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


Dative subjects in Germanic

A computational analysis of lexical semantic verb classes across time and space

Jóhanna Barðdal / Carlee Arnett / Stephen Mark Carey / Thórhallur Eythórsson
  • Department of Foreign Languages, Literature and Linguistic, University of Iceland, Sæmundargata 2, 101 Reykjavík, Iceland
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Gard B. Jenset / Guus Kroonen / Adam Oberlin
Published Online: 2016-03-01 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/stuf-2016-0003


One of the functions of the dative is to mark non-prototypical subjects, i. e. subjects that somehow deviate from the agentive prototype. The Germanic languages, as all subbranches of Indo-European (cf. Barðdal et al. 2012. Reconstructing constructional semantics: The dative subject construction in Old Norse‐Icelandic, Latin, Ancient Greek, Old Russian and Old Lithuanian. Studies in Language 36(3). 511–547), exhibit structures where the subject or the subject-like argument is not in the nominative case, but in the accusative, dative or genitive, for instance. The focus of this article is on the dative, leaving accusative and genitive subjects aside, in particular homing in on lexical semantic similarities and differences between the individual Germanic languages. We compare Modern Icelandic, Modern Faroese, and Modern German, on the one hand, and the historical Germanic languages, i. e. Gothic, Old English, Old Saxon, Old High German, Middle English, Middle Dutch, Middle German, Old Norse-Icelandic and Old Swedish, on the other. The goal is to document the semantic development of the construction across time. This, in turn, is a part of a more general research program aiming at reconstructing the origin and the development of the Dative Subject Construction in Germanic and Indo-European. As the Germanic languages are both genealogically and areally related, we suggest a computational model aiming at disentangling genealogical and geographical factors, in order to estimate to which degree the two interact with each other across languages and across historical eras.

Keywords: dative subjects; lexical semantic verb classes; computational methods; Germanic; historical development; areal factors


  • Andrews, Avery D. 1976. The VP complement analysis in Modern Icelandic. North Eastern Linguistic Society 6. 1–21.

  • Baayen, R. Harald. 2008. Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2000. Oblique subjects in Old Scandinavian. NOWELE: North-Western European Language Evolution 37. 25–51.Google Scholar

  • Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2001. Case in Icelandic: A synchronic, diachronic and comparative approach(Lundastudier i Nordisk språkvetenskap A 57). Lund: Department of Scandinavian Languages.Google Scholar

  • Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2004. The semantics of the impersonal construction in Icelandic, German and Faroese: Beyond thematic roles. In Werner Abraham (ed.), Focus on Germanic typology, 105–137. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar

  • Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2006. Construction-specific properties of syntactic subjects in Icelandic and German. Cognitive Linguistics 17(1). 39–106.Google Scholar

  • Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2008. Productivity: Evidence from case and argument structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2009. The development of case in Germanic. In Jóhanna Barðdal & Shobhana L. Chelliah (eds.), The role of semantic, pragmatic and discourse factors in the development of case, 123–159. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2011. The rise of dative substitution in the history of Icelandic: A diachronic construction grammar approach. Lingua 121(1). 60–79.Google Scholar

  • Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2012. Predicting the productivity of argument structure constructions. Berkeley Linguistics Society 32(2006). 467–478.Google Scholar

  • Barðdal, Jóhanna & Thórhallur Eythórsson. 2003. The change that never happened: The story of oblique subjects. Journal of Linguistics 39(3). 439–472.Google Scholar

  • Barðdal, Jóhanna & Thórhallur Eythórsson. 2012a. ‘Hungering and lusting for women and fleshly delicacies’: Reconstructing grammatical relations for Proto-Germanic. Transactions of the Philological Society 110(3). 363–393.Google Scholar

  • Barðdal, Jóhanna & Thórhallur Eythórsson. 2012b. Reconstructing syntax: Construction grammar and the comparative method. In Hans C. Boas & Ivan A. Sag (eds.), Sign-based construction grammar, 257–308. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

  • Barðdal, Jóhanna, Thórhallur Eythórsson & Tonya Kim Dewey. 2014. Alternating predicates in Icelandic and German: A sign-based construction grammar approach. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 93. 51–101.Google Scholar

  • Barðdal, Jóhanna & Thomas Smitherman. 2013. The quest for cognates: A reconstruction of oblique subject constructions in Proto-Indo-European. Language Dynamics and Change 3(1). 28–67.Google Scholar

  • Barðdal, Jóhanna, Thomas Smitherman, Valgerður Bjarnadóttir, Serena Danesi, Gard B. Jenset & Barbara McGillivray. 2012. Reconstructing constructional semantics: The dative subject construction in Old Norse‐Icelandic, Latin, Ancient Greek, Old Russian and Old Lithuanian. Studies in Language 36(3). 511–547.Google Scholar

  • Barðdal, Jóhanna, Valgerður Bjarnadóttir, Serena Danesi, Tonya Kim Dewey, Thórhallur Eythórsson, Chiara Fedriani & Thomas Smitherman. 2013. The story of ‘woe’. Journal of Indo-European Studies 41(3–4). 321–377.Google Scholar

  • Barnes, Michael. 1986. Subject, nominative and oblique case in Faroese. Scripta Islandica 38. 3–35.Google Scholar

  • Bickel, Balthasar. 2011. Statistical modeling of language universals. Linguistic Typology 15(2). 401–413.Google Scholar

