Cover not available
Part of
Modality and Diachronic Construction Grammar
Edited by Martin Hilpert, Bert Cappelle and Ilse Depraetere
[Constructional Approaches to Language 32] 2021
► pp. 185–217

Horizontal links within and between paradigms

The constructional network of reported directives in German

| Université de Neuchâtel
This paper deals with the constructional network of reported directive speech acts in German. It addresses two aspects of modality and constructions by relating directly to questions raised in the introduction to this volume: the notion of the paradigm in Construction Grammar on the one hand and the nature of the links within the constructional network model on the other. By investigating the network of syntactic constructions of reported directives in German, the paper focuses on the modelling of two types of horizonal paradigmatic links between these constructions: the links between allostructions and the links between paradigmatic choices. On the conceptual level, the paper argues that these two types of paradigmatic links constitute two different types of horizontal links in the network. On the empirical level, the study demonstrates how these horizontal links manifest themselves in the corpus data.
Keywords: speech acts, reported directives, constructional network, horizontal links, allostructions, paradigmatic choices, paradigmatic organization, German
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Reported directives in German
  • 3.Reported directives as a constructional network: Vertical and horizontal links
  • 4.Data
  • 5.Diachronic changes in horizontal links
    • 5.1Within the network of reported directives: Strengthening of horizontal connections
    • 5.2Paradigmatic opposition between reported statements and reported directives
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 12 October 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.32.07smi
References (35)
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2016. Sentence Types. In: The Oxford Handbook of Modality and Mood, ed. by Jan Nuyts and Johan van der Auwera. OUP, 141–165.Google Scholar
Audring, Jenny. 2019. Mothers or sisters? The encoding of morphological knowledge. Word Structure 12(3), 274–296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Axel-Tober, Katrin. 2013. Unselbständiger dass- und ob-VL-Satz. In Jörg Meibauer, Markus Steinbach and Hans Altmann (eds.), Satztypen des Deutschen. Berlin: de Gruyter, 247–265.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert. 2016. Construction Morphology. In: Andrew Hippsley and Gergory Stump (ed.) The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology. Cambridge: CUP, 424–448.Google Scholar
Breindl, Eva. 1989. Präpositionalobjekte und Präpositionalobjektsätze im Deutschen. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Budts, Sara & Peter Petré. 2020. Putting connections centre stage in Diachronic Construction Grammar. In Sommerer, Lotte, Smirnova, Elena (eds.) Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 318–351. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cappelle, Bert. 2006. Particle placement and the case for ‘allostructions’. Constructions online 1 (7). 1–18.Google Scholar
Cristofaro, Sonia. 2003. Subordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2008. A constructionist approach to complementation: evidence from Ancient Greek. Linguistics, 46, p. 571–606. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Demske, Ulrike. 2019. Zur Autonomie indirekter Redewiedergabe – Eine diachrone Perspektive. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 47(1), 70–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2015. Usage-based construction grammar. In Ewa Dąbrowska & Dagmar Divjak (eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics, 295–321. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. The Grammar Network. How Linguistic Structure is Shaped by Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele. 2015. Modal particles in different comminicative types. Construtions and Frames 7, 218–257. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. Paradigms lost – paradigms regained. Paradigms as hyper-constructions. In Sommerer, Lotte, Smirnova, Elena (eds.) Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 278–315.Google Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele & Elena Smirnova. 2012. “Paradigmatic integration: The fourth stage in an expanded grammaticalization scenario”. Grammaticalization and Language Change. New Reflections, ed. by Davidse, Kristin, Tine Breban, Lieselotte Brems & Tanja Mortelmans, 111–133. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DUDEN. 2016. Die Grammatik. Band 4, Ed. 9. Mannheim: Dudenverlag (Der Duden in 12 Bänden).Google Scholar
