This article focuses on the semantics of the Dutch
One of the significant evolutions in construction grammar is the growing interest in language variation and language change. Concerning diachronic research, there are two milestones: (1) the monograph of Traugott and Trousdale (
In this article, we will discuss the semantics of the so-called prepositional dative construction with
Construction grammar is a collective term for different theoretical approaches (compare, e.g. Croft
Dutch is one of the languages which show the intriguing phenomenon of the dative alternation. Many verbs that occur in the double object construction can also occur with an
Dutch has been characterised for centuries by the ongoing decline of the case system or deflexion, likewise in the 16th-century (Van Der Horst
(1) Ende gaf hem over anden Turck. [RC 166] (1570–1585) [And gave him over to the Turk].
In a small-scaled corpus study, Weijnen and Gordijn (
There is not much more known about the rise of the ‘transfer’ meaning of the
[D]iachronically, the use of the
To illustrate the difference between the more concrete ‘contact’ and the more abstract ‘transfer’ meaning, compare (2), (3) and (4):
(2) Hij verbindt de hartslagmeter aan zichzelf. [He connects the heart rate monitor to himself].
(3) Ik overhandigde het cadeau aan hem. [I handed over the gift to him].
(4) Ik spendeerde geld aan die auto. [I spent money on that car].
Case (2) is a literal contact situation in which the
As part of this study a new corpus was compiled of 16th-century Dutch texts. The corpus comprises 34 texts, which are adopted from different online corpora, and is good for one million words. The texts are divided into four quarter centuries to obtain an accurate overview of the evolution of the Dutch
The corpus is not enriched with linguistic annotation, which makes the search for all kinds of syntactic constructions harder. In the case of the
In the
Overview of verbs adopted in the distinctive collexeme analysis, sorted by semantic class.
Verb class | Investigated verbs |
---|---|
Verbs of giving | |
Verbs of bringing | |
Ballistic movements | |
Verbs of sending | |
Verbs of permission | |
Antidative verbs | |
Communicative verbs | |
Verbs of showing | |
Privative verbs | |
Action verbs | |
Verbs of subjection | |
Attributional verbs |
The search yielded more than 5000 hits, but also these hits were subjected to a syntactic filter. To define the double object construction we used the formal definition of Colleman (
In the first section of our study, we will approach the
Sub-meanings of the
Number | Semantic extensions |
---|---|
1 | |
1.1 | Concrete transfer: |
1.2 | Abstract transfer: |
1.3 | Action: |
1.4 | Communicative transfer: |
2 | Subject promises or offers the possibility to make a contact relationship between DO and |
3 | Subject acts to break the contact relationship between |
4 | Subject does not act to break the contact relationship between |
5 | Subject prevents contact between DO and |
6 | Subject does not prevent contact of DO– |
7 | Subject confirms a contact relationship or takes a stand towards the creation of a contact relationship or existing contact relationship: |
8 | |
9 |
Note: The semantic network of the
The semantic area of the 16th-century
(5) Eer de ghifte dair af gegeven es aenden amman. (before the gift there of given is on-the overseer) [Before the gift thereof is given to the overseer].
(Unknown author –
(6) Om van daer te varen naer Portugal, ende so voorts naer Roomen, om obedientie te gheven aenden paus. (to from there to sail to Portugal, and so on to Rome, to obedience to give on-the pope) [To sail from there to Portugal, and so on to Rome, to give obedience to the pope].
(J. Huyghen van Linschoten –
(7) Vreemde ende wonderlicke curen, aen jonghe dochters gepleecht, als zy gheboren werden, ende als zy de bruijt zijn. (strange and wonderful manners, to young daughters committed, if they born were, and if they the bride are) [Strange and wonderful manners, committed to young daughters, when they were born, and when they are the bride].