  • Bowern, Claire. 2008. Syntactic change and syntactic reconstruction in Generative Grammar. In Gisela Ferraresi & Maria Goldbach (eds.), Principles of syntactic reconstruction, 187–216. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Braunmüller, Kurt. 2007. Die skandinavischen Sprachen im Überblick. Tübingen: Francke.Google Scholar

  • Carroll, Ryan, Ragnar Svare & Joseph C. Salmons. 2012. Quantifying the evolutionary dynamics of German verbs. Journal of Historical Linguistics 2(2). 153–172.Google Scholar

  • Croft, William. 2001. Radical construction grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Croft, William & Keith T. Poole. 2008. Inferring universals from grammatical variation: Multidimensional scaling for typological analysis. Theoretical Linguistics 34(1). 1–37.Google Scholar

  • Cysouw, Michael, Martin Haspelmath & Andrej L. Malchukov (eds.). 2010. Semantic maps: Methods and applications. Introduction to the special issue of Linguistic Discovery 8(1). 1–399.Google Scholar

  • Dewey, Tonya & Carlee Arnett. 2015. Motion verbs in Old Saxon with the oblique subject construction: A semantic analysis. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 137(2). 183–220.Google Scholar

  • Donohue, Mark. 2012. Typology and areality. Language Dynamics and Change 2(1). 98–116.Google Scholar

  • Eckhoff, Hanne M. & Laura A. Janda. 2014. Grammatical profiles and aspect in Old Church Slavonic. Transactions of the Philological Society 112(2). 231–258.Google Scholar

  • Elmevik, Lennart & Ernst Håkon Jahr (eds.). 2012. Contact between Low German and Scandinavian in the Late Middle Ages: 25 years of research. Uppsala: The Royal Gustavus Adolphus Academy for Swedish Folk Culture.Google Scholar

  • Everitt, Brian S. & Torsten Hothorn. 2006. A handbook of statistical analyses using R. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC.Google Scholar

  • Eythórsson, Thórhallur & Jóhanna Barðdal. 2005. Oblique subjects: A common Germanic inheritance. Language 81(4). 824–881.Google Scholar

  • Faarlund, Jan Terje. 2001. The notion of oblique subject and its status in the history of Icelandic. In Jan Terje Faarlund (ed.), Grammatical relations in change, 99–135. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Faraway, Julian J. 2005. Linear models with R. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC.Google Scholar

  • Faraway, Julian J. 2006. Extending the linear model with R. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC.Google Scholar

  • Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar

  • Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Jenset, Gard B. 2013. Mapping meaning with distributional methods: A diachronic corpus-based study of existential there. Journal of Historical Linguistics 3(2). 272–306.Google Scholar

  • Haspelmath Martin. 2003. The geometry of grammatical meaning: Semantic maps and cross-linguistic comparison. In Michael Tomasello (ed.), The new psychology of language – vol. II, 211–242. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

  • Hijmans, Robert J. 2014. Geosphere: Spherical trigonometry. R package version 1.3–11. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=geosphere (accessed 17 December 2014).

  • Hothorn, Torsten, Kurt Hornik & Achim Zeileis. 2006. Unbiased recursive partitioning: A conditional inference framework. Journal of Computational and Graphical statistics 15(3). 651–674.Google Scholar

  • Kristoffersen, Kristian E. 1994. Passiv i norrønt og nyislandsk – ei sammanlikning [The passive in Old Norse and Modern Icelandic – a comparison]. Norsk lingvistik tidsskrift 12. 43–67.

  • Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar

  • Lieberman, Erez, Jean-Baptiste Michel, Joe Jackson, Tina Tang & Martin A. Nowak. 2007. Quantifying the evolutionary dynamics of language. Nature 449(7163). 713–716.Google Scholar

  • McGillivray, Barbara. 2013. Methods in Latin computational linguistics. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

  • Pons-Sanz, Sara M. 2013. The lexical effects of Anglo-Scandinavian linguistic contact on Old English. Turnhout: Brepols.Google Scholar

  • R Core Team. 2014. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org (accessed 29 November 2014).

  • Rögnvaldsson, Eiríkur. 1991. Quirky subjects in Old Icelandic. In Halldór Ármann Sigurðsson(ed.), Papers from the twelfth Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, 369–378. Reykjavík: Institute of Linguistics, University of Iceland.Google Scholar

  • Rögnvaldsson, Eiríkur. 1995. Old Icelandic: A non-configurational language? NOWELE: North-Western European Language Evolution 26. 3–29.Google Scholar

  • Salmons, Joseph. 2012. A history of German. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Smirnickaja, Olga. 1972. The impersonal sentence patterns in the Edda and in the Sagas. Arkiv för nordisk filologi 87. 56–88.Google Scholar

  • Tagliamonte, Sali A. & R. Harald Baayen. 2012. Models, forests, and trees of York English: Was/were variation as a case study for statistical practice. Language Variation and Change 24(02). 135–178.Google Scholar

  • Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 1979. On complementation in Icelandic. New York: Garland.Google Scholar

  • Weisstein, Eric W. Great Circle. From MathWorld – A Wolfram Web Resource. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GreatCircle.html (accessed 15 February 2015).

  • Zaenen, Annie, Joan Maling & Höskuldur Thráinsson. 1985. Case and grammatical functions: The Icelandic passive. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3. 441–483.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 49–84, ISSN (Online) 2196-7148, ISSN (Print) 1867-8319, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/stuf-2016-0003.

Export Citation

©2016 by De Gruyter Mouton.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in