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. 264–298

The dative alternation in German

Structural preferences and verb bias effects

Many ditransitive events can be expressed in German using either the indirect object construction (IOC) or the prepositional object construction (POC). While most previous research on ditransitives in German has focused on the IOC, very little attention has been paid to the much rarer POC or to individual verb biases for the IOC vs. the POC. We investigated structural preferences of native speakers of German using elicited production and acceptability judgment studies. The results show that the POC is not as restricted as previously thought, and that different modalities (i.e., production vs. comprehension) reveal different aspects of verb biases, which can be easily missed when relying on one type of data.
Keywords: verb bias, German, ditransitive structure, structural preference, dative alternation, probabilistic language production, syntactic representation
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1The dative alternation
    • 1.2The present study
  • 2.Study 1: Sentence completion task
    • 2.1Method
      • 2.1.1Participants
      • 2.1.2Design and materials
      • 2.1.3Procedure
      • 2.1.4Coding
    • 2.2Results
      • 2.2.1Use of IOC and POC
      • 2.2.2Use of prepositions in the POC
    • 2.3Discussion
  • 3.Study 2: Acceptability judgment task
    • 3.1Method
      • 3.1.1Participants
      • 3.1.2Design and materials
      • 3.1.3Procedure
      • 3.1.4Results
      • 3.1.5Discussion
  • 4.General discussion
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
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.7.08kho
References (60)
References
Adler, Julia. 2011. “Dative Alternations in German: The Argument Realization Options of Transfer Verbs.” PhD Dissertation. Jerusalem: Hebrew University.Google Scholar
Arnold, Jennifer E., Thomas Wasow, Antony Losongco, and Ryan Ginstrom. 2000. “Heaviness vs. Newness: The Effects of Structural Complexity and Discourse Status on Constituent Ordering.” Language 76: 28–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad, and Edward Finegan (eds). 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Bock, Kathryn. 1986. “Syntactic Persistence in Language Production.” Cognitive Psychology 18 (3): 1–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Branigan, Holly P., Martin J. Pickering, and Mikihiro Tanaka. 2007. “Contributions of Animacy to Grammatical Function Assignment and Word Order During Production.” Lingua 118 (2): 172–189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 2007. “Is Syntactic Knowledge Probabilistic? Experiments with the English Dative Alternation.” In Roots: Linguistics in Search of its Evidential Base, Series: Studies in Generative Grammar, ed. by Sam Featherston, and Wolfgang Sternefeld, 77–96. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.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 118: 245–259. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, and Marilyn Ford. 2010. “Predicting Syntax: Processing Dative Constructions in American and Australian Varieties of English.” Language 86: 186–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, Anna Cueni, Tatiana Nikitina, and Harald R. Baayen. 2007. “Predicting the Dative Alternation.” In Cognitive Foundations of Interpretation, ed. by Gerlof Boume, Irene Kraemer, and Joost Zwarts, 69–94. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, and Tatiana Nikitina. 2008. “The Gradience of the Dative Alternation.” In Reality Exploration and Discovery: Pattern Interaction in Language and Life, ed. by Linda Uyechi, and Lian-Hee Wee, 161–184. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Butt, Miriam, Mary Dalrymple, and Anette Frank. 1997. “An Architecture for Linking Theory in LFG.” In Proceedings of the LFG97 Conference, ed. by Miriam Butt, and Tracy Holloway King, 1–16. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Büring, Daniel. 2001a. “Let’s Phrase it! Focus, Word Order, and Prosodic Phrasing in German Double Object Constructions.” In Competition in Syntax, ed. by Gereon Müller, and Wolfgang Sternefeld, 69–105, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001b. “What Do Definites that Indefinites Definitively Don’t?” In Audiatur vox Sapientiae: A Festschrift for Achim von Stechow, ed. by Caroline Féry, and Wolfgang Sternefeld, 70–100. Berlin: Akademie.Google Scholar
