence vs beneficiary-prominence. Linguistic Typology 9(2): 269–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
König, Ekkehard & Haspelmath, Martin. 1998. Les constructions à possesseur externe dans les langues d’Europe. In Actance et Valence dans les Langues d’Europe [Empirical Approaches to Language Typology, EUROTYP 20–2], Jacque Feuillet (ed.), 525–606. Berlin: De Gruyter. Cited after the online version available at: <[URL]>Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 2: Descriptive Application. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 2000. Grammar and Conceptualization. [Cognitive Linguistics Research 14]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Rappaport-Hovav, Malka. 1995. Unaccusativity. At the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Maldonado, Ricardo. 2002. Objective and subjective datives. Cognitive Linguistics 13(1): 1–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McIntyre, Andrew. 2011. Silent possessive PPs in English Double Object (+Particle) Constructions. Quoted after the online version available at: <[URL]>
McKoon, Gail & Macfarland, Talke. 2000. Externally and internally caused change of state verbs. Language 76(4): 833–858. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mitkovska, Liljana. 2011. Competition between nominal possessive constructions and the possessive Dative in Macedonian. In The Grammar of Possessivity in South Slavic Languages: Synchronic and Diachronic Perspectives, Nomachi Motoki (ed.), 83–109. Sapporo: Slavic Research Center, Hokkaido University.Google Scholar
Nava, Fernando & Maldonado, Ricardo. 2005. Basic voice patterns in Tarascan (P’orhepecha). In Language, Culture, and Mind, Michel Achard & Suzanne Kemmer (eds), 461–478. Stanford CA: CSLI. Cited after the online version available at: <[URL]>Google Scholar
O’ Connor, Mary Catherine. 2007. External possession and utterance interpretation: A crosslinguistic exploration. Linguistics 45(3): 577–613.Google Scholar
Payne Doris L. & Barshi, Immanuel (eds). 1999. External Possession [Typological Studies in Language 39]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logo
Raineri, Sophie & Evola, Vito. 2008. A Construction Grammar Analysis of the Empathetic Dative Construction in French and Italian. Ms.
Šarić, Ljiljana. 2002. On the semantics of the dative of possession in the Slavic languages: An analysis on the basis of Russian, Polish, Croatian/Serbian and Slovenian examples. Glossos 3. Slavic and East European Language Resource Center, Duke University. Cited after the online version available at: <[URL]>
Schäfer, Florian. 2007. On the Nature of Anticausative Morphology: External Arguments in Change-of State Contexts. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Stuttgart. Cited after the online version at: <[URL]>
Smith, Carlota S. 1970. ‘Jespersen’s ‘move and change’ class and causative verbs in English. In Linguistic and Literary Studies in Honor of Archibald A. Hill, Mohammad Ali Jazayery, Edgar Polomé & Werner Winter (eds), 101–110. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Dasher, Richard B. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Tuggy, David. 1980. Ethical datives and possessor omission sí, possessor ascension no! Workpapers of the SIL 24: 97–141. University of North Dakota.Google Scholar
Van Valin Jr., Robert D. & Wilkins, David P. 1996. The case for ‘effector’: Case roles, agents, and agency revisited. In Grammatical Constructions, Masayoshi Shibatani & Sandra A. Thompson (eds), 289–322. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Kalnača, Andra & Ilze Lokmane
2023. Attitude dative (dativus ethicus) as an interpersonal pragmatic marker in Latvian. Open Linguistics 9:1 DOI logo
TOYOTA, JUNICHI
2017. <i>Perspectives on Semantic Roles</i>. ENGLISH LINGUISTICS 33:2 ► pp. 567 ff. DOI logo
Seržant, Ilja A.
2016. External possession and constructions that may have it. STUF - Language Typology and Universals 69:1 ► pp. 131 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 july 2024. 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.