Eisenberg, Peter. 2006. Der Satz 2. Stuttgart: Metzler.Google Scholar
Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine, Kare Solfjeld & Anneliese Pitz. 2018. Der Konjunktiv: Formen und Spielräume (Stauffenburg Linguistik Band 100). Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag.Google Scholar
Glynn, Dylan. 2014. Correspondence analysis: Exploring data and identifying patterns. In Dylan Glynn, Justyna A. Robinson (eds.) Corpus Methods for Semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy, John Benjamins, pp. 443–485.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin & Diessel, Holger. 2016. Frequency effects in grammar. In M. Aronoff (Ed.). Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard & Peter Siemund. 2007. Speech Act Distinctions in Grammar. in Timothy Shopen (ed.) Language Typology and Syntactic Description. vol.1: Clause Structure. Cambridge: CUP, 276–324. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lühr, Rosemarie. 1994. Zur Konkurrenz von Konjunktiv und Modalverbfügungen im älteren Deutsch. In Tromsö University working papers on language and linguistics: Nordlyd, 116–141.Google Scholar
. 1997. Modalverben als Substitutionsformen des Konjunktivs in früheren Sprachstufen des Deutschen? Die Verhältnisse in der Hypotaxe. In: Gerd Fritz, Rosemarie Lühr, Roswitha Peilicke & Thomas Gloning (Hgg.), Untersuchungen zur semantischen Entwicklungsgeschichte der Modalverben im Deutschen (Reihe Germanistische Linguistik 187). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 177–208. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Petrova, Svetlana. 2008. Die Interaktion von Tempus und Modus: Studien zur Entwicklungsgeschichte des deutschen Konjunktivs 30. Heidelberg: Winter (Germanistische Bibliothek).Google Scholar
. 2013. Der Ausdruck indirekter Aufforderungen im Vergleich Althochdeutsch – Neuhochdeutsch. Eine Fallstudie zur Entwicklung des Modusgebrauchs im abhängigen Satz. In: Franciszek Grucza (Hg.), Akten des XII. internaitonalen Germanistenkongresses Warschau 2010: Diachronische, diatopische und typologische Aspekte des Sprachwandels; Interferenz-Onomastik; Sprachgeschichte und Textsorten; Deutsche Dialekte und Regionalsprachen (17). Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang, 45–52.Google Scholar
Pittner, Karin. 2013. Akkusativobjektsätze. In: Jörg Meibauer, Markus Steinbach & Hans Altmann (Hgg.), Satztypen des Deutschen. Berlin: de Gruyter, 441–457.Google Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold M. and Zwicky, Arnold M. 1985. Speech Acts Distinctions in Syntax. In Shopen, T. (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, 155–196. CUP.Google Scholar
Smirnova, Elena. 2016. Die Entwicklung des deutschen zu-Infinitivs: Eine Korpusstudie. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 138: 4, 491–523. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. Deutsche Komplementsatzstrukturen: Synchrones System und diachrone Entwicklung. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Smirnova, Elena & Lotte Sommerer. 2020. The nature of the node and the network – Open questions in Diachronic Construction Grammar. In Sommerer, Lotte, Smirnova, Elena (eds.) Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2–42.Google Scholar
Van de Velde, Freek. 2014. Degeneracy: The maintenance of constructional networks. In Boogaart, Ronny, Timothy Colleman, Gijsbert Rutten (eds), Extending the scope of Construction Grammar, 141–180. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wickham, Hadley, Romain François, Lionel Henry & Kirill Müller. 2018. dplyr: A Grammar of Data Manipulation. R package version 0.7.5. [URL]Google Scholar
Zehentner, Eva. 2018. Ditransitives in Middle English: on semantic specialization and the rise of the dative alternation. English Language and Linguistics, 22(1), 149–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zehentner, Eva & Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 2020. Constructional networks and the development of benefactive ditransitives in English. In Sommerer, Lotte, Smirnova, Elena (eds.) Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 168–211. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Ungerer, Tobias
2024. Vertical and horizontal links in constructional networks. Constructions and Frames 16:1 ► pp. 30 ff. DOI logo
Diessel, Holger
2023. The Constructicon, DOI logo
Ungerer, Tobias & Stefan Hartmann
2023. Constructionist Approaches, DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2023. Structural Priming in the Grammatical Network [Constructional Approaches to Language, 35], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 october 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.