Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

STUF - Language Typology and Universals

Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung

Editor-in-Chief: Stolz, Thomas

CiteScore 2018: 0.42

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.231
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.343

See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 69, Issue 1


Non-central usages of datives

Gabriele Diewald
  • Corresponding author
  • German Department, German and Applied Linguistics, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Königsworther Platz 1, 30167 Hannover, Germany
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2016-03-01 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/stuf-2016-0001


Non-central usages of datives are defined in terms of increasing deviation from the prototypical, central usage of the dative, i. e. its usage in ditransitive constructions with ‘give’ verbs, on several parameters. The introduction offers an exemplification of the clines of (non-)centrality of dative usages, and specifies the aim of the volume. It also provides an outlook on the individual perspective each contribution takes on this issue.

Keywords: non-central usages of datives; clines of centrality; free dative; dative of actor; possessive dative


  • Butt, Miriam, Scott Grimm & Tafseer Ahmed. 2006. Dative subjects. Paper presented at NWO/DFG Workshop on Optimal Sentence Processing Nijmegen, June 2006.

  • Croft, William. 2003. Radical construction grammar. Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Diewald, Gabriele. 2013. “Same same but different” – Modal particles, discourse markers and the art (and purpose) of categorization. In Liesbeth Degand, Paola Pietrandrea & Bert Cornillie (eds.), Discourse markers and modal particles. Categorization and description, 19–46. Amsterdam/New York:Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Ekberg, Edith. 2012. Aspekte des Dativs. Zur Relation zwischen der Dativ-DP und der Ereignisstruktur der Verben in ditransitiven Konstruktionen im Deutschen (Lunder germanistische Forschungen, 72). Lund: University Lund.Google Scholar

  • Haspelmath, Martin. 1999. External possession in a European areal perspective. In Doris L. Payne & Immanuel Barshi (eds.), External possession (Typological Studies in Language, 39), 109–135. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Haspelmath, Martin. 2013. Ditransitive constructions: The verb ‘give’. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://wals.info/ chapter/105 (accessed 26 May 2015).Google Scholar

  • Lee-Schoenfeld, Vera & Gabriele Diewald. 2014. The pragmatics and syntax of German inalienable possession constructions. In Proceedings of the Fortieth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS 40), 289–313.

  • Lehmann, Christian. 2006. Participant roles, thematic roles and syntactic relations. In Tasaku Tsunoda & Taro Kageyama (eds.), Voice and grammatical relations. Festschrift for Masayoshi Shibatani (Typological Studies in Language, 65), 167–190. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Lehmann, Christian, Yong-Min Shin& Elisabeth Verhoeven. 2004. Direkte und indirekte Partizipation. Zur Typologie der sprachlichen Repräsentation konzeptueller Relationen. Erfurt: Universität Erfurt.Google Scholar

  • Ogawa, Akio. 2003. Dativ und Valenzerweiterung (Studien zur deutschen Grammatik, 66). Tübingen: Stauffenburg-Verlag.Google Scholar

  • Primus, Beatrice. 2012. Semantische Rollen. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter.Google Scholar

  • Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1994. An integrational approach to possessor raising, ethical datives and adversative passives. Berkeley Linguistic Society 20. 461–486.Google Scholar

  • Spencer, Andrew. 2006. Syntactic vs. morphological case: Implications for morphosyntax. In Leonid I. Kulikov, Andrej L. Mal’chukov & Peter de Swart (eds.), Case, valency and transitivity (Studies in Language Companion Series, 77), 3–21. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Stolz, Thomas, Sonja Kettler, Cornelia Stroh & Aina Urdze (eds.) 2008. Split possession: An areal-linguistic study of the alienability correlation and related phenomena in the languages of Europe (Studies in Language Companion Series, 101). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Wegener, Heide. 1985. Der Dativ im heutigen Deutsch (Studien zur deutschen Grammatik, 28). Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar

  • Wegener, Heide. 1989. Eine Modalpartikel besonderer Art. Der Dativus Ethicus. In Harald Weydt (ed.), Sprechen mit Partikeln, 56–73. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Weiß, Helmut. 2008. The possessor that appears twice? Variation, structure and function of possessive doubling in German. In Sjef Barbiers, Olaf Koeneman, Marika lekakou & Margreet van der Ham (eds.), Microvariation in syntactic doubling, 381–401. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar

  • Zifonun, Gisela, Ludger Hoffmann & Bruno Strecker. 1997. Grammatik der deutschen Sprache, vol. 3. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2016-03-01

Published in Print: 2016-04-01

Citation Information: STUF - Language Typology and Universals, Volume 69, Issue 1, Pages 1–14, ISSN (Online) 2196-7148, ISSN (Print) 1867-8319, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/stuf-2016-0001.

Export Citation

©2016 by De Gruyter Mouton.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in