Linguistic theory and practice: description, implementation and processing

The German bekommen-passive-construction presents an interesting case of grammaticalization-in-progress: It can be shown to be developing towards a passive construction that is used to code the dative argument of a ditransitive active clause as PSA. This will be attested by a discussion of the syntactic and pragmatic functions of the bekommen-passive construction. A comparison of various possible explanations for recipient-as-PSA-selection from a cross-linguistic perspective will lead to the conclusion that the bekommen-passive construction can serve the function of variableundergoer-selection with ditransitive verbs in German. With regard to these findings, the contribution will try to account for the different steps in the grammaticalization process of the bekommen-passive construction by use of the RRG-framework. 1 Introductory remarks The construction I am going to deal with in this paper is known by various labels that already bear an interpretation of the linguistic nature that is associated with it by different authors. It might be called ‘bekommen-construction’ (Van Valin 2003), but among German grammarians, it is generally referred to it as a kind of ‘passive construction’. They call it ‘bekommen-Passiv’, ‘Rezipientenpassiv’ (recipient passive) or Dativpassiv (dative passive) (cf. for example Wegener 1985, Leirbukt 1987, Diewald 1997): Most researchers argue that this construction represents a case of “grammaticalization-in-progress”. This construction is sometimes described as “substandard”, but it is getting more and more accepted and so it can be found even in newspaper articles, books and on TV news. 25 I would like to thank the participants of the International RRG-conference in Dublin, especially Rolf Kailuweit, Matthias Schlesewsky, Robert D. Van Valin, Virve-Anneli Vihman and Bjoern Wiemer for their helpful comments and critisism on the version presented at the conference. Any remaining errors are my own. RRG2004 Book of Proceedings Page 50 The construction is labelled ‘passive’ because although it is not fully grammaticalized, it is syntactically comparable with the plain passive construction known from many other languages. It reduces the valence of the verb and it demotes the agent of the active clause (argument modulation). The remarkable thing about this “bekommen-Passive”-construction is that it is formed of ditransitive verbs: It allows to put the former indirect object (Dative) into subject position (PSA modulation). The verb bekommen meaning ‘to get, to receive’ as a complete verb, is then used in auxiliary function. The verbal phrase in the passive clause is formally marked in that the full verb of the active clause occurs as a past participle in the passive. These features generally posited for voice constructions are all given in the bekommenconstruction. The discussion will proceed as follows: In the next section, various instances of the bekommen-construction are introduced. It can be shown that it is on its path towards grammaticalization: It has many features that indicate that it is not fully grammaticalized, but there are also various arguments in favour of an analysis as a passive construction. Section 3 takes a closer look at the subject referent of the bekommen-construction: In a passive-analysis it has to be regarded as recipient. But it can be shown to behave like a PSA in various respects. As German is generally described as a language that only allows macrorole arguments to become PSA, section 4 examines three different ways to handle the bekommenconstruction in which the recipient is treated as PSA while there are also an actor and an undergoer in the clause. Towards the end of that section, the notion of the ongoing grammaticalization process is taken up again. It will be shown that the attested stages of grammaticalization can be captured by an approach based on RRG. 2 The grammatical status of the bekommen-construction The example in 1. c) shows an instance of the construction in question. Examples 1. a) and b) show the active and passive “versions” of the clause. These examples are given in order to illustrate in what way 1.c) can be conceived of as a voice construction: RRG2004 Book of Proceedings Page 51 1. LS: [do ́ (Eltern,Ø)] CAUSE [BECOME have ́ (ich, Computer)] a) Active voice: Meine Eltern habe-n mir diesen Computer geschenkt. My.plNOM parents have3plPRES 1sgDAT thisMsgACC computer give.PSTP My parents have given me this computer. b) Passive voice: Diese-r Computer ist mir von meine-n Eltern geschenkt thisMsgNOM computer be.3sgPRES 1sgDAT by my.plDAT parents give.PSTP worden. become.PSTP This computer has been given