Callies, Marcus, and Konrad Szczesniak. 2008. “Argument Realisation, Information Status and Syntactic Weight – a Learner-Corpus Study of the Dative Alternation.” In Fortgeschrittene Lernervarietäten. Korpuslinguistik und Zweitsprachenerwerbsforschung, ed. by Maik Walter, and Patrick Grommes, 165–187. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Collins, Peter. 1995. The indirect object construction in English: an informational approach. Linguistics 33: 35–49. 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
De Vaere, Hilde, Ludovic De Cuypere, and Klaas Willems. 2018. “Alternating Constructions with Ditransitive Geben in Present-Day German.” Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. DOI logo Google Scholar
Drenhaus, Heiner. 2004. “Minimalism, Features and Parallel Grammars: On the Acquisition of German Ditransitive Structures.” PhD Dissertation Potsdam: University of Potsdam.Google Scholar
Erben, Johannes. 1972. Deutsche Grammatik, ein Abriss. Munich: Hueber.Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Naomi. 1979. “Discourse Constraints on Dative Movement.” In Syntax and Semantics 12: Discourse and Syntax, ed. by Talmy Givón, 441–467. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1984. “Direct Object and Dative Shifting: Semantic and Pragmatic Case.” In Objects. Towards a Theory of Grammatical Relations, ed. by Frans Plank, 151–182. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 1992. “The Inherent Semantics of Argument Structure: The Case of the English Ditransitive.” Cognitive Linguistics 3: 37–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. Constructions at Work. The Nature of Generalization in Language. Structure. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2005. “Syntactic Priming: A Corpus-Based Approach.”  Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 34 (4): 365–399. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2002. “Possession and the Double Object Construction.” In Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2, ed. by Pierre Pica, and Johan Rooryck, 31–70. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, John, A. (1994) A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 73, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 516 pp.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hughes, Arthur, and Peter Trudgill (3rd edn). 1996. English Accents and Dialects. An Introduction to the Social and Regional Varieties of English in the British Isles. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Keller, Frank. 2000. “Gradience in Grammar: Experimental and Computational Aspects of Degrees of Grammaticality.” PhD Dissertation, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Kempen, Gerard, and Karin Harbusch. 2003a. “An Artificial Opposition Between Grammaticality and Frequency: Comment on Bornkessel, Schlesewsky, and Friederici (2002).” Cognition 90: 205–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003b. “Word Order Scrambling as a Consequence of Incremental Sentence Production. In Mediating Between Concepts and Grammar, ed. by Holden Härtl, and Heike Tappe, 141–164. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. “A Corpus Study into Word Order Variation in German Subordinate Clauses: Animacy Affects Linearization Independently of Grammatical Function Assignment.” In Multidisciplinary Approaches to Language Production, ed. by Thomas Pechmann, and Christian Habel, 173–181. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kempen, Gerard, and Karin, Harbusch. 2005. “When Grammaticality Judgments Allow More Word Order Freedom Than Speaking and Writing.” Linguistic Evidence – Empirical, Theoretical, and Computational Perspectives, ed. by Kepser Stephan, and Marga Reis, 327–347. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1999. “Manner in the Dative Alternation.” In West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 18, ed. by Sonja Bird, Andrew Carnie, Jason D. Haugen, and Peter Norquest, 260–271. Sommerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
. 2004. “Semantic and Pragmatic Conditions for the Dative Alternation.” Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics 4: 1–32.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard K. 1988. “On the Double Object Construction.” Linguistic Inquiry 19 (3): 335–391.Google Scholar