(J. Huyghen van Linschoten –
(8) Op dat sy voorder brieven schreven soo aen den Keyser als Admirante, ende tot Brussel aen den Cardinael Andream van Oostenrijck, Gouverneur van Nederlandt. (on that they further letters wrote so to the Emperor as Admirer, and to Brussels to the Cardinal Andreas of Austria, Governor of Netherlands) [In order that they kept on writing letters to the Emperor as admirer, and to Brussels to Cardinal Andreas of Austria, Governor of the Netherlands].
(Unknown author –
In addition to the first semantic extension, the eighth semantic extension, wherein the
(9) Gij heeren, ghij dijckgraeff ende gesworens, neempt u exempel aen andere. (you gentlemen, you dijkgraaf and jurors, take you example on others) [You gentlemen, you dijkgraaf and jurors, take an example from others]. (A. Vierlingh –
(10) Hoe ons ghemoet was, dat dorstmen niet raden, want wy condet aen ons wel sien. (how our mood was, that dared-one not guess, because we could-it on us indeed see) [How our mood was, they did not dare to guess, because we could see it in us].
(G. De Veer –
(11) Dit mercktmen licht an d’ onwyze kindsheyd. (this perceive-one lightly on the unwise infancy) [They perceive this lightly from his unwise infancy]. (D. Volckertsz. Coornhert–
(12) O synagoga, thu wanderost thich thero uirtutum ande thero profectuum, thie thu ane mir scouwest. (oh synagogue, you wonder yourself the-[dative] virtues and the-[dative] successes, that you on me see) [Oh synagogue, you are wondering about the virtues and the successes, which you see in me].
(
Although the analysis of the
The other semantic extensions are not represented in our corpus. It is, therefore, likely that the 16th-century
The diachronic collexeme analysis is a variant of the distinctive collexeme analysis designed by Gries and Stefanowitsch (
Although the distinctive collexeme analysis is normally used for synchronic data, Hilpert (
In the table below we present the results of our diachronic collexeme analysis for the four quarter centuries of the 16th-century, calculated with Gries (
Distinctive collexemes of diachronic collexeme analysis of the 16th-century
Quarter century | Verb | Instances per quarter century | CollStr |
---|---|---|---|
1500–1525 |
3:5:0:1 | 2.15 | |
1:0:0:0 | 1.33 | ||
1:0:0:0 | 1.33 | ||
1:0:0:0 | 1.33 | ||
1526–1550 |
0:50:3:7 | 11.62 | |
1:45:7:14 | 5.51 | ||
0:4:0:0 | 1.63 | ||
0:13:3:5 | 1.54 | ||
1551–1575 |
0:0:5:3 | 2.41 | |
0:0:3:0 | 2.39 | ||
0:0:2:0 | 1.59 | ||
0:3:4:1 | 1.57 | ||
0:2:3:0 | 1.50 | ||
0:1:3:1 | 1.50 | ||
1576–1600 |
0:0:0:9 | 3.56 | |
5:0:3:21 | 3.35 | ||
0:1:1:12 | 3.19 | ||
1:0:0:6 | 1.71 | ||
0:1:0:6 | 1.71 | ||
0:1:0:6 | 1.71 | ||
0:0:3:8 | 1.52 | ||
0:5:1:11 | 1.44 |
CollStr, collostructional strength.
,
Based on the results of the diachronic collexeme analysis we can draw up some hypotheses which we will test further in this study. Before we start the discussion of our results, we want to point out that we have compared relatively short periods of time. The semantic shifts that we observe are therefore not as pronounced as the shifts that Geleyn and Colleman (
Before we discuss these findings, we would like to dwell on a discrepancy in our corpus. In the second quarter century, the verb
Verbs with which the
In the last quarter century, the use of the ‘transfer’ meaning of the
The ‘transfer’ meaning of the
Based on the increase in the use of transfer verbs in the
In the onomasiological part of this research we carry out two distinctive collexeme analyses; one for the second quarter century and one for the fourth quarter century. Based on the results of the two distinctive collexeme analyses we examine whether (semantic) shifts can be observed in the ratio between the 16th-century
Instead of comparing historical periods of a construction (see the diachronic collexeme analysis section) the distinctive collexeme analysis compares competing constructions within the same time period in order to ascertain which lexemes have a preference for one of the tested constructions. Since the distinctive collexeme analysis works the same way as the diachronic collexeme analysis, there is no need for further explanation about the operation of the statistical test.