to me by my parents. c) ‚Bekommen-passive-Voice’: Ich habe diese-n Computer von meine-n Eltern 1sgNOM have.1sgPRES thisMsgACC computer by my.plDAT parents geschenkt bekommen. give.PSTP get/receive.PSTP I have got/received this computer given by my parents. Note that the three versions of the clause are semantically equivalent and thus can be said to have the same logical structure: The dative argument of the ditransitive active clause in 1. a) is recipient but what is expressed here is not mere reception of an object, but rather the whole event of giving of which the “recipient” argument can be regarded as the “goal” (Diewald 1997), i. e. the point towards which it is carried out. The “bekommen-passive-construction” thus can be said to present the action from the perspective of this “goal”. As has been indicated before, the label ‘passive’ is not uncontroversial with regard to this construction. Especially the auxiliary status of bekommen is highly questionable. The main objections against it are the following: In the construction which is called bekommen-construction or bekommen-passive here, bekommen can be replaced by the semantically comparable verbs kriegen (colloquial ‘get, receive’), which is even more common in everyday speech, and erhalten (elaborated ‘get, receive’), which is quite restricted (Diewald 1997): RRG2004 Book of Proceedings Page 52 2. a) construction with kriegen: Pass auf, gleich krieg-st du eine gescheuer-t. WatchIMP out, soon get/receive2sgPRES 2sgNOM oneFsgACC scrub.PSTP Watch out, soon you get a clout round the ears. b) construction with erhalten: Sie erhalt-en die Ticket-s in einer Woche zu-geschickt. 2NOM (polite) get/receive.3plPRES the ticket.PlACC in one week to.send.PSTP You get/receive the tickets sent in one week. In its full verb use, the verb bekommen which is a low-transitive two-place verb depicts the event of “receiving” from the perspective of the recipient. So, it doesn’t take an agent argument but rather a recipient argument. The verbs kriegen and erhalten are the only semantic alternatives for bekommen even in full verb use. So it is possible for them to be used as auxiliaries in the bekommenconstruction (cf. Diewald 1997). The problem is that the semantic similarity of these three verbs which makes them all suitable for the bekommen-passive construction is a reason to reject their auxiliary status. As auxiliaries are grammatical units they shouldn’t have any semantic content. Accordingly, it shouldn’t be possible to replace them by other verbs which are semantically similar. An additional problem for the “passive-analysis” is the fact that the acceptance of the bekommen-construction varies. Although it is quite commonly used, many people judge it as being “stylistically marked” or “substandard” (cf. Eisenberg 1998). The construction is best with ditransitive verbs and recipient-dative, but some even accept it with intransitive verbs like applaudieren (‘applaude’) (cf. Wegener 1985, Leirbukt 1987): 3. ?Er bekommt applaudiert. 3sgMNOM get/receive.3sg.PRES applaude.PSTP He gets/receives applauded. Note that there is still a notion of recipient here: The subject-referent can be said to be the recipient of the applause. The bekommen-passive construction is ungrammatical in syntactically ditransitive constructions with non-recipient subject arguments, as the following examples show: 26 The 2sg polite form Sie can have singular or plural reference. It always has 3pl verb agreement. RRG2004 Book of Proceedings Page 53 4. a) Active: Du schuldest mir 100 . 2sgNOM owe.2sgPRES 1sg.DAT 100 . You(NOM) owe me(DAT)100 Euro(AKK). b) “Bekommen-Passive” *Ich bekomme von dir 100 Euro geschuldet. 1sgNOM get/receive.1sg.PRES by 2sgDAT 100 owe.PSTP I get/receive of you 100 Euro owed. Note that the plain passive, which is called werden-passive in German, is also impossible with this construction, so the ungrammaticality of the bekommenconstruction may be due to the low-transitivity-verb. Still, this example shows that the bekommen-construction is not a purely syntactic phenomenon occuring with all kinds of ditransitive verbs. There seem to be semantic restrictions which involve agentivity and recipient reading (cf. Leirbukt 1987, 1997). Van Valin (2003) rejects the “passive” interpretation of the ‘bekommen-construction’ by raising the objections mentioned above. He analyzes the ‘bekommen-construction’ as nuclear juncture with a cosubordinate nexus. Figure 1 shows his (simplified) semantics-to-syntax linking for the sentence given in 5. 5. Ich bekam einen Hut von meinem Freund 1sgNOM get/receive.1sgPAST aMsgACC hat by myMsgDAT friend geschickt. send.PSTP I got/received a hat sent by my friend. RRG2004 Book of Proceedings