Liamkina, Olga. 2008. “Making Dative a Case for Semantic Analysis: Differences in Use Between Native and Non-Native Speakers of German.” In Language in the Context of Use: Usage-Based Approaches to Language and Language Learning, ed. by Andrea Tyler, Kim Yiyoung, and Mari Takada, 145–166. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malchukov Andrey L., Martin Haspelmath, and Bernard Comrie (eds). 2010. Studies in Ditransitives Constructions: A Comparative Handbook. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matzel, Klaus. 1976. “Dativ und Prӓpositionalphrase.” Sprachwissenschaft 1: 144–186.Google Scholar
McFadden, Thomas. 2004. “The Position of Morphological Case in the Derivation: A Study in the Syntax Morphology Interface.” PhD Dissertation Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
McRae, Ken, Mary Hare, Jeffrey L. Elman, and Todd Ferretti. 2005. “A Basis for Generating Expectancies for Verbs from Nouns.” Memory and Cognition 33 (7): 1174–1184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meinunger, André. 2006. “Remarks on the Projection of Dative Arguments in German.” In Datives and Other cases: Between Argument Structure and Event Structure, ed. by Daniel Hole, André Meinunger, and Werner Abraham, 79–101. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mukherjee, Joybrato. 2005. English Ditransitive Verbs: Aspects of Theory, Description and a Usage-Based Model. Amsterdam, NY: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Müller, Gereon. 1999. “Optimality, Markedness, and Word Order in German.” Linguistics, 37 (5): 777–818. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pappert, Sandra, Johannes Schließer, Dirk P. Janssen, and Thomas Pechmann. 2007. “Corpus- and Psycholinguistic Investigations of Linguistic Constraints on German Object Order.” In Interfaces and Interface Conditions, ed. by Andreas Späth, 299–328. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero Syntax: Experiencers and Cascades. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 1989. Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Polinsky, Maria. 1998. “A Non-Syntactic Account of Some Asymmetries in the Double Object Construction.” In Conceptual Structure and Language: Bridging the Gap, ed. by Jean-Pierre Koenig, 403–423. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Proost, Kristel. 2014. “Ditransitive Transfer Constructions and their Prepositional Variants in German and Romanian: An Empirical Survey.” Komplexe Argumentstrukturen. Kontrastive Untersuchungen zum Deutschen, Rumänischen und Englischen (Konvergenz und Divergenz 3), ed. by Ruxandra Cosma, Stefan Engelberg, Susan Schlotthauer, Spreranţa Stănescu, and Gisela Zifonun, 19–83. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. “Verbbedeutung, Konstruktionsbedeutung oder Beides? Zur Bedeutung Deutscher Ditransitivstrukturen und ihrer Präpositionsvarianten.” In Argumentstruktur zwischen Valenz und Konstruktion, ed. by Stefan Engelberg, Meike Meliss, Kristel Proost, and Edeltraud Winkler, 157–176. Tübingen: Narr.Google 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
Rohdenburg, Günter, and Julia Schlüter (eds). 2009. One Language, Two Grammars? Differences between British and American English. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sabel, Joachim. 2002. “Die Doppelobjekt-Konstruktion im Deutschen. [The Double Object Construction in German].” Linguistische Berichte 190: 229–244.Google Scholar
Schneider, Edgar W. 2007. Postcolonial English: Varieties Around the World. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2007. “The Role and Reference Grammar Analysis of Three-Place Predicates.” Suvremena Lingvistika 33(1): 31–63.Google Scholar
Wasow, Thomas. 1997. “Remarks on Grammatical Weight.” Language Variation and Change 9: 81–105. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. Postverbal Behavior. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Wegener, Heide. 1985. Der Dativ im heutigen Deutsch. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Woods, Rebecca. 2012. The Acquisition of Dative Alternation by German-English Bilingual and English Monolingual Children. Ms., University of York.Google Scholar
Wunderlich, Dieter. 2006. Towards a structural typology of verb classes. In Advances in the theory of the lexicon, (ed.) Wunderlich, Dieter Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 57-166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Jacob, Gunnar, Moritz Jonas Schaeffer, Katharina Oster & Silvia Hansen-Schirra
2024. The psycholinguistics of shining-through effects in translation: cross-linguistic structural priming or serial lexical co-activation?. Applied Psycholinguistics ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 september 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.