Results of the distinctive collexeme analysis of the second quarter century (1526–1550).
Construction | Verb | Instances per construction | CollStr |
---|---|---|---|
Double object construction |
|||
6:0 | 0.82 | ||
4:0 | 0.54 | ||
2:0 | 0.27 | ||
2:0 | 0.27 | ||
2:0 | 0.27 | ||
2:0 | 0.27 | ||
23:8 | 0.26 | ||
1:0 | 0.13 | ||
1:0 | 0.13 | ||
2:3 | 0.92 | ||
1:2 | 0.76 | ||
2:2 | 0.54 |
,
CollStr, collostructional strength
Note: Significant collexemes are marked in bold.
Among the verbs that show a preference for the
With the verbs
The second group of verbs that prefer the
Using the verb
(13) Soo wie iemanden wonde oft quetste in evelen moede, oftanderssints met wercken misdede, ende aen den drossaert oft sijnen stadt-houder binnen vier-en-twintigh uren gheen vrede en versochte, verbeurtden hooghsten wille van t’sestigh gouden realen. [So who wounded or hurt someone in audacity, or otherwise offended, and did not request peace from the sheriff or his stadholder within 24 hours, forfeits the highest will of sixty golden reals].
(Unknown author –
The
Again, we carry out a distinctive collexeme analysis, but this time for the fourth quarter century. In the fourth quarter century, 25 of the 27 examined verbs occur at least once in one or both constructions and are thus taken into account. Eight of them were found to be distinctive collexemes: two verbs for the double object construction and six verbs for the
Results of the distinctive collexeme analysis for the fourth quarter century (1576–1600).
Construction | Verb | Instances per construction | CollStr |
---|---|---|---|
Double object construction |
179:6 | ||
16:0 | |||
12:0 | 1.26 | ||
8:0 | 0.84 | ||
6:0 | 0.63 | ||
5:0 | 0.52 | ||
4:0 | 0.42 | ||
3:0 | 0.31 | ||
2:0 | 0.21 | ||
4:1 | 0.15 | ||
1:0 | 0.10 | ||
0:11 | |||
5:14 | |||
5:12 | |||
0:5 | |||
8:8 | |||
0:2 | |||
7:4 | 0.73 | ||
32:12 | 0.70 | ||
0:1 | 0.67 | ||
7:3 | 0.44 | ||
4:2 | 0.43 | ||
29:9 | 0.38 | ||
2:1 | 0.29 | ||
2:1 | 0.29 |
,
CollStr, collostructional strength.
Note: Significant collexemes are marked in bold.
Among the distinctive collexemes of the
Among the other verbs showing a (non-significant) preference for the
The majority of verbs indicating abstract transfers still show a preference for the double object construction:
In this article we tried to outline the semantic evolution of the 16th-century
Based on the comparison of the distinctive collexeme analyses of the second and the fourth quarter century, we have examined whether any semantic shifts have occurred within the ‘transfer’ meaning. The results show that we indeed – with caution – can say that the first transfers in the
Additionally, based on our findings, we created a new hypothesis about the semantic evolution of the
This new hypothesis shows that the last word has not been said about the
The author wish to acknowledge and thank Timothy Colleman, his supervisor, Tim Geleyn, co-supervisor, and the two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions. Usual disclaimers apply. This is a translated version of Rens (
The author declares that he has no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced him in writing this article.
The traditional grammar (see Van Belle & Van Langendonck
The corpus is available and can be requested via email:
Passive constructions were still counted, just like in the
The diachronic application of Hilpert (
See Gries, Hampe and Schönefeld (